Single author or joint paper with a famous author?

Question

A postdoc X is in the early career phase (< 6 years after PhD) in a field that needs lots of publications. X is working in a group whose leader is very famous in a slightly different but still overlapping field and very supportive of X. However, due to time constraints, the leader is unable to devote time to X's research, including extensively reviewing manuscripts. X wants to become a professor in the natural sciences.

X's current portfolio of publications includes middle-author papers and last-author papers. X is also writing a paper completely on her own, it is almost finished. This question is about this last paper.

If you are on the committee that will select X for a professorship position, what do you see as more favorable (everything else remaining the same):

1. Single-author paper from X

2. X is the first author, and the famous person is the second author

Please provide reasons for your choice.

P.S. The identity of X is completely irrelevant to answer the question.

P.P.S Negative voters please comment your grieviences.

Answer 1

What would this famous person actually do for this paper if X is already writing it on her own and the famous person is too busy to devote time? If they aren't contributing much/anything and X is just adding their name I would say don't do it. It's poor practice to include authors who don't make a scientific contribution as an author (see gift authorship), although lots of academics do it. Including a famous person as an author does help boost citation counts though (if you/a committee are interested in such things)

If they make a significant contribution, improve the paper, and help get it into a top journal, etc. Then including them would be very positive and I would go for it.

This is probably very field dependent, but I think having some single author papers looks good. It at least allows X to more easily make the case that they are the driving force leading the research, rather than someone who just does what they're told to do by others. Demonstrating independence is one of the key things required to successfully make the step from post-doc to a permanent faculty position.

In summary (given the limited information):

• If they are making a significant contribution then include them as an author
• Otherwise, publish as single author.

Answer 2

It really depends what the conventions are in your field. If the conventions are that you publish with your advisor, it may be seen as odd that you worked in a well-known group but failed to interface meaningfully with your advisor who is viewed as an excellent scientist. If your field does not care, then simply having worked in that environment is likely enough, and the specific authorship will not matter.

The advice I would give you is as follows:

#1 do not engage in gift authorship (though in this case it should be clarified that gift authorship is more of an issue with people putting random well-known scientists with no real affiliation on their papers, not so much group leaders they work with, even though the latter could veer that way, the opportunity for meaningful contribution is actually likely)

#2 DO try to engage with your advisor meaningfully. Attempt to work with them to craft a manuscript (and refine the research done) together. Pick their brain. See how they write and pay attention. You may have to be a bit more patient as they are very likely extremely busy, but in my experience it will be worth it. If your advisor is so well known, then they have experience in publication, writing, how they view things, which can be valuable to you as you head into your independent career. So try to engage them meaningfully for your benefit, and let them earn their authorship credit.

Answer 3

• Practical considerations.

Ethics and morals aside, the question is how influential this paper by X will be. If this is simply a normal "good" work, then having a celebrity as her coauthor would be beneficial for X`s CV. If however this work is to make a really big splash and to be cited over years to come -- then its author X may consider sacrificing the immediate benefit of coauthorship with her boss, for the sake of later reaping a major harvest of being the only author of a gem.

• Moral considerations.

Once an extremely talented young colleague asked for my permission to add my name as a coauthor of one of his works, because that work was largely based on my ideas.

On the one hand, I felt unable to accept this offer, because I had not actually been working on that paper (and my ideas used in it had already been published and openly available). On the other hand, I realised that this colleague wanted my coauthorship to give themselves weight in the community. I politely declined, explaining to this colleague that I was doing this solely on the grounds of ethics, and not because I doubt the quality of the paper or do not want to be supportive. As a compensation, I offered to this colleague to write a most praising reference letter, should they need one. Also introduced them to the right people, etc. And then I was astonished when I saw that one of those "right people" agreed to coauthor that same paper.

When I told this sad story to my friends, they reproached me, saying that the young colleague was building up their CV, and that it had been so wrong and senseless of me not to provide my coauthorship as a means of support. An old-fashioned stubborn type, I still believe that I did a right thing, though my stubbornness was frowned upon by the friends I consulted.

Answer 4

I think it's better with the famous person as the second author. In both scenarios, X is the first author anyhow, so having the famous person there adds credibility to the paper. It also demonstrates the postdoc's ability to engage with influential people in their field and leverage their networks. It also shows she can collaborate effectively, which is crucial in academia. Of course, it all depends on the quality of the paper as well!

Edit: I guess I rushed to answer and didn't realize that the group leader would have no contribution to the paper. However, we are still talking about the group leader, so it would be strange if he/she were not included. Also, I don't know the politics in your group. If not including your group leader in the paper authorship will have negative consequences for your life in the group or a potential recommendation letter, then definitely include the leader.