Jump to content
Lizwi

Publishing

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Space Babe said:

I completely agree with your opinion, as I have also experienced that.

Usually I have always published scientific papers with only one mentor, who would often like to contribute.

But I never had any experience with group publishing. I am a bit nervous about this because I started working with three researchers (even though all the research ideas are mine) and I don't really know how things will turn out when we will have to publish our results. 

You'll be lead author, won't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The award itself is less of an issue, she died before it was given out

I had forgotten that. (I should have been more generic about people claiming credit ...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, StringJunky said:

I didn't know that. The cads. I thought she received due credit and attribution otherwise.

Nope, not as such. She was acknowledged for providing data, which is pretty much worthless. As a bit of background. at King's college, women were barred from social venues, including the dining hall, where much of the collegial and scientific exchange happened. From the get go, she would have been isolated and had trouble in collaborative publishing. The X-ray data itself was published separately but considering how famous Watson and Crick became, I think it is quite easy to tell that that was pretty much overshadowed by the other paper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The award itself is less of an issue, she died before it was given out (though it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if she had been alive). Rather problematic is that she was not on the paper and that subsequently the work was almost exclusively with Watson and Crick. That in itself is problematic on several levels.

Nobel prizes aren't awarded posthumously, so she did not receive any credit in the research, nor do I believe that she received a share in the prize for her contribution. 

However, I think that all of this credit stealing started when Wilkins (who worked separately from Franklin) showed Watson and Crick (without permission) Franklin's image of DNA, also known as Photo 51.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Strange said:

Bethe did not contribute, but was listed as an author. That annoyed Alpher because having two prominent scientists listed diminished his role (and it was nearly all his work).

I see what you mean. In any case, that really seems unfair and I think than anyone would feel displeased in this situation. 

Once again, thank you for explaining.

Edited by Space Babe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Space Babe said:

Nobel prizes aren't awarded posthumously, so she did not receive any credit in the research, nor do I believe that she received a share in the prize for her contribution. 

However, I think that all of this credit stealing started when Wilkins (who worked separately from Franklin) showed Watson and Crick (without permission) Franklin's image of DNA, also known as Photo 51.

It is not only about the credit stealing in my mind. So, if you look at the paper published by Franklin, you'll see that while supportive of a helix structure, the quality of the diffraction was insufficient to establish irrevocable evidence of it. She pretty much acknowledges that,  in the report. I think (but may be wrong) that she may have intended to improve resolution with further experiments, which was not possible after Watson & Crick sold their structure based on her data. Or I should say, "oversold". At least from the viewpoint of an experimentalist. They just happened to be right.  So while she was the first to provide structural data supporting the now known structure, it was W&C who went ahead and really sold it.

But again, this does show my bias coming from the more experimental side of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You'll be lead author, won't you?

I hope so. I know that they all contribute to the research project, however I believe that I deserve to be the lead author as you say. Because as I have mentioned before, all the research ideas are mine, I just presented them to the researchers and they agreed to work with me.

I am feeling nervous mostly because they are much more experienced than me (they have like over 100 published papers and researches) and of course because they are much older.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Space Babe said:

I hope so. I know that they all contribute to the research project, however I believe that I deserve to be the lead author as you say. Because as I have mentioned before, all the research ideas are mine, I just presented them to the researchers and they agreed to work with me.

I am feeling nervous mostly because they are much more experienced than me (they have like over 100 published papers and researches) and of course because they are much older.

Maybe CharonY can offer a view on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Space Babe said:

I am feeling nervous mostly because they are much more experienced than me (they have like over 100 published papers and researches) and of course because they are much older.

It is usually an arrangement between your supervisor and them. For the most part we want students to be on the first position, as it cements the contribution of the lab/group of the PI. But there are exceptions when things can get political (e.g. large collaborative projects that end up in Nature/Science). That fight, however, is typically not fought by the students as at that point there is also a lot money and work time involved, which goes beyond the person having an idea.

Edit:

One thing that you might want to get used to is that ideas are cheap in  academia. It is to a large degree of getting it done (performing experiments, collecting data, analyzing and writing the manuscript) that count. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is usually an arrangement between your supervisor and them. For the most part we want students to be on the first position, as it cements the contribution of the lab/group of the PI. But there are exceptions when things can get political (e.g. large collaborative projects that end up in Nature/Science). That fight, however, is typically not fought by the students as at that point there is also a lot money and work time involved, which goes beyond the person having an idea.

I see what you mean. Thank you so much for your advice, I really appreciate it  :)

I originally have one supervisor, or mentor (he is actually my mentor since I was 18 - when I presented a scientific hypothesis to him). He is also a part of the research project, so I guess that he will negotiate in my name with the other researchers. 

But I suppose that, if things get really serious, than the student doesn't have much power in that fight. 

9 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is not only about the credit stealing in my mind. So, if you look at the paper published by Franklin, you'll see that while supportive of a helix structure, the quality of the diffraction was insufficient to establish irrevocable evidence of it. She pretty much acknowledges that,  in the report. I think (but may be wrong) that she may have intended to improve resolution with further experiments, which was not possible after Watson & Crick sold their structure based on her data. Or I should say, "oversold". At least from the viewpoint of an experimentalist. They just happened to be right.  So while she was the first to provide structural data supporting the now known structure, it was W&C who went ahead and really sold it.

But again, this does show my bias coming from the more experimental side of things.

You may have a point, even though your opinion is biased. As I can remember, I don't think that Franklin ever proposed the model.

But when you think about it, Franklin is acknowledged in some sort of way, even though it is not how it is usually expected; 

18 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Edit:

One thing that you might want to get used to is that ideas are cheap in  academia. It is to a large degree of getting it done (performing experiments, collecting data, analyzing and writing the manuscript) that count. 

Thank you.

Yes, I am aware of that, since the idea must be supported and validly proven, otherwise, it may not even be taken seriously. 

Edited by Space Babe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Space Babe said:

You may have a point, even though your opinion is biased. As I can remember, I don't think that Franklin ever proposed the model.

But when you think about it, Franklin is acknowledged in some sort of way, even though it is not how it is usually expected; 

Not really, IMO. The reason is that (at least using today's criteria on publishing), the paper itself is remarkably thin in evidence. For the most part it is a hypothesis that is put forward, and which crucially is somewhat supported (or at least not contradicted) by evidentiary elements, which were not created by the authors. It should also be noted that a helical structure was not an unique idea- it has been proposed before (Stokes, Wilikins as well as Furberg). In Franklin's paper (which was published back to back) she also proposed a helical structure and the agreement with  the data, but pointed out that it is highly probable but cannot be taken as irrefutable evidence. 

If I read the papers next to each other, my persona inclination would focus on Franklin's and Gosling's  as it has more evidence to support their claims.  whereas W&C  mostly just proposed a hypothesis. While they ended up to be right, at least nowadays you would require substantial evidence for it. which was somewhat lacking in the paper itself, which is structured more as a comment. And in hindsight I do find it remarkable that it got so much more traction compared to the experimental paper. It should also be noted that during that time, peer-review was not yet an established process, which may have contributed to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CharonY I agree with your opinion. Your remarks are very logical.

I am not really introduced with the methods and types of reviews that were applied during that time (since you mentioned that peer-review was not an established process), but I often wonder why would they give more relevance to a paper that lacks evidence to support a claim? Also, what kind of review was used instead of peer-review? 

What was the factor that made that change, or transfer, for papers to start being peer-reviewed? 

Edited by Space Babe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, CharonY said:

Not really, IMO. The reason is that (at least using today's criteria on publishing), the paper itself is remarkably thin in evidence. For the most part it is a hypothesis that is put forward, and which crucially is somewhat supported (or at least not contradicted) by evidentiary elements, which were not created by the authors. It should also be noted that a helical structure was not an unique idea- it has been proposed before (Stokes, Wilikins as well as Furberg). In Franklin's paper (which was published back to back) she also proposed a helical structure and the agreement with  the data, but pointed out that it is highly probable but cannot be taken as irrefutable evidence. 

If I read the papers next to each other, my persona inclination would focus on Franklin's and Gosling's  as it has more evidence to support their claims.  whereas W&C  mostly just proposed a hypothesis. While they ended up to be right, at least nowadays you would require substantial evidence for it. which was somewhat lacking in the paper itself, which is structured more as a comment. And in hindsight I do find it remarkable that it got so much more traction compared to the experimental paper. It should also be noted that during that time, peer-review was not yet an established process, which may have contributed to that.

I think this discovery just highlights how interdependent scientists are with each other; nothing is discovered in isolation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Strange said:

And, of course, there is a bit of a history of senior researchers getting Nobel Prizes for work that their (often female) students or colleagues did (structure of DNA, discovery of pulsars).

 

Students doing the bulk of the bench work (which includes contributing ideas as well as performing experiments) is par for the course, though. Once you get to the point where you are in charge of your own group, you tend to be more of an administrator than an active bench scientist. The higher you go the truer it becomes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

 

Students doing the bulk of the bench work (which includes contributing ideas as well as performing experiments) is par for the course, though. Once you get to the point where you are in charge of your own group, you tend to be more of an administrator than an active bench scientist. The higher you go the truer it becomes. 

And, in a cooperative environment, I'm sure it can often be difficult to say who actually came up with an idea during discussions. (Have had similar problems with patents.) But it does seem that sometimes the "administrators" might take more credit than is perhaps deserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Space Babe said:

I am not really introduced with the methods and types of reviews that were applied during that time (since you mentioned that peer-review was not an established process), but I often wonder why would they give more relevance to a paper that lacks evidence to support a claim?

That is not really the part of the issue. The review process (or lack of it) is not what elevates a paper and/or makes it famous. In this particular case, the papers (W&C as well as F&G) are published in the same journal and the same issue (which I meant with "back to back"). The question why W&C became the textbook famous one is probably due to a number of reason. The most important one is that they made the strongest and most complete claims on the structure. But. as I noted, it is curious that it had in fact little to no math or data in it. The reason, of course is that they relied on data from others, but it is not really mentioned in the main text in a lot of detail. F&G was far more careful in the conclusions and probably less "sexy" that way. The second aspect is related to PR. Franklin left the lab and focused on viral work, whereas W&C stayed on the DNA molecule. 

6 hours ago, Strange said:

And, in a cooperative environment, I'm sure it can often be difficult to say who actually came up with an idea during discussions. (Have had similar problems with patents.) But it does seem that sometimes the "administrators" might take more credit than is perhaps deserved.

It depends on the viewpoint. Most of the time it is a long way from the idea, execution, revising idea, more experiments and the final product. At the end of that process a lot of money and effort has been. As such who had the initial idea may also not be around anymore or contributed less than those that made it work or revised the idea, for example. The other aspect is of course, that without the PI pitching ideas to funding agencies and building the lab, there would be no one to actually do it in the first place. Especially in experimental sciences it is complicated and quite frankly, the traditional way to credit folks does not work well in the age of big experiments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.