technicians and papers - (Jun/02/2010 )

Hay
I'm a tech in a small lab...some time ago I was investing a lot of time in optimizing experiments and processing data...when the time was there to make a paper out of it I was withdrawn from the paper...it kinda hurt.
How do you feel about it? Some people will think it's normal not to put a technician on a paper, but actually I could have used it for future prospects...there's nothing I can do anymore, but I'm in doubt: work again this hard and hope to get some respect in the future or just come to work and do my job (as some people expect from a tech: they're 'just a pair of hands')

I don't know how it is where you're from, but in my country it's quite simple - if you're a technician and only do what and how you're told ie. you have very little or no intellectual input (creative work), just hard labour, then it's up to your boss to put you or not into paper.

(You may consult a lawyer what is and isn't considered intellectual input/work under your law and how it is dealt with in your country.)

Hi fysio lab,

Welcome to bioforum. What did you mean “your name was withdrawn from the paper”? Did you have a previous arrangement with the main author of the paper or the PI that you would be included in it? If you did or you were promised this then yes, it sucks and I understand why you’re disappointed and demoralised.

Unfortunately, if you’re a tech and your lab role is mostly as “the pair of hands” (no matter how competent they are) then being included as an author is not a right…or something you can demand. You’d be in the acknowledgement portion- that’s the SOP. However, many of us know techs who are always included in their lab papers so it really depends on the lab and the PI and circumstances e.g., there is a long list of authors and they decided to pare it down...etc

I know you’re feeling down right now but you have to move forward and consider your options. Have you thought about taking a masters degree at least? Or couldn’t you approach your PI and tell them that you have plans for this and it would be helpful if you have some papers to your name? It’s worth a try. You'll never know until you ask. Good luck, anyways.

casandra

fysio lab on Jun 2 2010, 04:32 PM said:

This is how I see it: there are 2 lab techs.

1. you are a lab tech and just do what you are told , nothing more.

2. you are a lab tech, but you also give hints , ideas and "change" , optimize things yourself (eg.: your boss tells you to do it like this and you say : it might be better to change this and that because my previous experience tells me that... and I know that ... ...) or I have done some literature review and...

If number 1 is the case: then its normal you are not on the paper since you just did what they told you. You have not done anything yourself but just did what they told (monkey work? is this an expression that is known in english?)

if you are number 2 : then you should indeed be on the paper.


In my opinion the number 2 lab techs are also the lab techs that are active (reading literature, speaking out, checking things ....)

WHile the number 1 lab techs are most of the times those people that just come to work to earn they money and thats it.

Also: number 2 lab techs are most likely to be those that are interested in getting a "higher" or better place or those that want to start a Msc program or PhD.


I make a harsh line between the 2 types, but its just to simplify the things.

I'm 100% with Pito .

I have friends who are technicians and who publish.
You should talk about it with your PI next time. Maybe offer help for writing it up (everyone loves a bit of help there ).

Anyone has the right to argue their case for inclusion if they think they have had an intellectual input into the results, even if they are employed as a cleaner. It is a fight you will have to face throughout your entire career, even if you end up a professor, so don’t get too upset when you don’t make the cut but keep fighting your corner, no one else will.

DRT on Jun 2 2010, 09:19 PM said:

Touché. You’ve got a very good point here DRT and I wholeheartedly agree but is this what is reflected in reality? How many techs are actually given the same opportunities to claim for authorship the same way as grad students, postdocs, res assistants and associates and more importantly how many cleaners ? It's unfair and you're right, we have to fight for our rights or at least try.

Many academic and research institutions base their authorship guidelines on the ICJME-Vancouver protocol and it states:

Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.

Here’s a question though….if one is assigned the task of looking for the right protocol or testing which fit the study design, optimising and troubleshooting, collecting/processing data, stuff mostly done by techs (though usually the final results go to someone else to make a story with) would this be then considered enough intellectual contribution to warrant authorship?

But we are not arguing about obtaining the ‘same’ opportunities just ‘an’ opportunity. Following the guidelines; I would call the generation of the graphs and tables used as an important part of drafting an article. There is no indication if fysio lab got to take their data this far or not.
Perhaps the more difficult decision, particularly for someone who is trying to establish a career, is to ask to have your name removed from a paper because you don’t think your contribution warrants inclusion.

This is how I see it: there are 2 lab techs.

1. you are a lab tech and just do what you are told , nothing more.

2. you are a lab tech, but you also give hints , ideas and "change" , optimize things yourself (eg.: your boss tells you to do it like this and you say : it might be better to change this and that because my previous experience tells me that... and I know that ... ...) or I have done some literature review and...

If number 1 is the case: then its normal you are not on the paper since you just did what they told you. You have not done anything yourself but just did what they told (monkey work? is this an expression that is known in english?)

if you are number 2 : then you should indeed be on the paper.


In my opinion the number 2 lab techs are also the lab techs that are active (reading literature, speaking out, checking things ....)

WHile the number 1 lab techs are most of the times those people that just come to work to earn they money and thats it.

Also: number 2 lab techs are most likely to be those that are interested in getting a "higher" or better place or those that want to start a Msc program or PhD.

I make a harsh line between the 2 types, but its just to simplify the things.