Publishing

Good science or politics?

I have recently been having an inner debate about writing papers for scholarly journals at this point in my career.  Let us assume that I am talking from the standpoint that I would like to become a professor in the future.  As a postdoc, publishing papers is the main metric used to determine your scientific prowess.  Of course, there are other things like grant writing and institution/PI prestige, but the first thing used to judge a postdoc is the papers on their CV.  Getting papers published is the only thing (let's forget about grants for now) that gives a postdoc any kind of tangible credit.

First of all, let me define what I personally believe entitles someone to being included as an author on a manuscript:

1.  Direct writing of the paper
2.  Idea conception
3.  Performing experimental work involved in obtaining the data for the paper
4.  The PI (that's the reason I have a job and it is their lab).
5.  Finally, if I have had many discussions with someone encompassing many aspects of the field I am working in and the discussions help to bring new things to light or broaden my knowledge, then I believe that person is entitled to credit by being included on a paper.

A couple things have come to light during the past few years of my postdoc career:

1.  Is there value in helping other people with their projects?

Short answer:  No.

During my Ph.D. and most of my postdoc, I generally would help grad students and other researchers with concepts or methods that I had developed or with which I had more expertise.  This could mean anywhere from reading over and editing a paper (half a day or more) to tailoring a specific method to work for that person's project (on the order of weeks).  I think I was a generally nice person and I didn't mind helping, and also I assumed that doing work for someone else meant that I would be included as an author.  As I have found out, many people do not share my views of authorship, and I can think of 4 papers in the last two years that I have contributed significantly to in which I have not been given credit.  Recently, as I started my 'new' postdoc (about a year ago), I took up the role of 'second-in-command' of my PI's lab, and that meant helping grad students and undergrads with their projects.  Naturally, because I helped them, I should get some kind of credit for it (i.e. included as an author) right?  But it didn't happen.  The fact is, I am not the PI, so I shouldn't be bothered to help with these projects that don't directly involve me.  I'm not supervising these people anyway.

Getting burned multiple times is no fun, and subsequently I have turned down many opportunities to help other people in the lab.  Is this healthy?

2.  How much emphasis should be placed on writing papers that have significant impact, are interesting, and are all-around considered 'good science'?

Short answer:  Not much.

As a postdoc trying to build a CV, you need to get credit for absolutely everything that has worked out.  I have often heard in our lab, "Just do the simple thing that you know will work out so you can get it published."  That means that interesting work that might actually be useful but takes substantial effort is not undertaken because it would amount to only one good, solid paper as opposed to three or four papers based on 'simple' approaches.  This is the political argument.  A postdoc needs many papers, and so they should manipulate the system in any way possible by doing the smallest amount of work to get the most amount of papers.  There have also been many times in the lab that a friend (or significant other) of the author is included - for no other reason.  It used to make me quite mad when this happened.  And now I am starting to think, "Why not?"  If you can get your name on something that easily, then go for it.

It's all so bizarre.  I have gone from someone who was generally helpful to someone who dodges students/other researchers around the office in an effort to keep my time focused on my project and not to dilute it with other people's problems (doesn't that sound awful?).  I have swallowed the political pill - trying to squeak out another paper from the least amount of work.  This means I am not pursuing things that I find interesting, or that the field as a whole would find interesting.  Don't misunderstand me, I have known for quite some time that my work is not 'important' to the general public or to the field for that matter, as I think most reasonable researchers find out at some time or another while they are submitting papers to obscure journals that no one reads.  If, by chance, I do any kind of work for someone else, it is with the caveat that if there is an outcome to their project (i.e. a paper) that I will be included as an author.

As I write this, it seems that I have been turned into some kind of devil, an asshole, if you will, that avoids human interaction for fear that my precious time and efforts will not be given credit.  Now we add my affection towards being done with a postdoc career (and academia altogether) and what do you get?  I feel as though I am living someone else's life.  That my personality has been irreparably changed.  It's a bit scary.