How to balance authorship roles when my contributions are substantial but I am evaluated on last authorship?

Question

I am a senior researcher in computer science, and I am applying for associate professorship positions. The evaluation of my last application was positive overall, except for the concern that I am not listed as the lead author often enough. According to the committee, they interpret the lead author as the last author, which typically signifies the senior supervisor role. In my 45+ publications, I first authored more than 60% of them.

In my role, I supervise multiple students and research staff, but most are not pursuing a PhD and aim to move to industry. Their work often involves small, independent contributions that I combine, significantly enhance, and then write up as full manuscripts where I typically list myself as the first author. This feels appropriate since I do most of the work and writing.

However, this pattern seems to conflict with the committee's expectations. Even if I wanted to credit another as the first author, it would be challenging to pick a single student when the paper is the result of combining several small efforts.

Given this, what is the best way to proceed with manuscripts I already wrote to align better with expectations regarding senior authorship? Should I rethink authorship strategies going forward?

Answer 1

Given this, what is the best way to proceed with manuscripts I already wrote to align better with expectations regarding senior authorship? Should I rethink authorship strategies going forward?

Whenever I mentor younger researchers (towards tenure evaluations, etc.) I emphasise that one should not look at individual detailed metrics and optimize against them specifically, but look at what deeper construct these metrics are supposed to capture. When your committee says that'd expect more papers where you are last author, they, in all likelihood, don't really care so strongly about you having ticked off some boxes in their evaluation form. What they are concerned about is that your publication list demonstrates skill in conducting your own research and integrating smaller contributions of others, but not so much in advising others in their projects. That's a reasonable thing to be concerned about when appointing an associate professor.

In consequence, your approach to deal with this problem should not be "how can I mangle my authorship orders going forward", but "how can I demonstrate these skills in the best way". If you simply start randomly listing your undergrad students and research staff first, your committee is likely to pick up on this and inform you that, no, this was not what they meant. You will need to find ways to (co-)supervise doctoral students for a longer period, so that you can demonstrate your ability to lead the research of others. For example, some people I know at institutions without PhD programs have developed stable relationships with colleagues at other R1 institutions, helped them co-supervise students, and got long-term advisory experience this way.

Answer 2

Just to second what xLeitix said, but perhaps put a slightly different spin on it.

You've basically served two roles on the papers you have author - you have devised, directed and had strategic oversight of the project, a role generally associated with last authors, and you have done most of the actual writing and integrating, a role generally associated with first authors. Your committees are tell you they care more devising, directing and oversight of projects than your ability to technically do research and write about it.

I can think of several practical ways forward. You might list yourself last, and then leave a note on the authors list that authors are listed in alphabetical with the exception of the last author.

You might list yourself first, but mark yourself as corresponding author. In my field marking the corresponding author is to select them as the "senior" author.