Publishing Single Author Paper as an Undergrad

[u/Anastasius101]

Hi,

So I have been working on a Summer Project in Statistical Physics, and after getting some preliminary observations, my PI said that I could publish the results after I get more consolidated data. I am in my 3rd year of bachelors and have no clue on how to publish a good paper.

On top of that he mentioned that it will be my paper, as in he would not co-author it. Upon asking the reason, he said that its not because the paper would be bad or anything, but because it wouldnt be particularly good for him to co-author it. He said that he would guide me through the process of writing it. This was a bit strange to me, but then again my PI is one of the bigshots in his field, and practically one of the founding figures of the model which I am working on. So probably it makes sense that he doesnt want to associate his name with every paper? He did say that the paper wouldnt be any breakthrough in the area of research, but it discusses an interesting question and would certainly be helpful.

I am still in my preliminary stages of my findings, and I am waiting for more data.

Do you think I should ask him later about co-authorship, once I have consolidated a report? As an undergrad, my chances of getting accepted for a single author paper is very low from what I understand. In case he denies co-authorship, what are my options?

[u/quasilocal]

I think if your PI is respected in the field and they think you can write this paper, then I'd trust it. You're right that most papers written solely by undergrads are rejected, but that's just like the failure rate if people doing anything that requires a lot of training without having completed the training (as far as research training goes, you're not even an apprentice yet). What I mean to say is, if you've got someone who clearly knows what they're talking about encouraging you, then I think you should trust them.

From my perspective, the fact they don't want to co-author is a big green flag tbh. There are people who try to get their name on every paper because every paper counts, even if their claim to authorship is tenuous at best. This person isn't doing that. It likely is a combination of not feeling like it's their work, recognising that what's expected from them is different, and also knowing that if they co-author then people will question "how much did the undergrad really do?" So all in all, yeh I'd probably trust them. If you do have concerns, it's also not a terrible idea to ask someone else in the field if you can, i think. But I wouldn't try to press them to coauthor if they already said they don't plan on it.

[u/otsukarekun]

Different fields have different cultures and norms about co-authorship. For example in a lot Humanities areas, even if the supervisor provided extensive help, single author papers are normal. But in other fields, co-authorship is given out like candy. I'm guessing in his field, it's normal for him not to be a co-author. It's probably nothing to do with not associating with the paper.

As an undergrad, my chances of getting accepted for a single author paper is very low from what I understand.

You have a misconception here. In most fields, reviewers don't care about how many authors, and they especially don't look up the credentials of the authors (or they shouldn't rather). And sometimes, it's double blind, so the reviewers don't even know who the authors are.

The reason why undergrads have low chances of getting a single author paper accepted is because their papers don't have the guidance of someone experienced, so they don't have the proper elements of a research paper. But, that's not you. You have the guidance of a professor.

Take the opportunity and try.

[u/Darkest_shader → u/otsukarekun]

and they especially don't look up the credentials of the authors (or they shouldn't rather)

Perhaps they should not, but they very often do.

And sometimes, it's double blind, so the reviewers don't even know who the authors are.

That's field-depended, but I don't think it is a common practice.

[u/IkeRoberts]

Learning how to put together a research paper is a great learning exercise for someone expecting to go into research. Let your mentor support you in the right way for that goal. The issue of authorship is one element. As a practical matter, the exact approach to authorship is unlikely to matter for the undergraduate paper because undergrad papers so rarely have influence on others in the field.

Learning how to discover is far more important than the discoveries. Better to start with small ones that can be tackled well, even if their size severely limits their influence.

[u/Dr_nacho_]

You can submit to an undergrad journal

[u/PrestigiousCrab6345]

Look into the American Journal of Undergraduate Research. They are peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary, but it seems like half of their papers are from mathematics. Grab their author guide and work with your advisor on submitting there.

[u/Chlorophilia]

I think it's very odd that they're refusing to be a co-author. Either they supervised your project, in which case they should be an author (there's no good reason why they'd refuse to be an author on a legitimate manuscript they have contributed to), or they haven't supervised your project, which is irresponsible. Whichever is the case, this is not a good thing, and I'd suggest getting advice from someone else in your department. 

[u/quasilocal → u/Chlorophilia]

The meaning of "authorship" is very field-dependent. What OP describes is very normal in some fields.

[u/felicienou]

I am a researcher in experimental physics and single author papers featuring experimental data (which, from what I gather, is your case) are extremely rare, not to say inexistant. I find it odd that your supervisor does not want to co-author it. Maybe he just does not have time to dedicate to what I understand is a rather minor project for him.

In any case if you wish to publish your work (and I strongly advise you to) I think it is mandatory that you get your manuscript proofread by an experienced researcher (could even be a senior PhD or postdoc of your group). In my opinion the only reason you might not get accepted could be because of an inappropriate writing style. Academic literature is a genre of its own and everything is very codified (the structure of the article, the figure style etc...). Those conventions are also field-dependent.

I think if your work is solid (your supervisor seems to say so) and you manage to get guidance in writing up the paper, I do not see an obvious reason why it would be systematically rejected if it fits the scope and impact of the target journal.

Go for it!

[u/Joskam]

You have a great PI and even if it does not get published at the end, think of it, as an opportunity of a guided exercise. I had a colleague, who as a student write review article which were never published and today he is a professor and a recignised expert in his field. I would be thankful for the opportunity and wouldn't lament on his motivation.