Just wondering what other people's experiences are of writing papers, I'm in the middle of writing one at the moment. How much input should I be expecting from my supervisor and how important is the order of the authors? My field is biological sciences.

Hi Goldengirl,

I am in the medical area and do most things myself. Probably my own fault as I could ask more help, yet vice versa there are no offers regarding how to write.
On the positive side I think there are plenty of examples from old papers/ theses, which can serve as a guide. I think the crucial thing is to have an explicit view of what you are actually doing (=a taxonomy) How to find that is als my major problem. Reading more seems to confuse me more...

Good to hear its not only me that get more confused the more papers I read.

I'm trying to write thesis - but the paper reading bit is the same!!

To be an author on a scientific paper, you are supposed to have done 3 things; 1) been involved with creating the data, 2) been involved with interpreting the data and 3) been involved with writing the paper. Hence, it is not unreasonable to expect input from your supervisor (and others who are expected to co-author). If you are doing the bulk of the work, then it is reasonable that you are first author (with the descending list of authors reflecting their level of input, but head of group will usually go last). The above is a general guideline, best to chat to your supervisor about any worries. Good luck, paper writing is hard, especially at the beginning but this is where you want to take advantage of the experience of your supervisors who should be able (and hopefully very willing) to guide you through it.

It may be a little bit of an aside, but is it true that when writing up an undergrad or Masters thesis for a journal, the supervisor is placed first in the authors list, followed by you?

Thanks for the replies, i spoke to my superviser and he's given me lots of pointers.