People end up as co-authors on papers for all sorts of reasons. Some co-authors contributed as much to the paper as the primary author. But most of the time the co-authors didn't do a whole lot (maybe just provided some data). Without knowing anything about the paper and how it was produced, I tend to assume the latter.

But as an undergraduate it is definitely something you can point to during interviews. Having already worked on a research project (even if it is just in a minor capacity) makes you more interesting as a candidate. And it serves as a nice entry point into the interview. From there one can discuss what exactly you contributed, what you have learned while doing so and so on.

So I would say: Notable, yes. Something special, no.

In general, yes, being middle author in papers with > 3 authors is not great. It's better than having nothing though.

The best outcome you can get as 2nd author is 2nd author of a 3 author paper (PhD, Undergrad, Prof), contribute seriously to the project, and get a good letter of recommendation from the Professor that says you contributed seriously to the project.

Generally the most important thing is your letter's of recommendation, which should be good if the professors are putting you on the paper (so the paper is collaborative of that). A first author on an important paper is probably better, but if someone was a first author on an important paper but had lousy letters of recommendation it would be a red flag.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I would expect that good recommendations by known people in the field, collaborated by research productivity, would be excellent to get into graduate school. Maybe not to get a great job after graduate school, but you would have all of graduate school to get first author papers.

Arguably if you have a number of first author papers out of undergrad, you don't need graduate school.

I assume that you are based in the U.S. I'm not really familiar with the U.S. system of "grad school" so take what I say with a grain of salt.

Publishing a paper is certainly a good way to show your professor, that you are capable of doing research but probably not absolutely necessary. Having a reputation as a reliable and capable student should also go a long way to convince your professor that you are a good cancidate.

Working with one of the PhD students on their research project should also be a good way to earn your professor's trust.

You generally won't have any value for an ICML submission even if you are the 1st author, however, being a co author for an accepted ICML paper always counts. It should also improve your LOR. Regarding EMNLP, 3rd author would add some value if it's a long paper. For short a paper it's of little value IMHO. Again the paper should be accepted, 0 value for submitted and rejected papars.

From my experience in interviewing for pre doc programs, people down weigh your controbution to the paper if youre not the first author and often you have to explicitly make sure to let them know what you did exactly , etc.however I think having a good contribution from your side would eventually lead to you being able to talk more clearly about what you did and show the interviewer that you know stuff. Since you’re in second year, i guess you will be able to work on first author papers which would then strengthen having second or later author papers.

What about for top-tier conferences/journals? would top-3 be generally viewed as decent, or does you just have to be the first author? 🤔