201 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2017
    1. Kuhn (1970, p. 167) commented that science education tends to elide the processthrough which knowledge has been constructed, whereas students of other subjectsare exposed to varying interpretations over time. As a result, he suggested, sciencestudents are blind to the history of their subject, seeing it only as unproblematicprogress. The interview data suggest that this is indeed a point of difference betweenthe ‘arts’ and ‘science’ students in this sample. While both of them tend to have adualistic view of science itself, the ‘arts’ students seem to be more at ease with arelativistic view of knowledge in history.

      Kuhn on lack of training science students receive on how knowledge is constructed.

  2. May 2017
    1. Another Human Solution

      human solutions FTW!

    2. shun historical perspective in favor of future-oriented technological determinism

      to me, this is key: we need to constantly "rehumanize" this conversation to avoid misrecognizing both problems and solutions as purely technological

    1. Identity intersects with education, education with power and power always intersects with identity. I want all of us to shine light onto these intersections and then do better because we looked and learned.

      powerful advice to look at and learn from the cultural frameworks that intersect activities like publishing online

    1. In her podcast, Audrey likened unwanted annotation to someone entering your house and writing on your walls without invitation.

      The metaphors shape our emotional relationship to the conversation. Is a blog a home?

  3. Dec 2016
    1. One challenge is whether – or how – this conversation becomes generative of traditional scholarship, such as a more linear, peer-reviewed article.

      There is, truly, so much potential in these tools and approaches toward asynchronous, distributed reading and writing. One question I have, already, is how such distributed forms of production-consumption further dissolve notions of textuality and authorship so entrenched within traditional notions and practices of scholarship and empirical research. The flattened hierarchies, especially, threaten the institutionalized power structures which have tightly controlled the design, review, and dissemination of scholarship and research.

  4. Jul 2016
    1. Page 223

      This is Borgman discussing the role of priority in the humanities

      cultural and historical events can be reinterpreted repeatedly. Prizes are based on the best interpretation rather than on the first claim to a finding.

    2. Page 187 On hyper authorship

      "hyper authorship” is an indicator of "collective cognition" in which the specific contributions of individuals no longer can be identified. Physics has among the highest rates of coauthorship in the sciences and the highest rates of self archiving documents via a repository. Whether the relationship between research collaborators (as indicated by the rates of coauthorship) and sharing publications (as reflected in self archiving) holds in other fields is a question worth exploring empirically.

  5. Jun 2016
    1. (i) those who make only an occasional or rela- tively minor contribution to a piece of research; (ii) those not seen as, or treated as, 'proper' researchers (e.g., technicians, research assistants).

      Exclusion criteria from "collaborator":

      • those who make only minor or occasional contributions
      • "those not seen as, or treated as, 'proper' researchers (e.g. technicians, research assistants)" [!]

    2. (d) those responsible for a key step (e.g., the original idea or hypothesis, the theoretical interpreta- tion);

      Additional criteria for inclusion "sometimes":

      • Those responsible for a key step
      • original funder/proposer

    3. (a) those who work together on the research project throughout its duration or for a large part of it, or who make frequent or substantial contribution; (b) those whose names or posts appear in the original research proposal ~9; (c) those responsible for one or more of the main elements of the research (e.g. the experimental de- sign, construction of research equipment, execution of the experiment, analysis and interpretation of the data 20 writing up the results in a paper).

      Some core definitions:

      • Those who work together through the duration of a project
      • Those whose names appear on the original proposals
      • Those responsible for one or more of the "main elements of the research (e.g. the experimental design, construction of research equipment, execution of the experiment, analysis and interpretation of the data, writing up of the results in a paper)."

    4. putative criteria for distin- guishing 'collaborators' from other researchers.

      ways of distinguishing collaborators from "other researchers."

    5. one possibility would be to include as a 'collaborator' anyone providing an input to a particu- lar piece of research. However, this weak definition of collaboration would bring in such large numbers of collaborators that it would be too unwieldy for all practical purposes.

      "Unwieldy" being used as a criterion for deciding on what collaborators are.

    6. A.E. Nudelman and C.E. Landers, 1972, The failure of 100 divided by 3 to equal 333, American Sociologist 7, 9.

      Important bibliography on division of authorship credit

    7. Using a combination of questionnaires and interviews, Nudel- man and Landers [48] found that for the case of a three-author article the first author received 75% of the intellectual credit of a single-author paper, the second author 62% and the third author 58%. Thus, a three-author paper would be given a total of nearly twice the credit of a single-author paper.

      How credit for multi-authored papers is not fractional.

    8. They found that scientific output as mea- sured by publications is closely dependent on the frequency of collaboration among authors.

      Productivity is dependent on the frequency of collaboration.

    9. high productivity (in terms of published output) is indeed correlated with high levels of collaboration [1-4,24,30,51,52,58,60].

      Hi productivity is correlated with high collaboration

    10. A.J. Lotka. 1926, The frequency distribution of scientific productivity, Journal of the Washington Academy of Science 16, 317-323.

      Important bibliography

    11. A pioneering insight into the productivity of sci- entists was provided by Lotka in 1926--an insight since confirmed by numerous others. He showed that the number of authors producing n papers is propor- tional to 1/n 2 [32]. Thus, the number of researchers producing just one paper in a given period of time is two orders of magnitude greater than the number of researchers producing 10 papers in the same time and four orders of magnitude greater that the number producing 100 papers. Lotka's findings have led some investigators to ask if prolific authors tend to collaborate more than less prolific authors.

      Lotka's rule of productivity: 1/n2

    12. We also show that co-authorship is no more than a partial indicator of collaboration

      Coauthorship not 1:1 proxy for co-authorship

  6. jis.sagepub.com.ezproxy.alu.talonline.ca jis.sagepub.com.ezproxy.alu.talonline.ca
    1. (6) International col/ahoralÍon. International col-laborative behaviour among scientists has beenstudied by Frame and Carpenter [6]. The degree ofcollaboration was found to be higher in basicfields of science (such as physics, mathematics,and chemistry) than in applied fields (such asengineering and technology, clinical medicine andbiomedical research). Frame and Carpenter fur-ther found that(a) the extent of international collaboration wasinversely proportional to the size of a country’sscientific enterprise, and(b) extra-scientific factors such as geography,politics, and language, played a strong role indetermining who collaborates with whom in theinternational scientific community.

      International collaboration

    2. 5) Collaboration between organizations. Scien-tists and engineers employed in different organiza-tions often collaborate on research projects ofmutual interest. Such collaboration may be spurredby informal contacts or prior acquaintance of theresearchers. It is also possible that when a scientistleaves an organization and joins another, he or shemay carry on an unfinished research project in thenew organization with the continued collaborationof former colleagues. Inter-organizational col-laboration may also be necessitated by a commun-ity of concerns (as between two government agen-cies) or by the complexity of a research project, orwhen researchers in one organization may need touse expensive equipment or specialized serviceavailable at another organization. According torecent data published by the U.S. National ScienceFoundation, research collaboration between in-dustries and academic institutions has been gradu-ally increasing [ 1 1 J.

      Inter-organisation collaboration

    3. upert1isor- assistant collaboration. Earlierstudies on the sociology of science, for example, byCole and Cole [5], have shown the existence of astratified structure within the scientific commun-ity. In research projects requiring extensive use oflaboratory facilities or very specialized equipment,the principal investigator is often assisted by anarray of laboratory assistants and technicians.

      Really this could be better called "supervisor-technician" collaboration.

    4. (2) Collaboration among colleagues. It is a verycommon practice in corporate research centers fora number of colleagues to be working on one ormore projects, each contributing expertise in adifferent aspect of the project. In interdisciplinaryfields such as environment, energy, or space re-search, scientists and engineers from a wide varietyof specialities often collaborate. It is not uncom-mon for chemists, chemical engineers, materialsengineers, biophysicists, and other specialists to beworking together in an interdisciplinary project.Husband-and-wife teams can also be included inthis category.

      Collegial collaboration

    5. ( 1 ) Teacher-pupil collaboration. This is a verycommon mode of collaboration in an academicsetting. The professor in a university departmentprovides the ideas and guidance, and sometimesalso the funds from a research grant, and theresearch assistant or student does most of thebench work. The resulting project report, con-ference paper, or journal article usually carries thenames of both the professor and the student. It isnot uncommon for a professor to be guiding severalstudents in different research projects at the sametime

      Teacher-pupil collaboration

    6. Bibliometric studies of research collaboration:A review

      Subramanyam, K. 1983. “Bibliometric Studies of Research Collaboration: A Review.” J. Inf. Sci. Eng. 6 (1): 33–38.

    1. Friedlander argues that for digital humanities to thrive, "one component must be a set of organizational topics and questions that do not bind research into legacy categories and do invite interesting collaborations that will allow for creative cross-fertilization of ideas and techniques and then spur new questions to be pursued by colleagues and students"  [Friedlander 2009, 6]. As she suggests, the digital humanities need to move beyond large numbers of small, uncoordinated projects. Collaborative projects attract more resources and more attention. If properly designed, they also may be more sustainable, creating platforms on which new projects can be constructed. The plethora of boutique digital humanities projects risks the same fate as most digital learning objects. While intended for general use, they lack a common technical platform, common data structures, and common means to aggregate or decompose modules to a useful level of granularity [Borgman et al. 2008].

      Call not to be bound by legacy issues.

    1. Negotiate and Document Your Role. Faculty members and job candidates should negotiate their responsibilities and departmental roles in the creation of digital objects and the use, development, and support of information technologies in their teaching, service, and research. Faculty members and candidates for positions that combine administrative and faculty responsibilities, including the development and support of technological infrastructures, must negotiate terms for the evaluation of their work.

      Obligation to explain your work.

    1. p. 53

      Discussion of collaboration in DH:

      Collaboration is not, however, without its own problems and challenges, as scientific research practices have demonstrated. Aside from questions about how collaborative work will be reviewed for tenure and promotion, internal procedures for distributing authority, making editorial decisions, and apportioning credit (an especially crucial issue for graduate students and junior faculty) are typically worked out on a case-by-case basis with digital humanities projects.... Precedents worked out for scientific laboratories may not be appropriate for the digital humanities. While the lead scientist customarily receives authorship credit for all publications emerging from his laboratory, the digital humanities, with a stronger tradition of single authorship, may choose to craft very different kinds of protocols for deciding authorship credit, including giving <pb n="54"/>authorship credit (as opposed to acknowledgement) for the creative work of paid technical staff.

    1. Such anecdotes add to the body of evidence that the medical literature continues to be systematically manipulated to promote specific products.

      Evidence that medical writing is very different from other kinds of academic writing.

    1. With respect to the ICMJE guidelines, the “triple-lock” formula for distinguishing authors from contributors should be discarded. A model in which a variety of contributions require an individual or entity to be listed as an author should replace it.

      Argument for movie credit model

    2. How Industry Uses the ICMJE Guidelines to Manipulate Authorship—And How They Should Be Revised

      Really interesting discussion of how authorship requirements can be manipulated to hide influence.

    3. The “triple-lock” formula also helps downplay the importance of planning and writing texts. Only in clause 2 is “drafting” acknowledged as a component of authorship, but since this clause can be satisfied by revision, it enables the planner and writer to be excluded. In reality, drafting constitutes a substantial intellectual contribution to the form and content of manuscripts. It is for this reason that industry seeks to control it, while evading the visibility of byline authorship. The “triple lock” provides ideal support for these linked objectives.

      Importance of drafting.

    4. From industry's perspective, the most useful feature of the current ICMJE guidelines is the formula used to distinguish between authors and contributors (Figure 1). To qualify as an author, an individual must (1) contribute substantially to either conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; and (2) draft the article or revise it critically for important intellectual content; and (3) be responsible for final approval of the manuscript [2]. This “triple-lock” formula has become a de facto license for misrepresentation. Provided academics make some contribution to design or data analysis, some revisions to a manuscript, and approve it, they are required to be named as authors. By contrast, industry may conduct most of the design, data collection and analysis, and all the writing, but if sign-off is ceded to the academic, it is disqualified from authorship. Unsurprisingly, the practice of ceding final sign-off to academic “authors” is widespread in commercially driven publications.

      How industry uses the "sign off" requirement to avoid being named an author.

    5. Scientists and clinicians need to know the authorship, author interests, and origination of the articles they read to judge them appropriately.

      Why knowing authorship is important.

    6. Companies and writers who work on industry publications should be listed as byline authors.

      The medical writers also want credit.

    1. hy, then, do we persist with a practice of attributing scientific con-tribution that fails to capture the true nature of the underlying collaboration – or, more precisely, to cap-ture who did what? I

      Great question!

    1. Judith Singer, Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Diversity at Harvard University, made the important point that in interdisciplinary collaborations a person’s name could end up in different positions in different publications despite what they did. As interdisciplinary collaborations grow, the problem will get worse. There was general agreement during the workshop that the ‘secret code’ used in author lists to signal level and type of contribution is ‘broken’ and new approaches are needed

      Different fields read authorship lists differently, meaning that the same placement can have different impacts on a career.

    1. Scientists could draw attention to their specific contributions to published work to distinguish their skills from those of collaborators or competitors, for example during a grant-application process or when seeking an academic appointment.

      Focus on distinguishing

    1. The Hardy-Littlewood Rule

      "The rule states that anyone that joins collaboration in good faith will be listed equally as an author, regardless of the relative contributions they end up making.

    2. This has a list of guidelines about authorship in different disciplines, particularly the natural sciences.

    1. Hyperauthorship:APostmodernPerversionorEvidenceofaStructuralShiftinScholarlyCommunicationPractices?

      Cronin, Blaise. 2001. “Hyperauthorship: A Postmodern Perversion or Evidence of a Structural Shift in Scholarly Communication Practices?” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52 (7): 558–69. doi:10.1002/asi.1097.

      This is a really important paper that anticipates a lot of the arguments I made in my 2013 Force11 talk.

      It discusses a history of what authorship means, glances at the idea that the use of "authorship fetishes writing, discusses how other schemes have made contribution much more important, and concludes with a discussion of differences between High Energy Physics and Biomedicine.

      Argues in the end weakly for a contributor model for those fields in which authorship can no longer capture the value of the cognitive labour involved in science.

    2. Historically, authorship implied writing and this associ-ation with the act of writing remains the core of the standardmodel of authorship acknowledgment. H

      authorship is associated with writing and remains the core of the standard model

    3. Whilecriticaltheoristsmayquestionthe“prestigeofauthorship”and“allmanifes-tationsofauthor-ity”(Birkerts,1994,pp.158–159)—whichhelpsexplainthepredilectionforpostmodernistandeschatologicaltitlessuchasTheDeathoftheAuthor(Bar-thes,1977),WhatisanAuthor?(Foucault,1977),andTheDeathofLiterature(Kernan,1990)—thereislittledoubtthatboththesymbolicandmaterialconsequencesofauthor

      Critical theorists may question the "prestige of authorship," but there is little doubt that the material consequences are more far reaching than they were in ancient times.

      Actually, this is a misreading of Foucault, who discusses the economic implications of authorship.

    4. ome kind of ontolog-ical reassessment of authorship is called for to ensure thatauthority, credit, and accountability, currently apportionedin confused fashion across authors, acknowledgees and con-tributors, are henceforth distributed appropriately, parsimo-niously, and unambiguously. I

      an "ontological reassessment is required" of authorship

    5. what is implied by a byline in thesecases is typically a very precise, often specialized input to acomplex, multidisciplinary project. The classical idea ofauthorship cannot credibly accommodate the legions ofcoworkers associated with large-scale collaboration, nor canit adequately reflect “the epistemic role of support person-nel” in the conduct of science (Shapin, 1995, p. 359).

      inadequacy of the byline to capture distinctions

    6. day’sbiomedical journal article is the progeny of occasionallymassive collaborations, the individual members of whichmay have minimal involvement in the fashioning of theliterary end-product itself, with the act of writing beingdelegated to a subgroup or designated spokespersons. I

      the division of labour in a typical biomedical journal

    7. he “modern scriptor” (Bar-thes, 1977, p. 146) is no longer the sole conceiver, fabrica-tor, and owner of the published article.

      The modern scriptor is no longer the owner of an article

    8. In biomedicine, authorship has irrevocably shed some ofits craft associations:

      calls "writing's" association with "authorship" its "craft association"

    9. is wiseto avoid generalizations and to concentrate instead on show-ing how interactions between coworkers, specifically theorchestration of information exchange and coauthorship, aregrounded in local culture.

      "it is wise to avoid generalizations and to concentrate instead on showing how interactions between coworkers, specifically the orchestration of information exchange and coauthorship, are grounded in local culture."

    10. iomedical collaborations are moreheterogeneous and socially diffuse in character and do notappear to have the same degree of multilayered, internalreview as HEP research collaborations. T

      biomedicine is a less homogeneous group and so less internal trust

    11. TheHEP research community is thus characterized by highlevels of internal scrutiny, mutual trust—witness, for in-stance, the institutionalized practice of relying upon, andciting, preprints—and peer tracking, such that it is notsusceptible to systematic fraud. Contrary

      physicists live in a very trustful, observant, world; also they do a lot of internal, pre-referee, review

    12. The answer probably has to do with the relative intensityof socialization and oral communication (Traweek, 1992,pp. 120 –123), along with the character of the organizationalstructures and value systems, which define collaborations inlarge-scale, high-energy physics and biomedical research.

      Why is there less soul-searching about hyper-authorship in HEP? disciplinary differences

    13. ights (1, 3, 5) are summed to(a) estimate each individual’s overall contribution, whichcan range from 1–35 (735 being the maximum possiblescore), and (b) determine the sequence in which coauthors’names are listed on the resultant publication.

      Insanely detailed matrix: function by contribution level

    14. owever, it isimportant to distinguish between generic job categories andthe specification of tasks performed; the contributorshipmodel is designed to record each individual’s actual input(e.g., experimental design, data collection, statistical analy-sis, final article revision), not job title (e.g., coprincipalinvestigator, technician, systems analyst), since the lattermay on occasion mask or inflate the former (Stern, 2000).

      Great point about movie credits: they are about job title, not contribution.

    15. The standard model accepts that authorship is linkedinextricably to writing. But writing is no longer a necessarycondition of coauthorship in certain cases. Thus, an alter-native to authorship is required to accommodate the manyother contributions that shape the published byproducts ofcollaborative activity, be they research reports, journal ar-ticles, conference papers, or technical reports. C

      standard model ties authorship to writing, but writing is no longer a crucial condition of coauthorship

    16. To date, more than 500 journals have adopted theICMJE’s (1997) principles of authorship as laid out in the5th edition of theUniform Requirements for ManuscriptsSubmitted to Biomedical Journals(Klein, 1999; Stern,2000). According to these concrete guidelines, candidateauthors must satisfy three conditions. They must make:“. . . substantial contributions to (a) conception and design,or analysis and interpretation of data; and to (b) drafting thearticle or revising it critically for important intellectualcontent; and on (c) final approval of the version to bepublished.” Laudable though these guidelines are, it is un-likely that they will solve the problem. A study by Hoen etal. (1998) in the Netherlands found that authors and theircoauthors did not always agree with one another’s assess-ments that the ICMJE criteria had been met. In the UK,Bhopal et al.’s (1997) survey of medical researchers dis-covered that, although most respondents concurred with thethree criteria (more than 80% in each case), a majority(62%) did not feel that all three conditions should have to besatisfied to warrant author status. F

      problems with the ICMJE's author definition

    17. Rennie, Yank, andEmanuel (1997) that the distinction between the two modesof credit allocation is inherently artificial. Consequently,they have argued for explicit description of all individualcontributions as a means of eliminating ambiguity. Such aproposal would remove both authorship and acknowledg-ment from the frame, a really quite significant break withscholarly publishing tradition. This alternative amounts to aradical model of authorship attribution in contrast to thestandard model

      Rennie, Yank, and Emanuel 1997 argue that acknowledgements and authorship can't be disentangled.

    18. he problem with arbitrary capping, whetherof authors or acknowledgees of one kind or another, is thatsome individuals’ potentially important contributions, bethey clinical investigators (Carbone, 1992) or telescopeoperators (Cronin, 1995), may be erased. This could, con-ceivably, have negative downstream implications in termsof remuneration and promotion prospects for those—the“invisible technicians” (Shapin, 1995, p. 355)—whose ef-forts have been withheld from the public ledger. It mightalso reduce, in line with theories of reciprocal altruism(Nowak & Sigmund, 2000), potential collaborators’ will-ingness to ‘donate’ their services.

      why capping authorship credit is bad.

    19. Some journals place a limit on the numberof coauthors; for example, theDutch Journal of Medicinedoes not publish articles with more than six authors (Hoenet al., 1998).

      Journal that caps authorship with bibliography

    20. Kassirer and Angell (1991, p. 1511)of theNew England Journal of Medicinewere bemoaningnot only “ambiguous authorship” but “lengthy acknowledg-ments,” inflated by the inclusion of “everybody who hadanything to do with the study, including those who weremerely carrying out their jobs, such as technicians.”

      complaints about lengthy acknowledgements

    21. “sub-authorship collaboration” (Patel, 1973, p. 81),

      acknowledgements as "sub-authorship collaboration"

    22. twe should not assume too much in terms of common un-derstandings: the dividing line between the two classifica-tions, author and acknowledgee, is neither universally ap-preciated nor consistently applied. Cronin (1995, pp. 85–86), for instance, has shown that interpretative disputes arenot uncommon, and that some researchers feel that theyhave been denied their just deserts by being downgradedfrom coauthor to acknowledgee. A

      on boundary between authorship and acknowledgement

    23. The explosion of coauthorship naturally raises the ques-tion why authorial surplus could not be accommodated inthe acknowledgment sections that accompany the great ma-jority of scientific articles.

      Why can't explosion of coauthors be contained in acknowledgements?

      [[because "authorship" (in the sense of writing) is simply not important enough to be an above the fold thing

    24. I have chosen not to hide behind the cloak of anonymity, orbypass the rigors of peer review by posting a version of thispaper on my Web site;

      "chosen not to hide behind the cloak of anonymity, or bypass the rigors of peer review by posting a version of this paper to my Web site.

    25. ut before considering theICMJE’s guidelines for authorship, it may be instructive toreflect on the role of acknowledgments in the primarycommunication process, and the relationship between au-thorship and acknowledgment.

      reflect on the role of acknowledgements

    26. ublinCore and REACH (Record Export for Art and CulturalHeritage) prefer the terms ‘creator’ and ‘maker’ to the moretraditional ‘author’ (Baca, 1998). T

      Dublin Core and Reach prefer "creator and maker" to "author"

    27. In rare cases, a questionable, published paper may acquire“orphan” status (Rennie & Flanagin, 1994, p. 469), as allconcerned try to wash their hands of it, invoking hyperlaborspecialization as grounds for exoneration. Such a scenario isinconceivable under the standard model, where authorshipand accountability are isomorphic. But when authorship/ownership of a study is distributed across multiple contrib-utors, many of whom may have zero or weak relation-ships—whether personal or institutional—with their myriadcoworkers (Katz & Martin, 1997), the practical (i.e., en-forceable) allocation of accountability may pose intractableproblems

      orphan papers: where everybody washes hand of poor results by saying it wasn't their specialisation. [[Why is this a problem, actually? The point is that we catch fraudulent or wrong papers, not that we have somebody to blame.

    28. Additionally, Ducor (2000) investigated asmall set of patents in molecular biology and their concom-itant publications in the scientific literature. Of the 40patent-article pairs examined, all but two listed more au-thors than inventors, which raises interesting questionsabout the relative stringency of the criteria employed forconferring authorship and inventorship.

      number of patent holders is generally smaller than number of authors on accompanying paper

    29. Slone (1996), in a survey of “major research” articlespublished in theAmerican Journal of Roentgenology, foundthat undeserved coauthorship rose from 9% on papers withthree coauthors to 30% on papers with more than six coau-thors.

      another estimate of undeserved authorship

    30. Flanagin et al.(1998) developed a multivariate logistic regression model totest the hypothesis that coauthored articles (operationalizedas papers with six or more authors) were increasing at a rategreater than would be expected when confounding vari-ables, such as the number of centers, were taken into ac-count. They found that 19% of original research reports hadhonorific authors, individuals who were garnering phantomfodder for their curricula vitae. They also discovered that11% of articles had ghost authors, which means that quite afew individuals were not receiving due credit for theircreative or material contributions to the research process—“the ghostly inferred hosts of unnamed actors who shiftedinstruments about and exerted their muscular labor’(Shapin, 1995, p. 379). Their findings, based on surveys ofcorresponding authors, are in keeping with other estimatesof honorific authorship in the biomedical literature.

      Bibliography on ghost and guest authorship: flanagin et al 1998 and Shapin 1995, 379

      Used statistical methods and surveys to work out percentage of ghosts and uncredited authors.

    31. here is com-pelling evidence that many individuals receive unwarrantedcoauthor status (variously referred to as ‘guest’, ‘gift,’ or‘surprise’ authorship) while others are denied legitimatelyearned author status (‘ghost’ authorship). As Slone (1996, p.578) notes, authorship “cannot be conferred but must beearned.” I

      on guest, gift, and ghost authors in biomedicine

    32. ichard Horton (1998, p. 688) editor ofThe Lancet, speaks, in fact, of “the shattered system ofacademic reward and its symptom, broken rules of author-ship,” a view which seems neither extreme nor marginaljudging by the tenor of the debate being conducted in thepages of the global biomedical literature (Klein & Moser-Veillon, 1999)

      bibliography on "shattered" authorship system in biomedicine

    33. eceiving credit under false pretenses,are cause for grave concern (Anderson, 1991).

      on receiving credit under false pretences

    34. mass of editorial commentary andcorrespondence in the letters pages of major journals (e.g.,Constantian, 1999; Rennie, Yank, & Emanuel, 1997). Ho

      bibliography and commentary on biomedical hyper authorship

    35. norificauthorship and data integrity, seem to be of especial concernto the biomedical community, given widespread media cov-erage of, and speculation about, fraudulent practice, theeffects of which, in both career and personal terms, can bedevastating (e.g., Kevles, 1998).

      about authorship scandals in biomedicine

    36. ow, for instance, should a promotion andtenure committee view the contribution of the 99th listedauthor on a particle physics paper or the 36th author on agenome sequencing study? What may seem to constitute aminiscule portion of a single journal article may, in fact,have consumed a significant amount of that individual’sprofessional time and energy. T

      what is value of middle authorship?

    37. owever, multipleauthorship and hyperauthorship are not problematized byphysicists as they are by the biomedical community.

      Multiple authorship is not problematised in the HEP community as it has in biomedicine.

    38. t this point, the notion of authorship,literally interpreted, is effectively rendered meaningless.

      hyperauthorship renders "notion of authorship, literally interpreted meaningless"

    39. ennieand Yank (1998, p. 829), when “the number of collaboratorsgrows arithmetically, it becomes exponentially harder toaffix responsibility.”

      responsibility and authorship

    40. he practice of promiscuous coauthor-ship puts considerable stress on this tried and tested model.

      The practice of promiscuous coauthorship calls model into question

    41. Under the standard model, the rights and responsibilitiesof authorship are clearly apprehended by all parties: authors,editors, referees, and readers. In appending my name to thisarticle I am nailing my colors to mast; if the article attractscritical approval, is discussed, quoted, and, in due course,cited in the scholarly literature, I shall be happy to bank thesymbolic capital which accrues to me as author and origi-nator. If the paper is challenged because of exiguity oftheoretical, historical, or empirical heft, I shall simply haveto face the music: there are no coauthors to help deflectcriticism. Likewise, if I am challenged for drawing toosparingly, selectively, or generously on the ideas and workof others, I understand the possible consequences. However,I have chosen not to hide behind the cloak of anonymity, orbypass the rigors of peer review by posting a version of thispaper on my Web site; rather, I want to publicize my ideasamong my peers, and the best way to do that, and signify mytrustworthiness, is to pursue publication in an accreditedforum. As a serial author, I am fully cognizant of the rightsand responsibilities of authorship. I understand the norms ofscholarly publishing, and I am aware of the sanctions thatmay be invoked if infractions occur. Should the argumentsin this paper prove flawed, no one but myself is to blame,and that includes those whom I have named in the acknowl-edgments section. If the paper attracts attention, I shall behappy to bask in the glow.

      Great discussion of why scientists/scholars author and what they accept and risk as a result

    42. e need toconsider how multiple authorship, in extremis—what I havechosen to term ‘hyperauthorship’— undermines commonlyheld assumptions about the nature and ethical entailments ofauthorship, and how, in exceptional cases, it can lead tofundamental questions about the integrity of the researchcommunity as a whole. Unfortunately, little effort is madein the biomedical literature to distinguish systematicallybetween what might be termed acceptable levels of multipleauthorship and unacceptable levels of hyperauthorship.Studies of coauthorship trends, as will become clear,

      makes distinction between "acceptable levels of multiple authorship and unacceptable levels of hyperauthorship.

    43. n the realm of periodical publications,the sovereignty of the standard model is being most hotlycontested in biomedical research fields, where intense levelsof professional collaboration and coauthorship are common-place (Croll, 1984; Rennie & Flanagin, 1994; Rennie, Yank,& Emanuel, 1997; Rennie & Yank, 1998; King, 2000).Proposals for reform, which seek to retire the concept ofauthorship and replace it with a scheme for the allocation ofspecific, task- or job-related credits (e.g., Squires, 1996;Smith, 1997) are not only being debated by editors andothers, but are being adopted by leading scientific journal

      On how credit and authorship is being debated in medical publishing (with bibliography)

    44. Rennie’s and Flanagin’s (1994, p. 469) beguilingly simplequestion: “. . . how many people can wield one pen?” S

      How many people can yield one pen? Question about authorship

    45. he standard model of scholarly publishing, inwhich it is assumed that a work is written by an author, t

      The standard model of scholarly publishing: "in which it is assumed that a work is written by an author,"

      On the relationship of author to writing

    46. Some medical commentators (Rennie, Yank, &Emanuel, 1997, p. 582) have advocated abandoning theconcept of author altogether in favor of ‘contributors’ and‘guarantors,’ thereby freeing us “from the historical andemotional connotations of authorship.”

      bibliography on the emotional connotations of authorship

      Idea is to abandon it entirely, so as to avoid this trap.

    47. e well-estab-lished “conventions of impersonality” in scientific writing(Hyland, 1999, p. 355) and resulting in the erasure of styl

      on the flattening effect collaborative authorship has on style

    48. 0authors—a leading indicator of hyperauthorship?—in-creased from 1 in 1981 to 182 in 1994 (McDonald, 1995)and that the average number of authors per paper in theScience Citation Index (SCI)increased from 1.83 in 1955 to3.9 in 1999 (personal communication with Helen Atkins,Director of Database Development, Institute for ScientificInformation, Philadelphia, 2000). To use a couple of ran-dom examples: a 1997 article inNature(cited almost 600times since then) on the genome sequence of a bacteriumhas 151 coauthors, drawn from dozens of research labora-tories scattered across twelve countries (Kunst et al., 1997).A recent (Daily et al., 2000). two-page article inScienceonthe economic value of ecosystems has no fewer than 17authors and five acknowledgees. I

      considers 100 authors evidence of hyperauthorship; gives examples of papers with 17 authors ;-)

    49. s not still common prac-tice in fields such as philosophy or women’s studies (Cro-nin, Davenport, & Martinson, 1997). By way of example,Endersby (1996) has analyzed trends in, and reasons for,collaboration and multiple authorship in the social sciences.Patel (1973) has described the growth of coauthorship insociological journals for the period 1895 to 1965. Bird(1997) has found evidence of coauthorship growth in theliterature of marine mammal science (1985–1993), whileKoehler et al. (1999) found that the average number ofauthors per article in theJournal of the American Society forInformation Science(previouslyAmerican Documentation)rose from approximately 1.2 in the 1950s to 1.8 in the1990s

      bibliography on coauthorship by field

    50. n a sample of 2,101 scientificpapers published between 1665 and 1800, Beaver andRosen found that 2.2% described collaborative work. No-table was the degree of joint authorship in astronomy,especially in situations where scientists were dependentupon observational data.

      Astronomy was area of collaboration because they needed to share data

    51. French science was much more profession-alized and institutionalized than was the case in either of theother European powers. Specifically, they found that morethan half of all the coauthored scientific articles in theirhistoric sample had been produced by French scientists.

      in 18th and 19th C french scientists were more professional and half of all coauthored science papers had been produced by french scientists

    52. Beaver and Rosen (1978) have shown how the differentialrates of scientific institutionalization in France, England,and Germany are mirrored in the relative output of coau-thored papers.

      bibliography tying rate of coauthorship to professionalisation of science

    53. iking increase inrates of coauthorship, though the latter is only a partialindicator of the former: coauthorship and collaboration arenot coextensive (Katz & Martin, 1997, p. 1). This trend ismost noticeable in experimental high-energy physics(HEP), with its often very large teams and highly sophisti-cated collaborations (Kling & McKim, 2000). A similartrend, dating from the 1990s, can be seen in the biomedicalresearch literature, particularly with regard to publicationsarising from large, multi-institutional clinical trials (Rennie,Yank, & Emanuel, 1997; Horton, 1998). H

      bibliography on HEP (High Energy Physics) collaborations and Biomedicine

    54. In some domains, path-breaking work is nec-essarily the outcome of collaborative activity rather thanindividualistic scholarship, a fact reflected in the modestproportion of federal research funds which is allocated toindividual investigators rather than teams. Collaborationsare a necessary feature of much, though by no means all,contemporary scientific research.

      in some domains, collaboration is necessary. Hence the preference for team grants

    55. After World War II, collaboration became a defin-ing feature of ‘big science’ (Bordons & Gomez, 2000;Cronin, 1995, pp. 4 –13; Katz & Martin, 1997).

      collaboration becomes a defining feature of "big science" after the war.

    56. ncidentally, parallel,though not quite so dramatic, growth has been observed inthe number of individuals being formally acknowledged inscholarly journals for their multifarious contributions: whathas become known as subauthorship collaboration (Patel,1973; Heffner, 1979, 1981; Cronin, 1995, Cronin,2001)—an important, if underappreciated, indicator of in-formal scientific collaboration

      on underappreciated nature of acknowledgements

    57. o some extent, authorship has becomea collective activity, with numerous coauthors competingfor the byline, some of whom may not have written, strictlyspeaking, a single word of the associated work (McDonald,1995; Kassirer & Angell, 1991).

      extent to which authors may not have written a word in science (with bibliography)

    58. n general terms, the lone authorstereotype ignores the fact that a great deal of the scholarlyliterature is the product of a “socio-technical production andcommunications network” (Kling, McKim, Fortuna, &King, 1999),

      A great deal of scientific production is the product of a "socio-technical production and communications network"

    59. The standard model of scholarly publishing assumes awork written by an author. There is typically a single authorwho receives full credit for theopusin question. By thesame token, the named author is held accountable for allclaims made in the text, excluding those attributed to othersvia citations. The appropriation of credit and allocation ofresponsibility thus go hand-in-hand, which makes for fairlystraightforward social accounting. The ethically informed,lone scholar has long been a popular figure, in both fact andscholarly mythology. Historically, authorship has beenviewed as a solitary profession, such that “when we picturewriting we see a solitary writer” (Brodkey, 1987, p. 55). Butthat model, as Price (1963) recognized almost three decadesago, is anachronistic as far as the great majority of contem-porary scientific, and much social scientific and humanistic,publishing is concerned.

      On "standard model" of authorship: lone authority and responsibility; how this is anachronistic.

    60. here reputation, career suc-cess, and, ultimately, remuneration are tightly coupled withpublication salience and citation (Cronin, 1996), t

      on tight coupling between authorship and economic benefits in science

    61. hapin (1995,p. 178) notes in his brilliant study of trust in 17th-centuryEnglish science,

      "Brilliant study of trust in 17th century English science"

    62. As Katzen (1980, p. 191) notes in heranalysis of early volumes of thePhilosophical Transac-tions:. . . no attempt is made to give prominence to the author ofthe article . . . there is generally no reference at all to theauthor in the heading that signals a new communication. Ifthe author is referred to in the title, it is likely to be in anoblique form . . . we are at the threshold between anony-mous and eponymous authorship

      Study of authorship in Philosophical transactions

    63. s Rennie and Flanagin(1994) remind us, there is no standard method for determin-ing order, nor any universalistic criteria for conferring au-thorship status:

      bibliography on authorship practices

    64. much has changedin terms of the ways, both instrumental and stylistic, inwhich scientists communicate the results of their research totheir peer communities. However, in the intervening 300-plus years, certain symbolic and rhetorical practices, nota-bly the assertion and defense of authorship, and all thepresumptive rights associated therewith, have remainedcenter stage. In the 17th century, the business of authorship,as the business of science itself, was much less complicatedand contentious than today—which is not to say that prioritydisputes were unheard of, that egos were never bruised, orthat “the bauble fame” did not come into play in earliertimes.

      Although a lot has changed, "certain symbolic and rhetorical practices, notably the assertion and defence of authorship, and all the presumptive rights associated therewith, have remained center stage.

    65. etter writing continued as a medium for theinformal exchange of information and for requesting fellowscientists to replicate experiments (Manten, 1980, p. 8).

      replication happened outside of journals, via letter writing

    66. Before the precursors of today’s scholarly journals es-tablished themselves in the second half of the 17th century,scientists communicated via letters.

      original form of scholarly comm was letters

    67. But while the traditional model of authorship persists, mostnoticeably in the humanities, it is no longer the sole ordominant model in certain scientific specialties.

      Is not long dominant model in some specialisations (though it is in humanities)

    68. uthorship (and therecognition that flows therefrom) is the undisputed coin ofthe realm in academia: it embodies the enterprise of schol-arship (Bourdieu, 1991; Cronin, 1984, 2000; Franck, 1999

      Authorship "is the coin of the realm in academia"; "it empbodies the enterprise of scholarship.

    69. o state the obvious, public affirmation of au-thorship is absolutely central to the operation of the aca-demic reward system, whether one is a classicist,sociologist, or experimental physicist.

      Authorship is central to the operation of the academy, whether classicist or physicist

    70. Foucault,1977,p.125

      Authorship bibliography

    71. Manguel(1997,pp.182–183)

      Authorship bibliography

    72. Thisarticle(a)beginswithabrief,historicaloverviewofscholarlypublishing,focusingontheroleoftheauthorandtheconstitutionoftrustinscientificcommunication;(b)offersanimpressionisticsurveyandanalysisofrecentdevelop-mentsinthebiomedicalliterature;(c)explorestheextenttowhichdeviantpublishingpracticesinbiomedicalpublishingareafunctionofsociocognitiveandstructuralcharacteris-ticsofthedisciplinebycomparingbiomedicinewithhighenergyphysics,theonlyotherfieldwhichappearstoexhibitcomparablehyperauthorshiptendencies;and(d)assessestheextenttowhichcurrenttrendsinbiomedicalcommuni-cationmaybeaharbingerofdevelopmentsinotherdisci-plines

      Great overview of what is going to happen in article:

      1. History of authorship
      2. Survey of state of biomedicine
      3. "extent to which deviant publishing practices in biomedical publishing are a function of sociocognitive and structural characteris-tics of the discipline by comparing biomedicine with high energy physics, the only other field which appears to exhibit comparable hyperauthorship tendencies"
      4. Assess extent to which biomedical trends may foreshadow trends in other fields.

    73. aproposaltoreplaceauthorsentirelywithlistsofcontributors(Rennie,Yank,&Eman-uel,1997)

      Bibliography on attempt to replace authorship with credit

    74. thecentralissueisnotjustoneofmultipleauthorship,buttointroduceaneologismofhyperauthorship—

      The central issue is hyperauthorship

    75. scaleofthephenomenonandassociatedethicalabuseshaveprovedtobesingularlyproblematicinthebiomedicaldo-main(e.g.,Houston&Moher,1996

      Bibliography on how medical area is where ethical abuses have occurred.

    76. Inthebiomedicalresearchcommunity,multipleauthorshiphasincreasedtosuchanextentthatthetrustworthinessofthescientificcom-municationsystemhasbeencalledintoquestion.Doc-umentedabuses,suchashonorificauthorship,havese-riousimplicationsintermsoftheacknowledgmentofauthority,allocationofcredit,andassigningofaccount-ability.Withinthebiomedicalworldithasbeenproposedthatauthorsbereplacedbylistsofcontributors(theradicalmodel),whosespecificinputstoagivenstudywouldberecordedunambiguously.Thewiderimplica-tionsofthe‘hyperauthorship’phenomenonforscholarlypublicationareconsidered.

      Discussion of how this is a problem in Biomedicine (as King, Christopher. 2012. “Multiauthor Papers: Onward and Upward - ScienceWatch Newsletter.” Science Watch Newsletter, July. http://archive.sciencewatch.com/newsletter/2012/201207/multiauthor_papers/.) notes, this changed later in the decade to physics.

      Discusses "contributor" model.

    77. lphabetization through weightedlisting to reverse seniority (e.g., Spiegel & Keith-Spiegel,1970; Riesenberg & Lundberg, 1990).

      bibliography on authorship ranking and practices

    1. Winston, Roger B. 1985. “A Suggested Procedure for Determining Order of Authorship In Research Publications.” Journal of Counseling & Development 63 (8): 515–18. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1985.tb02749.x.

      Interesting discussion of typology of credit and a point system attached to it. A nice alternative to the Fermilab approach perhaps!

      Also has some Social Science bibliography from the 1980s on how to determine authorship credit.



    1. . It follows then that the machinery of the institution does not grow up to accommodate needs that are independently perceived but that, rather, the institutional machinery comes first and the needs then follow, as do the ways of meeting them. In short, the work to be done is not what the institution responds to but what it create

      On the creative nature of literary criticism

    2. t "[ilf Northrop Frye should write an essay attacking archetypal criticism, the article would by definition be of much greater significance than an article by another scholar attack- ing the same approach" (Schaefer 5). The reason, of course, is that the approach is not something in- dependent of what Northrop Frye has previously said about it; indeed, in large part archetypal criticism is what Northrop Frye has said about it, and therefore anything he now says about it is not so much to be measured against an independent truth as it is to be regarded, at least potentially, as a new pronouncement of what the truth will hereafter be said to be

      author-function at work: Frye is an author-concept and his work is a coherent whole--an Oeuvre.

      This is absolutely fine for literary criticism and the humanities. The same is in practice true of the sciences--what Steven Hawking says about physics is more interesting than other people, especially if he reverses his previous claims. But in contrast to Frye, where a reversal is a change in the discursive practice (cf. Foucault), in the case of science, it should not be the case that hearing a "great man" reverse himself is more significant than hearing an unknown post-doc. The reversal should be evidence-based.

  7. screen.oxfordjournals.org screen.oxfordjournals.org
    1. verningthis function is the belief that there must be - at a particular levelof an author's thought, of his conscious or unconscious desire — apoint where contradictions are resolved, where the incompatibleelements can be shown to relate to one another or to cohere arounda fundamental and originating contradiction. Fin

      This is not true (in theory) of scientific authorship. We don't judge the coherence of the oeuvre.

      Again it conflict with Fish's view of literary criticism

    2. can easily imagine a culture wherediscourse would circulate without any need for an author. Dis-courses, whatever their status, form, or value, and regardless of ourmanner of handling them, would unfold in a pervasive anonymity.No longer the tiresome repetitions: 'Who is the real author?' 'H

      Great epigraph for article on scientific authorship

      We can easily imagine a culture where discourse would circulate without any need for an author. Discourses, whatever their status, form, or value, and regardless of our manner of handling them, would unfold in a pervasive anonymity. No longer the tiresome repetitions: 'Who is the real author?' 'Have we proof of his authenticity and originality?' 'What has he revealed of his most profound self in his language?' New questions will be heard: 'What are the modes of existence of this discourse?' 'Where does it come from; how is it circulated; who controls it,' 'What placements are determined for possible subjects?' 'Who can fulfill these diverse functions of the subject?' Behind all these questions we would hear little more than the murmur of indifference: 'What matter who's speaking?'

    3. other hand, Marx and Freud, as'initiators of discursive practices', not only made possible a certainnumber of analogies that could be adopted by future texts, but,as importantly, they also made possible a certain number of dif-ferences. They cleared a space for the introduction of elementsother than their own, which, nevertheless, remain within the fieldof discourse they initiated. In saying that Freud founded psycho-analysis, we do not simply mean that the concept of libido or thetechniques of dream analysis reappear in the writings of KarlAbraham or Melanie Klein, but that he made possible a certainnumber of differences with respect to his books, concepts, andhypotheses, which all arise out of psychoanalytic discourse.

      How Freud and Marx shift the paradigm: "not only made possible a certain number of analogies that could be adopted by future texts, but, as importantly, they also made possible a certain number of differences."

      I don't find the "differences" part convincingly expressed, but I think he means that they created domain-boundaries: not just, "here's the id, you can use it" but also "hey, we can analyse dreams."

    4. I believe that the nineteenth century in Europe produced asingular type of author who should not be confused with 'great'literary authors, or the authors of canonical religious texts, andthe founders of sciences. Somewhat arbitrarily, we might call them'initiators of discursive practices'.

      Has another category: people like Marx and Freud (and I'd say Darwin) who constructed theories that are productive in other works as well. These are "initiators or discursive practices."

      This ties in well with Kuhn's paradigms.

    5. However, it is obvious that even within the realm ofdiscourse a person can be the author of much more than a book -of a theory, for instance, of a tradition or a discipline within whichnew books and authors can proliferate. For convenience, we couldsay that such authors occupy a 'transdiscursive' position.

      Nice move. Identifies authors of movements as well: could include Homer, Artistotle, church fathers

    6. author-function' is tiedto the legal and institutional systems that circumscribe, determine,and articulate the realm of discourses; it does not operate in auniform manner in all discourses, at all times, and in any givenculture; it is not defined by the spontaneous attribution of a textto its creator, but through a series of precise and complex pro-cedures; it does not refer, purely and simply, to an actual individualinsofar as it simultaneously gives rise to a variety of egos and to aseries of subjective positions that individuals of any class may

      Four characteristics of the "author-function":

      1. "the 'author-function' is tied to the legal and institutional systems that circumscribe, determine,and articulate the realm of discourses;"
      2. "it does not operate in a uniform manner in all discourses, at all times, and in any given culture";
      3. "it is not defined by the spontaneous attribution of a text to its creator, but through a series of precise and complex procedures";
      4. it does not refer, purely and simply, to an actual individual in so far as it simultaneously gives rise to a variety of egos and to aseries of subjective positions that individuals of any class may come to occupy"

    7. athe-matical treatise, the ego who indicates the circumstances of com-position in the preface is not identical, either in terms of his posi-tion or his function, to the T who concludes a demonstrationwithin the body of the text. The former implies a unique individualwho, at a given time and place, succeeded in completing a project,whereas the latter indicates an instance and plan of demonstrationthat anyone could perform provided the same set of axioms, pre-liminary operations, and an identical set of symbols were used. It isalso possible to locate a third ego: one who speaks of the goals of' his investigation, the obstacles encountered, its results, and theproblems yet to be solved and this T would function in a field ofexisting or future mathematical discourses. We are not dealing witha system of dependencies where a first and essential use of the Tis reduplicated, as a kind of fiction, by the other two. On thecontrary, the 'author-function' in such discourses operates so as toeffect the simultaneous dispersion of the three egos

      Hmmm. Argues for a "second self" in scientific writing.

      1. I'm not sure this kind of first person is that common (though it is common in literary criticism);
      2. If it is, I'm not sure there is a distinction between the author and some narrator-type figure or his third category (the person who speaks of the goals of the investigation (an implied author?)).

    8. ight object that thisphenomenon only applies to novels or poetry, to a context of 'quasi-discourse', but, in fact, all discourse that supports this 'author-function' is characterized by the plurality of egos. In a

      There you go: he means that grammar changes in all texts that support the "author-function". Somehow he distinguishes this from simply "poetic texts," but I'm not sure why or how.

    9. ave a different bearing on texts with an author and 23on those without one. In the latter, these 'shifters' refer to a realspeaker and to an actual deictic situation, with certain exceptionssuch as the case of indirect speech in the first person. When dis-course is linked to an author, however, the role of 'shifters' is morecomplex and variable. It is well known that in a novel narrated inthe first person, neither the first person pronoun, the presentindicative tense, nor, for that matter, its signs of localization referdirectly to the %vriter, either to the time when he wrote, or to thespecific act of writing; rather, they stand for a 'second self whosesimilarity to the author is never fixed and undergoes considerablealteration within the course of a single book. It

      Grammar has different meaning with fictional author and non-author texts: in the second case (not fiction), the grammar is deictic; in the former, it is literary.

      This is a really interesting point, by I think MF is confusing terms a little. the issue has to do with the deictic nature of the text rather than the availability of an author-attribution (unless he means "literary author of the kind I've been discussing as an author-function").

    10. ccording to Saint Jerome, there are four criteria:the texts that must be eliminated from the list of works attributedto a single author are those inferior to the others (thus, the authoris defined as a standard level of quality); those whose ideas conflictwith the doctrine expressed in the others( here the author is definedas a certain field of conceptual or theoretical coherence); thosewritten in a different style and containing words and phrases notordinarily found in the other works (the author is seen as a stylisticuniformity); and those referring to events of historical figures sub-sequent to the death of the author (the author is thus a definitehistorical figure in which a series of events converge). Alth

      Jerome's criteria that rule out an authorship attribution:

      1. Author as standard of quality (work is less good than you'd expect)
      2. Author is field of conceptual or theoretical coherence (i.e. this work disagrees with some other work by the person)
      3. Stylistic uniformity (written in different style)
      4. Temporal unit (i.e. written before or after the author's known life).

    11. alue of a text by ascertaining the holiness of its author. In

      prove the value of a text by asserting the holiness of its author.

      This is ironically what T&P committees do.

    12. There are, nevertheless, transhistorical constants in therules that govern the construction of an author.

      Argues that there are transhistorical contstraints on construction of author. Transgeneric as well?

    13. In addition, all these operations vary according to the periodand the form of discourse concerned. A 'philosopher' and a 'poet'are not constructed in the same manner; and the author of aneighteenth-century novel was formed differently from the modernnovelist.

      Argues that the construction and meaning of "the author" varies by time and genre.

    14. The third point concerning this 'author-function' is that it is notformed spontaneously through the simple attribution of a discourseto an individual. It results from a complex operation whose pur-pose is to construct the rational entity we call an author. Un-doubtedly, this construction is assigned a 'realistic' dimension aswe speak of an individual's 'profundity' or 'creative' power, hisintentions or the original inspiration manifested in writing. Never-theless, these aspects of an individual, which we designate as anauthor (or which comprise an individual as an author), are pro-jections, in terms always more or less psychological, of our way ofhandling texts: in the comparisons we make, the traits we extractas pertinent, the continuities we assign, or the exclusions we prac-tise.

      Version of the "Implied author"

    15. At the same time, however, 'literary' discourse was acceptableonly if it carried an author's name; every text of poetry or fictionwas obliged to state its author and the date, place and circumstanceof its writing. The meaning and value attributed to the text de-pended on this information. If by accident or design a text waspresented anonymously, every effort was made to locate its author.Literary anonymity was of interest only as a puzzle to be solved as,in our day, literary works are totally dominated by the sovereigntyof the author. (

      At the same time scientific authorship was becoming anonymous, literary authorship was no longer accepted as anonymous (this is something Chartier disagrees with emphatically)

    16. the seventeenth andeighteenth centuries, a totally new conception was developed whenscientific texts were accepted on their own merits and positionedwithin an anonymous and coherent conceptual system of estab-lished truths and methods of verification. Authentification no longerrequired reference to the individual who had produced them; therole of the author disappeared as an index of truthfulness and,where it remained as an inventor's name, it was merely to denot

      Argues that in the 17th and 18th centuries, science was supposed to stand on its own and the author vanished as the "index of truthfulness." Interesting that one of the main arguments in favour of maintaining scientific authorship now is this index of truthfulness

    17. exts, however, that we now call 'scien-tific' (dealing with cosmology and the heavens, medicine or illness,the natural sciences or geography) were only considered truthfulduring the Middle Ages if the name of the author was indicated.Statements on the order of 'Hippocrates said ..." or 'Pliny tellsus that . . .' were not merely formulas for an argument based onauthority, they marked a proven discourse. In the seventeenth andeighteenth centuries, a totally new conception was developed whenscientific texts were accepted on their own merits and positionedwithin an anonymous and coherent conceptual system of estab-lished truths and methods of verification. Authentification no longerrequired reference to the individual who had produced them; therole of the author disappeared as an index of truthfulness and,where it remained as an inventor's name, it was merely to denote

      Chartier argues that this is very wrong in his history.

      Foucault here argues that scientific authors did exist in the "Middle Ages" because they were an "index of truthfulness"--so not really authors but guarantors.

    18. First, they are objects of appropriation; the form of propertythey have become is of a particular type whose legal codificationwas accomplished some years ago. It is important to notice, aswell, that its status as property is historically secondary to thepenal code controlling its appropriation. Speeches and books wereassigned real authors, other than mythical or important religiousfigures, only when the author became subject to punishment andto the extent that his discourse was considered transgressive. Inour culture - undoubtedly in others as well - discourse was notoriginally a thing, a product, or a possession, but an action situatedin a bipolar field of sacred and profane, lawful and unlawful, reli-gious and blasphemous. It was a gesture charged with risks longbefore it became a possession caught in a circuit of property values.But it was at the moment when a system of ownership and strictcopyright rules were established (toward the end of the eighteenthand beginning of the nineteenth century) that the transgressiveproperties always intrinsic to the act of writing became the force-ful imperative of literature. It is as if the author, at the momenthe was accepted into the social order of property which governsour culture, was compensating for this new status by revivingthe older bipolar field of discourse in a systematic practice of trans-gression and by restoring the danger of writing which, on anotherside, had been conferred the benefits of property

      Importance of "author" for commerce and control. This is true of scientific writing, but in a slightly different way. The type of thing he is talking about here has to do with Oeuvre.

    19. nsequently, we cansay that in our culture, the name of an author is a variable thataccompanies only certain texts to the exclusion of others: a privateletter may have a signatory, but it does not have an author; acontract can have an underwriter, but not an author; and, similarlyan anonymous poster attached to a wall may have a writer, buthe cannot be an author. In this sense, the function of an author isto characterize the existence, circulation, and operation of certaindiscourses within a society

      Very useful statement of where foucault applies in this case: to literary discussion, not advertising, not letters, and so on.

      Science would fall into the "not this" category, I suspect.

    20. We can conclude that, unlike a proper name, which moves fromthe interior of a discourse to the real person outside who producedit, the name of the author remains at the contours of texts -separating one from the other, defining their form, and character-izing their mode of existence. It points to the existence of certaingroups of discourse and refers to the status of this discourse withina society and culture. The author's name is not a function of aman's civil status, nor is it fictional; it is situated in the breach,among the discontinuities, which gives rise to new groups of dis-course and their singular mode of existence. C

      Again, an "Implied Author" type idea that is completely not relevant to science--although ironically, the H-index tries to make it relevant. In science, the author name is not the function that defines the text; it is the person to whom the credit it to be given rather than a definition of Oeuvre. This is really useful distinction for discussing what is different between the two discourses.

    21. To learn, for example, that Pierre Dupont does not have blueeyes, does not live in Paris, and is not a doctor does not invalidatethe fact that the name, Pierre Dupont, continues to refer to thesame person; there has been no modification of the designation thatlinks the name to the person. With the name of an author, how-ever, the problems are far more complex. The disclosure thatShakespeare was not born in the house that tourists now visitwould not modify the functioning of the author's name, but if itwere proved that he had not written the sonnets that we attributeto him, this would constitute a significant change and affect themanner in which the author's name functions. Moreover, if weestablish that Shakespeare wrote Bacon's Organon and that thesame author was responsible for both the works of Shakespeareand those of Bacon, we would have introduced a third type ofalteration which completely modifies the functioning of the author'sname. Consequently, the name of an author is not precisely a propername among others

      Interesting discussion about how an author's name is affected by the oeuvre we ascribe to him/her.

    22. The name of an author poses all the problems related to thecategory of the proper name. (Here, I am referring to the work ofJohn Searle,3 among others.) Obviously not a pure and simplereference, the proper name (and the author's name as well) hasother than indicative functions. It is more than a gesture, a fingerpointed at someone; it is, to a certain extent, the equivalent of adescription. When we say 'Aristotle', we are using a word thatmeans one or a series of definite descriptions of the type: 'theauthor of the Analytics', or 'the founder of ontology', and so forth.Furthermore, a proper name has other functions than that of sig-nification: when we discover that Rimbaud has not written LaChasse spirituelle, we cannot maintain that the meaning of theproper name or this author's name has been altered. The propername and the name of an author oscillate between the poles ofdescription and designation, and, granting that they are linked towhat they name, they are not totally determined either by theirdescriptive or designative functions. Yet - and it is here that thespecific difficulties attending an author's name appear - the linkbetween a proper name and the individual being named and the linkbetween an author's name and that which it names are not iso-morphous and do not function in the same way; and these dif-ferences require clarification.

      And, of course, it is an economic and reputational thing as well

      What is the purpose of an author's name?

    23. It is obviously insufficient to repeat empty slogans: the authorhas disappeared; God and man died a common death. Rather, weshould re-examine the empty space left by the author's disappear-ance, we should attentively observe, along its gaps and fault lines,its new demarcations, and the reapportionment of this void; weshould await the fluid functions released by this disappearance.In this context we can briefly consider the problems that ari

      It is obviously insufficient to repeat empty slogans: the author has disappeared; God and man died a common death. Rather, we should re-examine the empty space left by the author's disappearance, we should attentively observe, along its gaps and fault lines,its new demarcations, and the reapportionment of this void; we should await the fluid functions released by this disappearance.In this context we can briefly consider the problems that arise in the use of an author's name. What is the name of an author? How does it function? Far from offering a solution, I will attempt to indicate some of the difficulties related to these questions.

      Great epigraph for an article on scientific authorship. Also relevant, especially the bottom bit.

    24. Another thesis has detained us from taking full measure of the 17author's disappearance. It avoids confronting the specific event thatmakes it possible and, in subtle ways, continues to preserve theexistence of the author. This is the notion of icriture. Strictlyspeaking,.it should allow us not only to circumvent references toan author, but to situate his recent absence. The conception oficriture, as currently employed, is concerned with neither the actof writing nor the indications, as symptoms or signs within a text,of an author's meaning; rather, it stands for a remarkably profoundattempt to elaborate the conditions of any text, both the conditionsof its spatial dispersion and its temporal deployment

      écriture is a fasle way of stepping around the problem in literary criticism, because it simply defers the identity of the author, without stopping treating the author as a unit. But it might be a solution to science writing, in that a credit system, for example, doesn't need an author-function to exist.

    25. his problem is both theoretical and practical. If we wishto publish the complete works of Nietzsche, for example, where dowe draw the line? Certainly, everything must be published, but canwe agree on what 'everything' means? We will, of course, includeeverything that Nietzsche himself published, along with the draftsof his works, his plans for aphorisms, his marginal notations andcorrections. But what if, in a notebook filled with aphorisms, wefind a reference, a reminder of an appointment, an address, or alaundry bill, should this be included in his works? Why not? T

      How to define literature: again, a difference to science. It would never occur to us to confuse a scientists scientific work from all other writing, because the category is so clear; but literature is a more amorphous term.

    26. his conception of aspoken or written narrative as a protection against death has beentransformed by our culture. Writing is now linked to sacrifice and tothe sacrifice of life itself; it is a voluntary obliteration of the selfthat does not require representation in books because it takes placein the everyday existence of the writer. Where a work had the dutyof creating immortality, it now attains the right to kill, to becomethe murderer of its author. Flaubert, Proust, and Kafka are obviousexamples of this reversal. In addition, we find the link betweenwriting and death manifested in the total effacement of the indi-vidual characteristics of the writer;

      Interesting to compare this to science writing: 3rd person and lack of individuality (like this) but not self-referential/self-consciously performative.

    27. en now, when we studythe history of a concept, a literary genre, or a branch of philo-sophy, these concerns assume a relatively weak and secondaryposition in relation to the solid and fundamental role of an authorand his works

      On extent to which we assume the author is real and solid even if we are doubtful about the nature of the field in which the author is working.

    1. The word work and the unity that it designates are probably as problematic as the status of the author's individuality

      Foucault on the problem of unity of work as well as author; this is perhaps something that could be brought back to scientific authorship.

    2. First of all, we can say that today's writing has freed itself from the theme of expression. Referring only to itself; but without being restricted to the confines of its interiority, writing is identified with its own unfolded exteriority. This means that it is an interplay of signs arranged less according to its signified content than according to the very nature of the signifier. Writing unfolds like a game [jeu] that invariably goes beyond its own rules and transgresses its limits. In writing, the point is not to manifest or exalt the act of writing, nor is it to pin a subject within language; it is, rather, a question of creating a space into which the writing subject constantly disappears.

      Be interesting to try to say this of scientific authorship!

    3. I want to deal solely with the relationship between text and author and with the manner in which the text points to this figure that, at least in appearance; is outside it and antecedes it.

      Idea that the author antecedes the work

    1. writing ceaselessly posits meaning but always in order to evaporate it: it proceeds to a systematic exemption of meaning. Thus literature (it would be better, henceforth, to say writing), by refusing to assign to the text (and to the world as text) a "secret:' that is, an ultimate meaning, liberates an activity which we might call counter-theological, properly revolutionary, for to refuse to arrest meaning is finally to refuse God and his hypostases, reason, science, the law.

      Again a literary conception of purpose

    2. We know that a text does not consist of a line of words, releasing a single "theological" meaning (the "message" of the Author-God), but is a space of many dimensions, in which are wedded and contested various kinds of writing, no one of which is original: the text is a tissue of citations, resulting from the thousand sources of culture. Like Bouvard and Pecuchet, those eternal copyists, both sublime and comical and whose profound absurdity precisely designates the truth of writing, the writer can only imitate a gesture forever anterior, never original; his only power is to combine the different kinds of writing, to oppose some by others, so as never to sustain himself by just one of them; if he wants to express himself, at least he should know that the internal "thing" he claims to "translate" is itself only a readymade dictionary whose words can be explained (defined) only by other words, and so on ad infinitum

      Intertextuality and (literary) authorship

    3. Quite the contrary, the modern writer (scriptor) is born simultaneously with his text; he is in no way supplied with a being which precedes or transcends his writing, he is in no way the subject of which his book is the predicate; there is no other time than that of the utterance, and every text is eternally written here and now. This is because (or: it follows that) to write can no longer designate an operation of recording, of observing, of representing, of "painting" (as the Classic writers put it), but rather what the linguisticians, following the vocabulary of the Oxford school, call a performative, a rare verbal form (exclusively given to the first person and to the present), in which utterance has no other content than the act by which it is uttered

      Really, he's tying this to the ironic self-consciousness of postmodern authors: performance as opposed to realism.

    4. once an action is recounted, for intransitive ends, and no longer in order to act directly upon reality — that is, finally external to any function but the very exercise of the symbol — this disjunction occurs, the voice loses its origin, the author enters his own death, writing begins.

      Literary writing: "disjunction" from individual when writing for "intransitive" ends.

    5. Who is speaking in this way? Is it the story's hero, concerned to ignore the castrato concealed beneath the woman? Is it the man Balzac, endowed by his personal experience with a philosophy of Woman? Is it the author Balzac, professing certain "literary" ideas of femininity? Is it universal wisdom? or romantic psychology? It will always be impossible to know, for the good reason that all writing is itself this special voice, consisting of several indiscernible voices, and that literature is precisely the invention of this voice, to which we cannot assign a specific origin: literature is that neuter, that composite, that oblique into which every subject escapes, the trap where all identity is lost, beginning with the very identity of the body that writes.

      Why science authorship is not the same as poetic authorship: the lack of identity of the author. cf. Booth 1961, Rhetoric of Fiction


      Barthes, Roland. 1967. “Death of the Author.” Edited by Brian O’Doherty. Translated by Richard Howard. Aspen 5+6 (Fall/Winter): Item 3. http://www.ubu.com/aspen/aspen5and6/threeEssays.html#barthes.

    1. Drosophila muller f elements maintain a distinct set of genomic properties over 40 million years of evolution

      Leung, Wilson, Christopher D. Shaffer, Laura K. Reed, Sheryl T. Smith, William Barshop, William Dirkes, Matthew Dothager, et al. 2015. “Drosophila Muller F Elements Maintain a Distinct Set of Genomic Properties over 40 Million Years of Evolution.” G3 (Bethesda, Md.) 5 (5): 719–40. doi:10.1534/g3.114.015966.

      This paper puts all 1000+ authors between title and byline.

    1. ***By which I mean, it’s even in Wikipedia

      Doesn't give reference on how the physicist detector models are known in wikipedia

    2. Actually, I didn’t need Holmesian deductions to conclude that Aad et al. aren’t using a conventional definition of authorship. It’s widely known*** that at least two groups in experimental particle physics operate under the policy that every scientist or engineer working on a particular detector is an author on every paper arising from that detector’s data. (Two such detectors at the Large Hadron Collider were used in the Aad et al paper, so the author list is the union of the “ATLAS collaboration” and the “CMS collaboration”.) The result of this authorship policy, of course, is lots of “authorships” for everyone: for the easily searchable George Aad, for instance, over 400 since 2008.

      Physicists authorship models

    3. Does mega-authorship threaten our concept of authorship in science? It would be easy, and fun, to write with a scandalized tone about how mega-authorship corrupts all that is good and decent about scientific publishing. But does it really matter? I think both yes and (mostly) no.

      thesis: a little yes, but mostly no megaauthorship doesn't do harm

    4. Does mega-authorship matter?

      Heard, Stephen. 2015. “Does Mega-Authorship Matter?” Scientist Sees Squirrel. August 18. https://scientistseessquirrel.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/does-mega-authorship-matter/.

    1. What to do when your coauthor doesn’t return your calls.

      Stemwedel, Janet D. 2016. “What to Do When Your Coauthor Doesn’t Return Your Calls.” Adventures in Ethics and Science. Accessed June 16. http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2010/02/14/what-to-do-when-your-coauthor/.

      Discusses what to do when your collaborators don't sign off on a paper and can't be contacted.

    1. If done in good faith, four like-minded authors in the arts who agreed on a project of work could co-author four papers together and have the REF return of each sorted. If they are from different institutions, this would certainly be a more efficient way of meeting the framework's requirements. It might be viewed as a cynical exercise, but perhaps viewing it that way would be a sign that we haven't yet changed our mindset. If genuinely collaborative work became the norm, it wouldn't be viewed with suspicion.

      How to game the REF

    2. he case for more collaborative work can be made. Indeed, most of us do it already, to some degree. We tend to discuss our ideas with colleagues and seek trusted opinions. We present talks at conferences and seminars, and use the feedback to develop ideas before publication. We solicit comments on drafts. Colleagues share a research environment that, if it is effective, contributes to the quality of all output. Yet when the work appears, the standard model is still sole ownership. A colleague could have given a lot of input, discussing ideas or providing comments on early drafts, yet their accepted reward is only to appear in the list of acknowledgements. This seems a paltry return on what can be a considerable amount of effort, an effort that is obviously a degree of collaboration. Perhaps one tries to mitigate the paltry reward by extracting a reciprocal amount of uncredited assistance in return.

      Bout how actual contributions to authorship of humanities work goes uncredited, except in acknowledgements

    3. Combination acts

      Mumford, Stephen. 2012. “Combination Acts.” Times Higher Education (THE). February 16. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/combination-acts/419019.article.

    1. The trend of increasingly long author lists on research papers is clearly getting out of hand. In addition to being impractical, it is also threatening to the entire system in which academic work is rewarded. Radical reform is needed. One way forward could be to completely remove authors on papers and replace them with project names.

      One way forward is to replace authors from papers and replace them with project names

    2. Long lists are eroding the value of being a scientific author

      Priego, Ernesto. 2016. “Long Lists Are Eroding the Value of Being a Scientific Author.” The Conversation. Accessed June 16. http://theconversation.com/long-lists-are-eroding-the-value-of-being-a-scientific-author-42094.

    1. Despite opinions to the contrary, these data suggest that there has been no apparent increase in overall productivity per active author over the last decade. Instead, authors are using their authorship potential more wisely by becoming more collaborative in the way they work, which is driving an apparent inflation in each author’s productivity as well as author bylines. Instead, the underlying driver of the volume increase in articles published is simply the introduction of new entrants/authors into the market. That is not surprising, as the total population of researchers globally continues to rise every year, and they become increasingly subject to the principles of "publish or perish": and so the cycle continues.

      No increase in overall productivity of authors.

    2. This rise in ‘fractional authorship’ (the claiming of credit for authorship of a published articles by more than one individual) is most likely driven by research collaboration, and is an efficient mechanism by which each author can increase their apparent productivity from the same underlying research contributions (i.e. articles per unique author) of 0.56 articles per unique author per year.

      rise of fractional authorship

    3. Over the past ten years or so, the number of authorships per unique author (2.31 in 2013) has increased while the number of articles per unique author (0.56 in 2013) has declined (see Figure 2),

      Number of authorships per unique author has gone up a little; number of articles per unique author has declined (by a tiny amount). Authorships per article has risen much more significantly.

    4. Results of our analysis show that there has been a consistent growth in the number of articles published over the past decade; from 1.3 million in 2003 to 2.4 million in 2013 (see Figure 1). At the same time, the number of authorships has increased at a far greater rate from 4.6 million in 2003 to 10 million in 2013.

      authorships are growing at a much faster rate than articles (though interestingly, "unique authors" are also growing at a faster rate than authors... though I think what they mean is the number of unique individuals identified as authors, however many times they are identified (= unique authors) vs. "number of names appearing in bylines (=authorships).

    1. The PDF of the paper gives a bit of a clue as to what’s going one. The author list is more modest on the title page, which lists the authors as, “Wilson Leung and Participating Students and Faculty of the Genomics Education Partnership.” So a lot of these authors are students who took a class, and probably completed part of the analysis as a course assignment.

      difference between byline and authors: byline (like in HEP), lists collaborations

    2. When does authorship stop meaning anything useful?

      Faulkes, Zen. 2015. “When Does Authorship Stop Meaning Anything Useful?” Blog. NeuroDojo. May 11. http://neurodojo.blogspot.com/2015/05/when-does-authorship-stop-meaning.html.

    1. In his blog post, Faulkes suggests a new rule: “If the number of authors on your paper can be measured in ‘kiloauthors’, having your name on the paper will not count for tenure and promotion purposes.”

      Faulkes caps significant authorship at >1000

    2. Fruit-fly paper has 1,000 authors

      Woolston, Chris. 2015. “Fruit-Fly Paper Has 1,000 Authors.” Nature News 521 (7552): 263.

    1. Following the 2004 report on pravastatin and a 2005 paper on tuberculosis among European patients receiving anti-HIV therapy (a report with “only” 859 authors), high-energy physics subsequently moved in to displace biomedicine in securing the upper tiers of science’s most mega-authored papers. The physics upsurge was striking. In 2010, Thomson Reuters indexed 16 papers in the main field of Physics with more than 1,000 authors each; in 2011, the figure was 120 such papers, with 44 Physics papers listing more than 3,000 authors.

      Sudden rise of physics (replacing biomedicine) as source of hyperauthorship.

    2. For a more specific look at “hyperauthored” papers, Graph 3 covers 1992 through 2011 and tracks each year’s single paper with the highest author count. In the graph, the line sticks fairly close to the 500-author mark for the first decade, with no single paper exceeding 1,000 authors until 2004, when the threshold was resoundingly surpassed. As ScienceWatch reported five years ago, the paper in question was a study from Circulation Journal examining the efficacy of pravastatin in Japanese subjects with mildly elevated cholesterol levels; the published report includes more than 2,400 authors.

      Great graph: tracks the largest authorship each year.

    3. Multiauthor Papers: Onward and Upward

      King, Christopher. 2012. “Multiauthor Papers: Onward and Upward - ScienceWatch Newsletter.” Science Watch Newsletter, July. http://archive.sciencewatch.com/newsletter/2012/201207/multiauthor_papers/.

    4. n fact, all the groupings in Graph 1 display a notable surge from 2010 onward. This is particularly striking on the bottom-most line denoting 1,000 or more authors. Aside from a few blips through 2009, this line was flat—until 2010, when Thomson Reuters indexed 17 papers with author counts above 1,000. The next year, 2011, this number increased nearly 10-fold, with more than 140 papers registering above the 1,000-author mark.

      After a flattening in authorship numbers in the mid oughts, thee was a "notable" surge in hyperauthorship after 2010, driven in part by physics.

      in 2007, 1000 authors didn't exist.

    1. Observation of the rare Bs0 →µ+µ− decay from the combined analysis of CMS and LHCb data

      Collaboration, C. M. S., and LHCb Collaboration. 2015. “Observation of the Rare Bs0 →µ+µ− Decay from the Combined Analysis of CMS and LHCb Data.” Nature 522 (7554): 68–72. doi:10.1038/nature14474.

      This is the physics paper where Nature "couldn't" publish the entire author list in the print edition.

      Note that the actual authorship is to the collaborations.

    1. Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass in pp<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mi>p</mi><mi>p</mi></math> Collisions at s√=7<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><msqrt><mi>s</mi></msqrt><mo>=</mo><mn>7</mn></math> and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS Experiments

      ATLAS Collaboration, CMS Collaboration, G. Aad, B. Abbott, J. Abdallah, O. Abdinov, R. Aben, et al. 2015. “Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass in $pp$ Collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS Experiments.” Physical Review Letters 114 (19): 191803. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803.

      This is the 5000+ author physics paper

      Note a) that they actually credit the authorship to the collaborations on the byline; and b) that they have two plus pages of secondary affiliations!

    1. Robert Garisto, an editor of Physical Review Letters, says that publishing the paper presented challenges above and beyond the already Sisyphean task of dealing with teams that have thousands of members. “The biggest problem was merging the author lists from two collaborations with their own slightly different styles,” Garisto says. “I was impressed at how well the pair of huge collaborations worked together in responding to referee and editorial comments,” he adds.

      The biggest problem was merging the author lists

    2. Physics paper sets record with more than 5,000 authors

      Castelvecchi, Davide. 2015. “Physics Paper Sets Record with More than 5,000 Authors.” Nature, May. doi:10.1038/nature.2015.17567.

      This piece has references to several of the famous hyperauthor papers, including the Nature paper where there were too many to credit in the paper edition.

    1. Research Biologist Coins Term 'Kilo-Author' For Scientific Journal Articles

      “Research Biologist Coins Term ‘Kilo-Author’ For Scientific Journal Articles.” 2016. NPR.org. Accessed June 16. http://www.npr.org/2015/08/12/431959428/research-biologist-coins-term-kilo-author-for-scientific-journal-articles.

    2. Am I getting, you know, recognition, you know? So if you're one of a thousand in a paper, you still have a paper to your name versus somebody like myself, who - I write a lot of papers just on my own. And I do everything by myself, and, you know, we both end up with one paper. SIEGEL: Of course, when one sees a thousand authors credited for a single article, it's - you know, it's hard to imagine a thousand people agreeing on a birthday card not to mention a scientific article.

      confusion of economic reward and authorship: one author = lots of effort, many authors = little effort.

    3. Oh, yeah. It's certainly not as though - and you know that they didn't all contribute the same, right? It's not as though that everybody got five words and wrote five words out of the paper.

      On confusion of authorship and writing in science.

    1. The rise of mass authorship and fractional authorship: Do too many cooks spoil the broth?

      Kulkarni, Sneha. 2015. “The Rise of Mass Authorship and Fractional Authorship: Do Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth?” Editage Insights(13-10-2015), October. http://www.editage.com/insights/the-rise-of-mass-authorship-and-fractional-authorship-do-too-many-cooks-spoil-the-broth.

    2. are that an author should have made substantial contributions to the study as well as to drafting the work, and should be able to identify all co-authors on a study and their contribution.

      This is not the definition of authorship at the ICMJE!

    1. Earlier this year, a paper on rare particle decay published in Nature listed so many co-authors—about 2,700—that the journal announced it wouldn’t have room for them all in its print editions

      Nature said it didn't have room for all the authors in its print edition.

    2. His scientific renown is a tribute to alphabetical order

      cf. From Marusic, Ana, Lana Bosnjak, and Ana Jeroncic. 2011. “A Systematic Review of Research on the Meaning, Ethics and Practices of Authorship across Scholarly Disciplines.” PLoS ONE 6 (9). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023477

    3. How Many Scientists Does It Take to Write a Paper? Apparently, Thousands

      Hotz, Robert Lee. 2015. “How Many Scientists Does It Take to Write a Paper? Apparently, Thousands.” Wall Street Journal, August 10, sec. Page One. http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-many-scientists-does-it-take-to-write-a-paper-apparently-thousands-1439169200.

    1. calling this "inflation" is really begging the question. It can be that simply science has got bigger and there are more people bearing responsibility.

    2. Hotz, Robert Lee. 2015. “How Many Scientists Does It Take to Write a Paper? Apparently, Thousands.” Wall Street Journal, August 10, sec. Page One. http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-many-scientists-does-it-take-to-write-a-paper-apparently-thousands-1439169200.

  8. Feb 2014
    1. The “romantic conception of authorship” mentioned earlier as a formative trend of the rights - based theory of intellectual property is evident in the first pe rspective: t he notion that ideas are individual achievements and of indeterminate origin (not reliant on a process of building) (Fisher, 1999, Sect. II. B).

    2. Fisher points out that the rights - based, non - utilitarian theory is greatly influenced by two concepts: (1) the western ideology of property from Locke (that people are entitled to own the fruits of their labors, and should be rewarded in proportion to their contributions); and (2) the “romantic conception of authorship” of the divinely inspired individual genius or artist (1999, Sect. II. B).

      The first is the soul of the rights-based theory

    1. I t i s t h i s b e d r o c k p r i n c i p l e o f c o p y r i g h t t h a t m a n d a t e s t h e l a w ' s s e e m i n g l y d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t o f f a c t s a n d f a c t u a l c o m p i l a t i o n s . " N o o n e m a y c l a i m o r i g i n a l i t y a s t o f a c t s . " I d . , § 2 . 1 1 [ A ] , p . 2 - 1 5 7 . T h i s i s b e c a u s e f a c t s d o n o t o w e t h e i r o r i g i n t o a n a c t o f a u t h o r s h i p . T h e d i s t i n c t i o n i s o n e b e t w e e n c r e a t i o n a n d d i s c o v e r y : T h e f i r s t p e r s o n t o f i n d a n d r e p o r t a p a r t i c u l a r f a c t h a s n o t c r e a t e d t h e f a c t ; h e o r s h e h a s m e r e l y d i s c o v e r e d i t s e x i s t e n c e . T o b o r r o w f r o m B u r r o w - G i l e s , o n e w h o d i s c o v e r s a f a c t i s n o t i t s " m a k e r " o r " o r i g i n a t o r . " 1 1 1 U . S . , a t 5 8 . " T h e d i s c o v e r e r m e r e l y f i n d s a n d r e c o r d s . " N i m m e r § 2 . 0 3 [ E ] .

      No one may claim originality to facts because facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship. The distinction is one between creation vs discovery.