1,221 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2016
  2. screen.oxfordjournals.org screen.oxfordjournals.org
    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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?

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. t,what of a context that questions the concept of a work? What, inshort, is the strange unit designated by the term, work? What isnecessary to its composition, if a work is not something writtenby a person called an 'author'? Difficulties arise on all sides if weraise the question in this way. If an individual is not an author,what are we to make of those things he has written or said, leftamong his papers or communicated to others? Is this not properlya work?

      What happens when you question what a work is? How does that affect our notion of authorship. If Sade is not an author, then are his writings not work?

      This also has an interesting relationship to scientific authorship in the sense that the traditional "work" is actually very definable (i.e. the paper), though we are now discovering new forms of communication (e.g. data, blogs, and so on). But it is also interesting because of how much scientific writing is team based or collaborative. That also undermines the heroic author-figure

    9. as been under-stood that the task of criticism is not to re-establish the ties betweenan author and his work or to reconstitute an author's thought andexperience through his works and, further, that criticism shouldconcern itself with the structures of a work, its architectonic forms,which are studied for their intrinsic and internal relationships. Y

      Thinking of new criticism here

    10. 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.

    11. Beckett supplies a direction: 'What matter who's sp

      from text 3. See Hird 2010

    12. For the purposes of this paper, I will set aside a sociohistoricalanalysis of the author as an individual and the numerous ques-tions that deserve attention in this context; how the author wasindividualized in a culture such as ours; the status we have giventhe author, for instance, when we began our research into authen-ticity and attribution; the systems of valorization in which he wasincluded; or the moment when the stories of heroes gave way toan author's biography; the conditions that fostered the formula-tion of the fundamental critical category of 'the man and his work'

      Not dealing with the history of the author, rather the history of the relationship between the author and his work [sic]

    13. 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.

    14. hese questionshave determined my effort to situate comprehensive discursiveunits, such as 'natural history' or 'political economy', and to estab-lish the methods and instruments for delimiting, analysing, anddescribing these unities.

      Purpose of Archaeology of Knowledge

    15. my objective in The Order of Things1 had been toanalyse verbal clusters as discursive layers which fall outside thefamiliar categories of a book, a work, or an author. But while Iconsidered 'natural history', the 'analysis of wealth', and 'politicaleconomy' in general terms, I neglected a similar analysis of theauthor and his works; it is perhaps due to this omission that Iemployed the names of authors throughout this book in a naiveand often crude fashion. I spoke of Buffon, Cuvier, Ricardo, andothers as well, but failed to realize that I had allowed their namesto function ambiguously. This

      Goal of "Order of things" was to analyse verbal clusters as discursive layers that are not books but other types of discourse: natural history, wealth, political economy and so on.

    1. What Is an Author?

      A published text of this can be found here: Foucault, Michel. 1979. “Authorship: What Is an Author?” Screen 20 (1): 13–34. doi:10.1093/screen/20.1.13.

    2. Searle's analyses

      John Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge, 1969.

    3. 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.

    4. 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!

    5. What does it matter who is speaking

      From Text 3

    6. 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. This paper examines the role played by Beckett's Texts for Nothing in the theoretical controversy concerning authorship that arose during the late 1960s. The implications of Foucault's quotation of Text 3 in his "What Is an Author?" create a canonical position for Beckett in a literature of anti-authorship, whilst the inclusion of Barthes's "The Death of the Author" alongside a recording of Text 8 in the avant-garde box magazine Aspen 5+6 facilitates a parallel reading which serves to underline certain submerged structures in Barthes's article, suggesting that the Barthesian author remains very much al

      abstract

    2. WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHO IS SPEAKING/' SOMEONE SAID, "WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHO IS SPEAKING": Beckett, Foucault, Barthes Alastair Hir

      Hird, Alastair. 2010. “‘WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHO IS SPEAKING,’ SOMEONE SAID, ‘WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHO IS SPEAKING’: Beckett, Foucault, Barthes.” Samuel Beckett Today / Aujourd’hui 22: 289–99. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25781931.

      Picks up point that Beckett features very strongly in both Barthe's Death of an Author and Foucault's "What is an Author."

    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

    6. "It was Woman, with her sudden fears, her irrational whims, her instinctive fears, her unprovoked bravado, her daring and her delicious delicacy of feeling" 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?

      Interesting that the prompt is gender fluidity.

    7. THE DEATH OF THE AUTHOR / ROLAND BARTHES

      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. writing behaviour. When do you write best? What parts of a paper do you find easiest/hardest to write? What are your biggest stumbling blocks? Perfectionism? Fear of criticism? What are the things that you’re best at? Putting together the Methods section? Creating understandable plots and tables? 

      Good advice on preparing to write!

    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. Of course, they will most likely all be co-authored pieces, but the significant point is that the REF rules, except in special cases, impose no penalty on genuinely co-authored work; they explicitly state that it is welcomed. In most cases, there is no disadvantage in submitting a co-authored item to the exercise (although there is some complication when co-authors submit in the same return); it is not as if it counts as half an output or less.

      The REF does not discount coauthorship

    2. 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

    3. If a major idea or approach came from another person, why not list that person as co-author and let them be equally generous in their turn where it applies?

      On when somebody should be a coauthor in the humanities

    4. 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

    5. Typically, authors can write something better together than they could have produced alone.

      Great justification for collaborative authorship!

    6. Combination acts

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

    1. However, it seems that the academy is already growing wise to the nature of these mass-authored papers. This year, for the first time, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings will exclude any papers that have more than 1,000 authors, as they are considered to be “so freakish that they have the potential to distort the global scientific landscape”.

      THE rankings will exclude papers with >1000 authors from consideration.

    2. Is mass authorship destroying the credibility of papers?

      Grove, Jack. 2015. “Is Mass Authorship Destroying the Credibility of Papers?” Times Higher Education (THE). August 24. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/mass-authorship-destroying-credibility-papers.

    1. A Crowd-authoring Project on theScholarship of Educational Technology

      Lily, Abdulrahman Essa Al. 2015. “A Crowd-Authoring Project on the Scholarship of Educational Technology.” Information Development, December, 266666915622044. doi:10.1177/0266666915622044.

    2. Academia has long experienced a ‘core–periphery’dichotomy (to borrow terminology from Wallerstein,1974), with a one-way influence from the core to theperiphery. The core refers to the well-respected nativeEnglish-speaking departments, faculties and/or jour-nals, whereas the periphery refers to researchers outsideof the native English-speaking domain

      core-periphery discussion

    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. What Is The Primordial Reference For The Phrase 'Publish Or Perish'?

      Garfield, Eugene. 1996 “What Is The Primordial Reference For The Phrase ‘Publish Or Perish’?” The Scientist 10:12. 11.

    1. Did you know“Publish or perish” has been worrying researchers for 60 years Publish. Or. Perish. These three little words describe the constant pressure on academics to publish their research and make their name. But this is not a new phenomenon; these three words have been keeping researchers awake for over 60 years. The phrase was coined in 1950 by Kimball C. Atwood III, a geneticist at Columbia University (1). Although never written down, it struck a chord with researchers, and, so legend has it, it was just a month before the phrase found its way back to Atwood, in an address given by a visiting lecturer. Despite the long history of “Publish or Perish”, it is likely to ring around the halls of the world’s research institutes as long as competition among researchers for limited funds and positions continues to intensify. Reference (1) Sojka, R.E. and Mayland, H.F. (1991) Driving Science With One Eye On the Peer Review Mirror

      Publish or perish origins

    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).

    5. The phenomenon has become a focus of academic research itself, as a search for the phrase in Scopus retrieved 305 documents published on the topic from 1962 to date. On average, more than 20 articles per year were published on the topic over the past 5 years (2009 – 2013), with 37 articles alone published in 2013.

      publish or perish is the focus of lots of study.

    6. A 1996 article by Eugene Garfield (3) traces the phrase back to at least 1942,

      bibliography on "publish or perish"

    7. Publish or perish? The rise of the fractional author…

      Plume, Andrew, and Daphne van Weijen. 2014. “Publish or Perish? The Rise of the Fractional Author….” Research Trends, no. 38(September). https://www.researchtrends.com/issue-38-september-2014/publish-or-perish-the-rise-of-the-fractional-author/.

    8. Some researchers attribute the phrase to Kimball C. Atwood III, who is said to have coined the phrase in 1950 (

      origin of the phrase "publish or perish"

    1. I often use a supplemental evaluation form at the end of the term. There are two competing functions of the evaluation. The first is to give you feedback for course improvement, and the second is to assess performance. What the students might think is constructive feedback might be seen as a negative critique by those not in the classroom. It’s in our interest to separate those two functions onto separate pieces of paper. Before we went digital, I used to hold up the university form and say: “This form [holding up the scantron] is being used by the school as a referendum on my continued employment. I won’t be able to access these forms until after the next semester already starts, so they won’t help me out that much.” Then I held up another piece of paper [an evaluation I wrote with specific questions about the course] and said, “This one is constructive feedback about what you liked and didn’t like about the course. If you have criticisms of the course that you want me to see, but don’t think that my bosses need to see them, then this is the place to do it. Note that this form has specific questions about our readings, homework, tests and lessons. I’m just collecting these for myself, and I’d prefer if you don’t put your names on them.” I find that students are far more likely to evaluate my teaching in broad strokes in the university form when I use this approach, and there are fewer little nitpicky negative comments.

      A version of the famous advice to let students evaluate you twice: once privately and once formally

    1. What’s more interesting, I think, is similarities between ecology/evolutionary biology and the humanities. Stephen Jay Gould pointed out many years ago that some lines of scientific inquiry were more like historical research than “real” science. That idea has stayed with me throughout my career, which I think is why I’ve such an interest in how a historical perspective informs our present day understanding of the subject.

      note on how evolutionary biology is really a humanities subject, attributed to Stephen Jay Gould

    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. Zen Faulkes, an invertebrate neuroethologist at the University of Texas-Pan American in Edinburg, questions on his blog whether every person made enough of a contribution to be credited as an author.

      Faulkes questions whether every other has made "enough" of a contribution to be credited as an author.

    3. Fruit-fly paper has 1,000 authors

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

    1. 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

    2. 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

    3. 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

    4. 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

    5. hmed, Maurana, Engle,Uddin, & Glaus (1997)

      authorship matrix bibliography

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

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

    7. However, a diverse body of work on thesocially situated nature of scientific communication alreadyexists which points the way. This ranges from Crane’s(1969) pioneering analyses of invisible colleges throughLatour and Woolgar’s (1979) classic study of laboratory lifeat the Salk Institute to Traweek’s (1992) richly texturedethnography of the HEP community. In addition, the workof Schatz and colleagues on the Worm Community Systemproject, which was designed to capture the full range ofknowledge, formal and informal, of the community of mo-lecular biologists who study the nematode worm C. elegans(see: http://www.canis.uiuc.edu/projects/wcs/index.html)can provide useful insights; so, too, research into the mate-rial practices and social interactions of scientists working incollaboratories, such as the Upper Atmospheric ResearchCollaboratory (see: http://intel.si.umich.edu/crew/Research/resrch08.htm) or the Space, Physics & Aeronomy ResearchCollaboratory (see: http://intel.si.umich.edu/sparc/) at theUniversity of Michigan

      great bibliography on ethnographies of different disciplines

    8. 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."

    9. 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

    10. 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

    11. 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

    12. 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

    13. 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.

    14. 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

    15. 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

    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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

    19. 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

    20. ocial significance of acknowledg-ment practices in a variety of disciplines, including astron-omy (Verner, 1993), genetics (McCain, 1991), biology(Heffner, 1981), chemistry (Heffner, 1981), psychology(Heffner, 1981; Cronin, 1995), information science (Cronin,1995, 2001), sociology (Patel, 1973; Cronin, 1995), politi-cal science (Heffner, 1981), and philosophy (Cronin, 1995).

      more bibliography on acknowledgements

    21. Bazerman (1984, 1988) has chronicled the evolutionof the acknowledgment during the 19th and 20th centuriesin the journal literature of experimental physics, showinghow it became, to paraphrase Grafton (1997, p. 233), anintegral part of the rhetoric of narration and annotation

      bibliography studying acknowledgements

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

      acknowledgements as "sub-authorship collaboration"

    23. 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

    24. 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

    25. 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.

    26. 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

    27. 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"

    28. 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.

    29. 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

    30. 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

    31. 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.

    32. 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

    33. 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

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

      on receiving credit under false pretences

    35. 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

    36. 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

    37. 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?

    38. 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.

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

      hyperauthorship renders "notion of authorship, literally interpreted meaningless"

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

      responsibility and authorship

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

      The practice of promiscuous coauthorship calls model into question

    42. 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

    43. 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.

    44. 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)

    45. 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

    46. 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

    47. 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.

    48. ouble-blind) peer review became an established component of thepost-war scientific bureaucracy (Chubin & Hackett, 1990,pp. 19 –24)

      history of peer review

    49. 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

    50. 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 ;-)

    51. 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

    52. 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

    53. 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

    54. 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

    55. 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

    56. 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

    57. 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.

    58. 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

    59. 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)

    60. 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"

    61. 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.

    62. 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

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

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

    64. 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

    65. 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

    66. 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.

    67. 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

    68. 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

    69. 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)

    70. 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.

    71. 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

    72. Foucault,1977,p.125

      Authorship bibliography

    73. Manguel(1997,pp.182–183)

      Authorship bibliography

    74. 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.
    75. aproposaltoreplaceauthorsentirelywithlistsofcontributors(Rennie,Yank,&Eman-uel,1997)

      Bibliography on attempt to replace authorship with credit

    76. thecentralissueisnotjustoneofmultipleauthorship,buttointroduceaneologismofhyperauthorship—

      The central issue is hyperauthorship

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

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

    78. 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.

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

      bibliography on authorship ranking and practices

    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.

    1. When Blogging Goes Bad: A Cautionary Tale About Blogs, Email Lists, Discussion, and Interaction

      Krause, Steven D. 2004. “When Blogging Goes Bad: A Cautionary Tale About Blogs, Email Lists, Discussion, and Interaction.” Kairos 9 (1).

    1. Blogging in the Classroom: A Preliminary Exploration of Student Attitudes and Impact on Comprehensio

      Ellison, Nicole B., and Yuehua Wu. 2008. “Blogging in the Classroom: A Preliminary Exploration of Student Attitudes and Impact on Comprehension.” Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 17 (1): 99–122.

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. There is also a stream of research related to online versus paper surveys of faculty perfor-mance. In general, online ratings were found to be about the same as paper ratings. Theonline ratings were, if anything, slightly higher than paper ratings (Carini et al. 2003). Otherresearchers found that the properties of student ratings were similar for both paper andonline responses (Hardy 2003; McGhee and Lowell 2003). Even though there was a slightlylower response rate for online as opposed to paper ratings, researchers conclude that withacceptance of online ratings by students and faculty, appreciation of the advantages of onlineratings (thoughtful feedback, convenience and user-friendliness) and the development ofonline infrastructure, this response difference will diminish (Ballantyne 2003; Johnson2003)

      Online ratings about the same or higher than paper ratings, and the properties (selection, etc.) similar.

    2. Does ratemyprofessor.com really rate my professor?

      Otto, James, Douglas A. Sanford Jr, and Douglas N. Ross. 2008. “Does Ratemyprofessor.com Really Rate My Professor?” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 33 (4): 355–68. doi:10.1080/02602930701293405.

    1. RateMyProfessors.com offers biased evaluations

      Legg, Angela M., and Janie H. Wilson. 2012. “RateMyProfessors.com Offers Biased Evaluations.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 37 (1): 89–97. doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.507299.

    1. A recent organization of the experimental literature (Deci 8z Ryan, in press) revealed that events which are experienced as supporting autonomy and promoting or signifying competence-thus facilitating an internal perceived locus of causality and perceived competence-tend to increase intrinsic motivation as reflected, for example, by behavior that persists with a minimum of external support. We refer to these initiating or regulatory events as informational. Events that are experienced as pressure toward particular outcomes-thus co-opting choice and facilitating an external perceived locus of causality-tend to undermine intrinsic mo- tivation, restrict creativity (Amabile, 1983), and impair cognitive flexibility (McGraw & McCullers, 1979). We refer to these events as controlling. Finally, events which are experienced as conveying that the person cannot master an activity-thus promoting perceived incompetence-undermine intrinsic motivation and tend to leave one feeling helpless (e.g., Boggiano & Barrett, 1984). We refer to these events as amotivating.

      Wow. A pretty straightforward summary! I wonder what the "at press" article is?

      Autonomy focusses internal motivation; controlling events reduces it.

    2. The General Causality Orientations Scale: Self-Determination in Personality

      Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. 1985. “The General Causality Orientations Scale: Self-Determination in Personality.” Journal of Research in Personality 19 (2): 109–34. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6.

    1. The significance of autonomy versus control for the maintenance of intrin-sic motivation has been clearly observed in studies of classroom learning.For example, several studies have shown that autonomy-supportive (in con-trast to controlling) teachers catalyze in their students greater intrinsic moti-vation, curiosity, and the desire for challenge (e.g., Deci, Nezlek, & Shein-man, 1981; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986). Students who are overly controlled notonly lose initiative but also learn less well, especially when learning is com-plex or requires conceptual, creative processing (Benware & Deci, 1984;Grolnick & Ryan, 1987). Similarly, studies show children of parents whoare more autonomy supportive to be more mastery oriented—more likely tospontaneously explore and extend themselves—than children of parents whoare more controlling (Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997)

      Autonomy is crucial

    2. In fact, the majority of the research on the effects of environmental eventson intrinsic motivation has focused on the issue of autonomy versus controlrather than that of competence. And this issue has been considerably morecontroversial. The research began with the demonstration that extrinsic re-wards can undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971; Lepper, Greene, &Nisbett, 1973), which we interpret in terms of the reward shifting peoplefrom a more internal to external perceived locus of causality. Although theissue of rewards has been hotly debated, a recent meta-analysis (Deci, Koes-tner, & Ryan, in press) confirms that virtually every type of expected tangiblereward made contingent on task performance does, in fact, undermine intrin-sic motivation. Furthermore, not only tangible rewards, but also threats(Deci & Cascio, 1972), deadlines (Amabile, DeJong, & Lepper, 1976), direc-tives (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984), and competition pressure(Reeve & Deci, 1996) diminish intrinsic motivation because, according toCET, people experience them as controllers of their behavior. On the otherhand, choice and the opportunity for self-direction (e.g., Zuckerman, Porac,Lathin, Smith, & Deci, 1978) appear to enhance intrinsic motivation, as theyafford a greater sense of autonomy

      Pretty much every form of surveillance and control that is found in the traditional classroom can be shown to undermine intrinsic motivation:

      • intrinisic rewards
      • threats
      • deadline,
      • directives,
      • competition pressure
    3. ntrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions andNew Directions

      Ryan, R M, and E L Deci. 2000. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions.” Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25 (1): 54–67.

    1. o often, the feedbackgiven is unrelated to achieving success on critical dimensions of the goal. Forexample, students are given feedback on presentation, spelling, and quantity inwriting when the criteria for success require, say, “creating mood in a story.” Su

      Importance of relevance of feedback to goals for exercise: e.g. spelling is not useful if the goal was "create a mood."

    2. ffective feedback must answer three major questions asked by ateacher and/or by a student: Where am I going? (What are the goals?), How am Igoing? (What progress is being made toward the goal?), and Where to next? (Whatactivities need to be undertaken to make better progress?) Th

      Three major questions that must be answered in effective feedback:

      1. Where am I going (what are the goals),
      2. how am I going (what progress is being made towards the goal)
      3. Where to next (what activities must be undertaken to make better progress?
    3. he main purpose of feedback is to reduce discrepancies between cur-rent understandings and performance and a goal. S

      definition of feedback

    4. Difficult goals370.51Easy, do your best goal

      Difficult goals are more important effect than easy, "do your best" goals.

    5. addition, when the feed-back was administered in a controlling manner (e.g., saying that students per-formed as they “should” have performed), the effects were even worse (–0.78).Thus, Deci et al. concluded that extrinsic rewards are typically negative becausethey “undermine people’s taking responsibility for motivating or regulating them-selves” (p. 659). Rather, they are a controlling strategy that often leads to greatersurveillance, evaluation, and competition, all of which have been found to under-mine enhanced engagement and regulation (Deci & Ryan, 1985)

      Control, surveillance, evaluation, and competition all undermine enhanced engagement and regulation [!]

    6. ngiblerewards significantly undermined intrinsic motivation, particularly for interestingtasks (–0.68) compared with uninteresting tasks (0.18). I

      Tangible rewards lower motivation

    7. Rewards and punishments89 0.14Wilkinson (1981)Teacher praise14 0.12

      Praise and rewards and punishment have very low effect sizes.

    8. It is most powerful when it addresses faulty interpretations, not a totallack of understanding.

      Feedback is most powerful when it is about partial correction rather than lack of understanding

    9. eedback is information with which a learner can confirm, add to,overwrite, tune, or restructure information in memory, whether that information isdomain knowledge, meta-cognitive knowledge, beliefs about self and tasks, or cog-nitive tactics and strategies”

      definition of feedback

    10. The Power of Feedback

      Hattie, John, and Helen Timperley. 2007. “The Power of Feedback.” Review of Educational Research 77 (1): 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.

      Should discuss student-to-teacher feedback

    1. 78.9% of the pupils who actually received grades would have preferred written comments, and 86.3% of those who received comments were satisfied with this mode of evaluation

      most students who receive grades only wish they had comments; most student who received comments only were satisfied.

      [[Should check this with my students.

    2. Nor- mative grades provide information about proficiency relative to others; they do not provide clear standards for self-evalua- tion or for constructive attribution (Nisan, 1981). Our finding that 50% of the pupils who received no feedback would rather have received a grade may seem compatible with the argu- ments of many teachers that pupils themselves want grades

      Grades provide information about relative proficiency not clear standards for self-evaluation.

      But students would still rather have then than nothing (50%). However, of graded students, 78.9% would rather have comments than grades.

    3. in the grades group, 26.7% attributed effort to the desire to avoid poor scores, and 34.4% attributed it to the importance of success, whereas among those who received no feedback only 7.2% attributed effort to the desire to avoid poor scores and 40% attributed it to the "positive" aspect of need achievement, the desire to succeed.

      Grades group:

      • 26.7% attributed effort to avoid failure
      • 34.4% to desire for success

      In non-grades group:

      • 7.2% to avoid failure
      • 40% to need for achievement, desire to succeed.
    4. subjects who received written comments expressed greater interest in the tasks than did those in the other two groups, especially for the question requiring greatest commitment -- the number of extra tasks chosen

      Subjects who received written comments expressed greater intrinsic motivation,

    5. Our results suggest, as some critics argue (Holt, 1964; Sil- berman, 1970), that the information routinely given in schools -- that is, grades -- may encourage an emphasis on quanti- tative aspects of learning, depress creativity, foster fear of failure, and undermine interest. They also suggest that no such negative results ensue from the use of task-related individual- ized comments.

      Good quotation on the negative aspect of grades.

    6. Even though the findings of much previous research, which compared motivation after a single trial under extrinsic and no-incentive conditions, implied that if "left alone," in- trinsic motivation for an initially interesting task would remain stable and high, our conception suggested that, in fact, re- peated nonreceipt of feedback would undermine interest. We also predicted that numerical grades would foster extrinsic mo- tivation at the expense of intrinsic motivation. The results showed clearly differential effects of these kinds of feedback on per- formance.

      This is an interesting point with regard to my practice: 100% for effort and no feedback is worse than grades, because it means there really is no feedback.

    7. Harter's (1978) finding that expectation of letter grades affected children's task motivation in ways similar to the various extrinsic rewards used in other stud- ies

      Harter 1978 showed that grades are extrinsic motivators. Harter, S. (1978). Pleasure derived from challenge and the effects of receiving grades on children's difficulty level choices. Child Development, 49, 788-799.

    8. Most studies of extrinsic incentives and intrinsic motivation, including those men- tioned earlier, used as controls subjects who received no rewards or feedback, apparently on the assumption that un- der these conditions original levels of intrinsic motivation would be maintained.

      make an interesting point that most studies assume that no-feedback is a status quo.

    9. The role of the availability of such information was studied in comparison with conditions of nonreceipt of any information and of receipt of normative evaluation.

      Compared it to grades only and no-feedback.

    10. We expected that receipt of indiviaualized, specific, non-normative information about task performance, includ- ing both positive and negative comments, would maintain or even enhance subsequent motivation.

      Hypothesis: that individualized, non-normative information about performance would maintain or enhance motivation.

    11. The present research was thus designed to study the ef- fects of different feedback conditions on intrinsic motiva- tion.

      goal of study

    12. One aspect that merits further study is the search for information about one's com- petence and success in a task (Festinger, 1954; Suls & Miller, 1977). Such information seems vital to a sense of mastery and self-determination because without it one can- not assess one's mastery in any given task. Thus one would expect the availability (and/or expectation) of feedback to be an important factor in task motivation in general and in determining interest, or intrinsic motivation, in particular. Specifically, one would expect intrinsic motivation to be greater for tasks perceived as supplying information about competence and to be undermined when no such informa- tion is expecte

      Article is about the search for information about "one's competence and success in a task", with the assumption that interest and intrinsic motivation would be greater for tasks that are perceived as supplying information about competence and undermined when this is missing.

    1. InastudybySwann&Arthurs(1998),alargenumberoftheirstudentsseemedtotakeaninstrumentalviewoflearning,conceivingassessmenttasksasobstaclestoovercomeinthepursuitofgrades.Formativefeedbackwasviewedasameanstonegotiatetheseobstacles.InanearlierstudybyBeckeretal.(1968)ofAmericancollegelife,assessmentdemandswereubiquitous,andstudentbehaviourreectedtheinstrumentalandpragmaticstrategiestheyadoptedtocopewiththeparticularteachingandassessmentpracticesimposedonthem.Butisthistruefortoday’sstudentinthecontextoftheUK?Amajorityofthestudentsinourstudyperceivehighereducationasa‘service’,andfeltthatfeedbackconstitutespartofthatservice.Asonestudentnoted:TheywayIseeitiswe’repaying£1,000.It’smoreofaservicenow.Ifhighereducationisviewedasaservice,thenstudentsarearguablytheconsumersofthatservice.Butwhatdotheyexpecttheservicetoconsistof?Moststudentsinourstudylinkfeedbacktoattainingbettergrades.Thesestudentsperceivefeedbackcommentsasidentify-ingwhattheyaredoingrightandwrongand,therefore,helpingthemtoimprovetheirperformanceinsubsequentassessedassignmentsandexaminationsinordertoraisetheirmarks:Partofwritingtheessayquestionintheexamishavingtherighttechnique,andwhilstitwouldbeusefultosaythat‘yeah,you’rebringingingoodpartsoutsidethesubjectandit’sgoodthatyou’vebroughtinthis’,itwouldalsobegoodtoknow‘well,don’teverusethislanguageintheexam’causeit’sgoingtocountagainstyou’

      Students' consumerist, instrumental view of learning.

    2. 80%disagreedwiththestatement‘Feedbackcommentsarenotthatuseful’

      80% of students disagreed with the statement that feedback was not useful.

    3. ormativefeedbackcommentscanonlybeeffectiveifstudentsreadandmakeuseofthem.MostofthestudentsinvolvedinstudiesbyHyland(2000)andDing(1998)seemedtoreadtutors’comments.Ourquestionnairedatareectthis(seeTableI).Thetimespentreadingcommentsvaries,withthemajorityofstudentsclaimingtospendlessthan15minutesdoingso(although,ofcourse,ourdatadonottelluswhenthistakesplaceorwhetherstudentsreturntolookattheirfeedbackonmorethanoneoccasion).But,overall,97%ofstudentsindicatedthattheyusually‘read’thewrittenfeedbacktheyreceive.Furthermore,wecanseefromTableIIthat82%ofthestudentsclaimedto‘paycloseattention’tofeedback.Theinterviewdataalsosupportthis:Ialwayslookforwardtoseeingwhattheyhadtosay.NormallyIgetthegradeandthenlookthroughtheself-assessmentandthetutor’sassessment,readthecommentsand...seewhatcommentshe’smadeontheessay.ThisndingisreinforcedbyHyland’s(2000)study.Henotedthatthemajorityofthestudentsinvolved(fromarangeofinstitutions)seemedtotry(evenifonlyoccasionally)tousecommentsforfutureassignments

      Most students read feedback and try to make something of it.

    4. Afurtherbarriertotheuseofformativefeedbackmaybethatsomestudentsincreasinglyfailtounderstandthetaken-for-grantedacademicdiscourseswhichunderpinassessmentcriteriaandthelanguageoffeedback(Hounsell,1987).AccordingtoEntwistle(1984,p.1),‘effectivecommunicationdependsonsharedassumptions,denitions,andunderstanding’.ButastudyatLancasterUniversityfoundthat50%ofthethird-yearstudentsinoneacademicdepartmentwereunclearwhattheassessmentcriteriawere(Baldwin,1993,citedinBrown&Knight,1994).Asoneofourstudentsnoted:‘Ihaven’tgotacluewhatI’massessedon’

      The extent to which students do not understand what they are being assessed on, even in higher years.

    5. hesecommentssuggestthatstudentsinourstudyperceivefeedbacknegativelyifitdoesnotprovideenoughinformationtobehelpful,ifitistooimpersonal,andifitistoogeneralandvaguetobeofanyformativeuse

      What makes feedback less effective