tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4968787219619380438.post5323318734800499960..comments2023-09-21T04:02:29.457-04:00Comments on Skeptical Scalpel: Author! Author!Skeptical Scalpelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13206922456661320751noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4968787219619380438.post-9838223169009507902015-08-10T11:30:17.620-04:002015-08-10T11:30:17.620-04:00Anon, you may be right about your field. I still t...Anon, you may be right about your field. I still think in medicine it's about the proliferation of journals and the pressure on academic physicians to publish.Skeptical Scalpelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13206922456661320751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4968787219619380438.post-59812210059943287822015-08-10T11:25:36.415-04:002015-08-10T11:25:36.415-04:00I can't speak for surgical publications as I c...I can't speak for surgical publications as I come from biochemistry/neurobiology basic research. <br />I believe that part of the relative explosion of authors that has come about in the past few years is the need for wide coverage of a topic. It is no longer enough to say "we bred some mice with a mutation in gene X and we saw Y." Now, journals want the mouse results to be confirmed in a second model and structural hypotheses to be backed up by electron microscopy. If you're part of a smaller lab, you need to outsource the additional models and techniques; this outsourcing greatly increases the number of authors.<br />The NIH also seems to be much more interested in collaborative grants at the moment, and longer author lists demonstrates one's ability to "play well with others" so to speak.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4968787219619380438.post-81061894264075872102014-02-12T13:06:44.129-05:002014-02-12T13:06:44.129-05:00Yes. I don't think they can really be consider...Yes. I don't think they can really be considered authors even if they contributed more than many "authors" of other papers.Skeptical Scalpelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13206922456661320751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4968787219619380438.post-59499597546040051312014-02-11T20:48:46.034-05:002014-02-11T20:48:46.034-05:00The game players didn't get de jure authorship...The game players didn't get de jure authorship, but just a collective mention in the authorship line and in an acknowledgement in the body of the paper.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4968787219619380438.post-1945631096658121042014-02-10T09:05:06.346-05:002014-02-10T09:05:06.346-05:00Thank you for sharing your story. I guess you are ...Thank you for sharing your story. I guess you are ahead since you actually did make a meaningful contribution to the paper. <br /><br />I confess I'm a bit conflicted though. Does being one of 37,000 people who played the game really elevate one to the status of an author? Skeptical Scalpelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13206922456661320751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4968787219619380438.post-13561071492179129352014-02-10T06:30:12.064-05:002014-02-10T06:30:12.064-05:00Hey, I'm one of the 37,000! In this paper the ...Hey, I'm one of the 37,000! In this paper the researchers crowdsourced the determination of spatial structures for a bunch of proteins. They created a downloadable game where you had to tweak a protein and improve a format score. The idea was that maybe humans could do it better than the machines that try millions of tweaks by brute force. The paper was published in Nature and everyone who played got "authorship" (ie, authors are "A, B, C and the 37,000+ people who played the game")<br /><br />As I did play the game (it was quite fun) and even got the best structure for one of the proteins, I guess I'm still ahead of some tit-for-tat "authors" out there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4968787219619380438.post-5201173187201068612014-02-09T14:51:14.544-05:002014-02-09T14:51:14.544-05:00Thanks for the funny link.Thanks for the funny link.Skeptical Scalpelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13206922456661320751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4968787219619380438.post-65141099749769637182014-02-09T07:30:16.806-05:002014-02-09T07:30:16.806-05:00I note you did not reference "The Effects of ...I note you did not reference "The Effects of Peanut Butter on the Rotation of the Earth"<br />http://www.improbable.com/airchives/classical/articles/peanut_butter_rotation.html<br />(I believe this was originally published in 1993 but is now Copyright 2003 Annals of Improbable Research). I believe this citation help reinforces your point.<br />Best Regards,<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4968787219619380438.post-49175656939292365172014-02-08T15:20:07.595-05:002014-02-08T15:20:07.595-05:00Anon 1, I agree it's a "tit-for-tat"...Anon 1, I agree it's a "tit-for-tat" mentality at least in part.<br /><br />Anon 2, you might be right, but what makes you think the peer review is any better in the newer journals? It might be worse.<br /><br />Josh, very interesting. I followed the link. I'm not sure it really is the winner because the 37,000 co-authors are not named anywhere (at least that I could find). Thanks for the tip though. I'll leave it to the readers to decide.<br />Skeptical Scalpelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13206922456661320751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4968787219619380438.post-43403880489013893402014-02-08T13:29:22.777-05:002014-02-08T13:29:22.777-05:0037,000 on a paper: http://www.the-scientist.com/?...37,000 on a paper: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39020/title/Gamers-Solve-RNA-Structures/Josh Nicholsonhttp://thewinnower.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4968787219619380438.post-92107273424061728562014-02-08T11:49:34.953-05:002014-02-08T11:49:34.953-05:00Is it not possible that new journals are appearing...Is it not possible that new journals are appearing every day because the scientific community is simply tired of the "establishment" and the fake or flawed peer review that takes place in so-called impact factor journals, especially of the top four science publishers? Many would say that diversity is important for survival. 10 years ago, this would have been shot down as total nonsense in science publishing. Nowadays, with such high volatility, alternatives might not be such a bad idea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4968787219619380438.post-3552368945443572452014-02-08T03:47:05.098-05:002014-02-08T03:47:05.098-05:00Author-number inflation is at least partly driven ...Author-number inflation is at least partly driven by tit for tat mentality: you put me on your paper, I put you on mine. We all know of papers, where coauthors did not even bother to read papers with their name on it.<br />This trend will continue as long as most accepted citation metrics keep not penalizing for author number.<br />For example, Google Scholar does not care whether you are a solitary author, lead author, or just one of 98 coauthors - all papers with your name on it count equally toward your citation count.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com