Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
dynamicecology.wordpress.com
Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
1–10 of 37 posts
Re: Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
#2TFA touches on this, but one thing I initially found surprising is how few people understand different domains have different best practices around authorship order. It does make sense, people are typically not as involved in other domains and not exposed to those papers. But I do still find it surprising how different the practices can be overall.
Re: Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
#3TFA touches on this, but one thing I initially found surprising is how few people understand different domains have different best practices around authorship order. It does make sense, people are typically not as involved in other domains and not exposed to those papers. But I do still find it surprising how different the practices can be overall.
The American Mathematical Society has a statement basically saying “in math, authorship order is alphabetical” that people going up for tenure can put in their files, in case people involved in the decision come from other disciplines which have other conventions.
https://www.ams.org/learning-careers/leaders/CultureStatemen...
Re: Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
#4The wordpress post is old, and so the author didn't have the chance to include my favorite method:
Every Author as First Author: (pdf) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01393
Re: Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
#5Kind of reminds me of the system we used in my band in the 90s: The person who brought the initial idea to the band gets to be first. After that, it was based on importance of contributions as determined by myself as the benign dictator, but if I contributed, my name always came last (unless I was the one who brought the idea to the band).
Re: Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
#6Kind of reminds me of the system we used in my band in the 90s: The person who brought the initial idea to the band gets to be first. After that, it was based on importance of contributions as determined by myself as the benign dictator, but if I contributed, my name always came last (unless I was the one who brought the idea to the band).
This is the method I use at work, feels right, puts the team first.
Re: Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
#7The wordpress post is old, and so the author didn't have the chance to include my favorite method: Every Author as First Author: (pdf) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01393
This is biased in favor of authors with long names (which they mention at the beginning of their Future Work section)
Re: Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
#8TFA touches on this, but one thing I initially found surprising is how few people understand different domains have different best practices around authorship order. It does make sense, people are typically not as involved in other domains and not exposed to those papers. But I do still find it surprising how different the practices can be overall.
The American Mathematical Society has a statement basically saying “in math, authorship order is alphabetical” that people going up for tenure can put in their files, in case people involved in the decision come from other disciplines which have other conventions. https://www.ams.org/learning-careers/leaders/CultureStatemen...
Someone should study whether that statement is disproportionately included by authors with names later on in the alphabet.
Re: Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
#9> the order of their authorship was determined by executing the following commands in R:
set.seed (7998976/5271)
x ‹- sample (c("Anne", "Peder"), 1)
print (paste ("The winner is", x, "!"))
Re: Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
#10The wordpress post is old, and so the author didn't have the chance to include my favorite method: Every Author as First Author: (pdf) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01393
The only shortcoming is that they currently use opacity even if there is only one author. In that case, it would seem natural to render the text as-is.