[deleted]
Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
11–20 of 37 posts
Re: Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
#12[deleted]
Re: Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
#13> 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, "!")) But who picked the seed, Anne? And how do we know they didn’t have their thumb on the scale?
I was wondering if this number was somehow significant in the paper, but it doesn't seem to be: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/251524591877096...
Re: Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
#14What surprising timing! I have started making a bookmarks page on my personal site and soon realised that any papers I linked to would need to deal with this. I couldn’t find a reliable answer so decided I would simply have authors listed in exactly the same order as found on the paper/site/wherever.
Re: Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
#15The 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
Why does it contain half-redacted words?
Re: Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
#16Kind 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 exactly how most professors and managers do it. Unless they themselves do the majority of the writing they are last by convention so it actually has some prestige to be last.
What you don't want is second-to-last on a paper w 4 or more authors. That's the worst.
Re: Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
#17> 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, "!")) But who picked the seed, Anne? And how do we know they didn’t have their thumb on the scale?
Maybe we can solve this with blockchain?
Re: Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
#18> 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, "!")) But who picked the seed, Anne? And how do we know they didn’t have their thumb on the scale?
My guess is that each simultaneously picked a number, one for numerator and one for denominator.
Re: Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
#19Another idea is to only co-author with people with your last name, as in
"A Few Goodmen: Surname-Sharing Economist Coauthors" by Allen C. Goodman, Joshua Goodman, Lucas Goodman, and Sarena Goodman:
> We explore the phenomenon of coauthorship by economists who share a surname. Prior research has included at most three economist coauthors who share a surname. Ours is the first paper to have four economist coauthors who share a surname, as well as the first where such coauthors are unrelated by marriage, blood or current campus.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/joshuagoodman/files/goodma...
Re: Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
#20The 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
Why does it contain half-redacted words?
They're not redacted. If you zoom in you'll just see a very large number of stacked names which is ironic (I thought the same for a second)