Sweet revenge against superbugs

I was like, holy cow that's a lot of contributors, but after reading the contributions section at the end, it really seemed like all those people were required to carry out a project like this. Is this typical for these types of studies?

Re: Sweet revenge against superbugs

#5

Post by tstactplsignore » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 8:23 PM UTC

marktangotango wrote: post #4

pmalynin wrote: post #2

http://sci-hub.org/10.1038/ncomms8719

I was like, holy cow that's a lot of contributors, but after reading the contributions section at the end, it really seemed like all those people were required to carry out a project like this. Is this typical for these types of studies?

I'd say that number is about average for most important biology papers. There were ~5-10 life sciences papers in Nature this July with more authors than that, including this large list: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7561/full/nature1...

[1] http://www.nature.com/nature/research/biological-sciences.ht...

Re: Sweet revenge against superbugs

#6

Post by tiagomartins » Sat, Aug 01, 2015, 2:30 PM UTC

Joky wrote: post #3

Am I the only one lured here by the title thinking about software bug? ;)

I was also tricked by the naming, thinking it was a software bug. That's what makes sense.