NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/sci/research/1024

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-31 | 3.7 KB

Xref: sparky sci.research:1024 sci.research.careers:908
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!agate!boulder!ucsu!ucsu.Colorado.EDU!pieper
From: [e-mail] (John Pieper)
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 05:48:04 GMT
Lines: 68

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Skelly) writes:
>
>Someone just recently metioned the physics field where
>as many as 50 "authors" maybe more will be listed.  He
>goes on to say this is ok, even if some (most?) have
>not even read the paper!!! Ugh.  Some one else has
>suggested that its not about "honesty" that we are
>dealing with custom and that in each field their are
>different customs and as long as everyone knows the
>rules its AOK.  Someone else even went so far as to
>suggest that this was all irrelavent because what
>matters is the content not the names listed on the
>front.
>
>Lets take these one at a time:
>
>1. "author" -- "authorship"
>      one who writes --- he/she who has written. Period.
>      everyone one else should be acknowledged but if they
>       didn't help _write_ the paper, they are not
>       entitled to _authorship_
>

Fortunately or not, scientific "authorship" has developed into a different
concept from literary "authorship".  Research projects have grown in size
and membership, especially in physics, and authorship has become the way
of having one's work credited.  After all, who is to say whose contribution
_within a collaboration_ is most important and whose is to be relegated
to an acknowledgement?

>2. "honesty" -- authorship of an academic paper, is the same
>    as signing a bank cheque --- its your reputation that goes
>    on the line, you are saying that you stand by your commitment
>    --- wrt. to the cheque it means you will honour your debt,
>    wrt. to authorship it means that this is YOUR work, that
>    you have not plagerised or perpetrated ANY dishonesties in
>    the research represented under YOUR authorship.  For me,
>    this is deadly serious.  Not only is itPaper dishonest to put
>    your name on a paper that you did not help write, its bloody
>    stupid, it basically says to anyone who knows, that MY
>    reputation really isn't worth a whole hell of a lot.
>
It is not dishonest to put one's name on a scientific paper which one did
not physically write if one (a) contributed substantially to the work
described therein, (b) has read it and made any necessary corrections
relevant to one's own contribution, and (c) understands the conclusions
and is willing to stand by them.  That is the name of the game--share the
credit, share the blame if the results turn out to be wrong.  If actual
dishonesty is involved, the source must be uncovered and the guilty
separated from the innocent, but that is the case regardless of what the
author line reads.

[deleted]
>   "all aboard" authorships are making it more and more difficult
>   to accurately assess what you have done!  People doing the
>   hiring realise that there is a problem. Paper counting is NOT
>   always delivering them the best people.

Agreed--but finding a better method for finding the best people is _their_
problem.

>chris


--
John Pieper                         [e-mail]
Dept. of Physics
University of Colorado at Boulder  "Nothing exceeds like excess."