In article <1992Sep1.171600.8403@walter.cray.com>, sriram@pow.cray.com (Sriram Vajapeyam) writes...
>
>Several posters have pointed to the need for numerous-author-papers in some
>fields, e.g., physics. Being quite ignorant of physics research
>myself, it would be nice if someone could explain why such research cannot be published in smaller parts. Suppose a subgroup of a large project came up with an
>innovative technique of collecting some data. Obviously the subgroup can publish
>its innovative technique in a stand-alone paper? Does that subgroup merit
>authorship in a paper that reports the overall experiment (which was not
>designed by the subgroup)? Or in a paper that reports an analysis of the
>subgroup's data by someone outside the subgroup? Finally, if the subgroup's work
>is routine, but the overall experiment is innovative, the subgroup obviously
>doesn't merit authorship in a paper?
>
>Sriram
There have been some interesting ideas put forth concerning authorship
that clearly show (to me at least) that there is a very different
culture concerning what is appropriate depending on the field. While I
can't address the specific questions about the field of physics posed
above, I can comment on another experimental area: chemistry.
Depending upon the actual type of research project, multiple
authorship is the norm in experimental chemistry. In a project that
may involve the synthesis of new materials, one person may actually
make the materials (or a subset of the materials) and other
individuals may be responsible for in depth characterization of the
property of the material. This could amount to 4 or 5 authors on
a single paper. (For complex natural product syntheses, this could
amount to many more.) Could these papers be broken down into
smaller components? Well, many times the synthesis of a compound
would make no sense without the characterization and vice versa. (By
characterization, I don't necessarily mean only those techniques
needed to verify the identity of the compound, but also those which
scope out the compound's properties.) So, in general, breaking them
down into smaller components don't make a lot of sense. As a matter
of fact, many chemistry journals will actually require submitters of
articles to combine smaller papers into one large one if they are
submitted.
Another question that came up in this thread refers to the question
of authorship for the person who got the money. While many think that
this is not appropriate, remember that "gettin the money" means having
the idea that some granting agency found worthy of funding. For the
US Patent office, having the idea is the main thing that counts
toward authorship on a patent (in fact, the only thing.)
Clearly, much of the above is an oversimplification of a complex
issue. But it goes to show that you need to be careful about making
sweeping statements that don't take the practices of different fields
into consideration. In chemistry, single author papers are very very
rare except for some areas of theoretical chemistry. As a matter of
fact, single author papers in an experimental area sometimes
evoke the comment: "Can't the person get along with anybody?" 8-)
