NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/sci/research/1045

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-02 | 3.6 KB

Xref: sparky sci.research:1045 sci.research.careers:938
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!sunb!laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au!wskelly
From: [e-mail] (William Skelly)
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Macquarie University News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au
Organization: Macquarie University, Australia.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 07:45:45 GMT
Lines: 64

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sridhara Dasu) writes:
>    Dishonest! In your view. It is truly dishonest if a small fraction
>of the collaboration takes over the hard work of others! You have to look
>at the complete picture. It is precisely my point that the people doing
>hiring should not go by "author" lists, but by other means when multiple
>"authors" are present. The primary purpose of the papers is NOT to allow for
>selection of job applicants, but is to propagate knowledge. The primary
>purpose of "authors" is for accountability as discussed earlier.
>
>>     Another reason that the "authorship" is important is much less
>>      pragmatic for you and I.  Its called history.  Perhaps there is
>>      a historian or two following this group who could shed some light
>>      on how difficult it will be to sort out this "mess" in a hundred
>>      years time?  Perhaps history is unimportant?
>
>    History needs to know who all contributed to the work. Not just
>who "wrote" the paper.

Before I reply let me appologise for butchering this during editing.
Sridhara is responding here to one of my previous (and perhaps extreme)
posts regarding authorship.

I disagree that history gives a damn about all the ants (ants = 90% of
us scientists who plod along throughout our careers incrementally adding
to our knowlege, but never making a brilliant discovery or breakthrough)!
History IMHO may briefly reflect upon the work of us ants (we can hope)
but will only devote real page space to the brilliant breakthroughs.


>
>
>
>>   I put it to those who don't have a problem with "honorary
>>   authorship" (an ironic term if there ever was one) that the "all
>>   abord syndrome" is as detrimental to good science as is the
>>   "you site me --- I'll site you" game that also gets played a
>>   fair bit.  It can be a bloody mess if you have to sort either
>>   out.
>
>    You should understand the nature of multi-"author" work before
>inflicting your morals on them.
>
>                - Sridhara Dasu

Before you go getting offended...I have put to you that "the all
aboard" syndrome is detrimental to good science as is the you
cite (not site as before ;-()) me thing and I'll return the favour
thing...  I stick with that until you come up with a good reason
for it to be otherwise.

I do (I believe) understand the "nature" of multi-authorship, I was
not in anyway denigrating this.  I stated (please step on me if my post
was incomprehensible...aside from spelling) that I didn't believe
you could have 50+ authors.  I still don't.

One of your physics collegues has just posted a response to the
effect that...O.K. lets call them contributors! Fine lets do then!
But they are not the authors of the paper.  Even in the wider
sense of authorship...that of the central idea that the paper is
trying to convey.  If anyone knows of a paper in which the
itellectual copywrite for the central idea behind the paper rests
with 50+ people, please send me the reference!

Chris