home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.research:1048 sci.research.careers:943
- Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
- Path: sparky!uunet!boulder!ucsu!ucsu.Colorado.EDU!pieper
- From: pieper@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (John Pieper)
- Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
- Message-ID: <1992Sep3.050411.17603@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
- Sender: news@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (USENET News System)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
- Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
- References: <1992Aug31.050420.8740@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au> <1992Sep1.054804.29704@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> <1992Sep2.080116.21356@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au>
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 05:04:11 GMT
- Lines: 64
-
- In article <1992Sep2.080116.21356@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au> wskelly@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (William Skelly) writes:
- >>
- >Most good papers IMHO have one or a few _central_ ideas behind them. Its
- >my opinion that the _authors_ of these central ideas are the only ones that
- >are relavent. I would suggest that as always it is up to the authors of
- >the paper to decide who is responsible for what.
- >
- Consider a paper in experimental physics, where the large collaborations tend
- to be, and suppose that the starting point of the investigation was
- "Let's look for Effect X". This was the idea of the group leader who will
- in all probability draft the resulting paper. Now, is the central idea of
- the _paper_ "let's look for Effect X", or "Effect X does (does not) exist, and
- here's what it looks like..."? If we opt for the latter, which I think is
- reasonable, then does not the central idea belong in part to everyone who
- helped in some substantial way to realize it?
- >
- [my authorship criteria deleted]
- >
- >Yes, I accept the wider definition of _authorship_, lets says its a matter
- >of being able to legitamately lay claim to some intellectual copywrite, wrt.
- >to the work. If (a), (b) and (c) and we agree that what we are talking
- >about is _authorship_ of the central ideas within the paper then is it still
- >possible to have 50+ authors?
- >
- Yes, IMO. Combine what I said above with the fact that in, say, high energy
- physics, a large number of people working a large number of hours is often
- needed to establish the central idea of a paper. This includes for instance
- those who built the detector electronics: probably it had to be custom
- designed, which means that the designers had to have some ideas about what
- they were looking for; they were involved in the science, and the result
- simply would not have been possible without their expertise. In the ideal
- they too are considered to have an intellectual stake in showing the existence
- (or non-existence) of Effect X.
-
- >>[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.
- >>
- >
- >Sorry, John, I must be getting philosophical (ahhhhh) I thought cultivating
- >good science (identify the key people and funding them/hiring them
- >is part of this ) was everyone's problem. At least in the "scientific
- >community" type perspective....
- >
- But as a scientific worker I don't feel it is my business to encourage the
- hiring/funding types to use poor selection methods like paper counting
- by making it seem easier. Our business is to do good science and credit
- those who do the work. Theirs is to find the best people to hire/fund. If
- paper counting isn't doing the job, then let them poke around, visit labs,
- talk to people and find out who is really doing the outstanding work. There
- are some who do this already.
-
- >Cheers,
- >Chris
-
- --
- John Pieper pieper@ucsu.colorado.edu
- Dept. of Physics
- University of Colorado at Boulder "Nothing exceeds like excess."
-