Should I accept authorship on large collaborations for which I have made little contribution?
I have just started a post-doc. So far all of my papers have had small author lists (4-5 people). I have just been invited as a co-author on several papers with hundreds of authors. The papers are pitched as community-wide collaborations: some being white papers describing a future experiment that the community plans to engage in, others being the results from first data from such experiments. My contribution, and the contribution of 99% of the authors whose names are already there, have been negligible. What are the pros and cons of agreeing to be on such a paper?
authorship collaboration mega-collaborations
asked Dec 29 '18 at 14:01
rhombidodecahedronrhombidodecahedron
482216
|
show 4 more comments
I have just started a post-doc. So far all of my papers have had small author lists (4-5 people). I have just been invited as a co-author on several papers with hundreds of authors. The papers are pitched as community-wide collaborations: some being white papers describing a future experiment that the community plans to engage in, others being the results from first data from such experiments. My contribution, and the contribution of 99% of the authors whose names are already there, have been negligible. What are the pros and cons of agreeing to be on such a paper?
authorship collaboration mega-collaborations
asked Dec 29 '18 at 14:01
rhombidodecahedronrhombidodecahedron
482216
3
Pros: papers for your CV; being a member of a collaboration; meetings. Cons (conditional): if you don't publish anything outside the collaboration, you are considered as a free-loader. Doesn't apply if you regularly publish papers not directly related to the collaboration.
– corey979
Dec 29 '18 at 14:17
3
If there are hundreds of authors, realistically how big a contribution can one author make? Be a part of it if you are in the field. The field will understand the level of contribution.
– Jon Custer
Dec 29 '18 at 17:11
1
@corey979 I'm not sure that meetings should always count as pro.
– Andreas Blass
Dec 29 '18 at 20:46
1
@smci Rather than necessarily being dodgy, this sort of arrangement is completely routine, particularly in fields like genetics, where dozens or hundreds of sites must pool data to reach the numbers required for meaningful analysis. Rather than being dodgy, such papers are often published in prestigious journals and can receive thousands of citations. Also look at large physics collaborations, like the Large Hadron Collider paper on the Higgs boson in Nature: it had 5000 authors.
– Michael MacAskill
Dec 30 '18 at 5:00
2
@smci It's extremely common in physics as well. Far from being predatory, these papers are published in the very best journals of our field, led by the top experts of our field. Surely it is field-dependent, but given that these papers often have many thousands of authors, it is a question that affects many academics.
– rhombidodecahedron
Jan 1 at 11:40
|
show 4 more comments
I have just started a post-doc. So far all of my papers have had small author lists (4-5 people). I have just been invited as a co-author on several papers with hundreds of authors. The papers are pitched as community-wide collaborations: some being white papers describing a future experiment that the community plans to engage in, others being the results from first data from such experiments. My contribution, and the contribution of 99% of the authors whose names are already there, have been negligible. What are the pros and cons of agreeing to be on such a paper?
authorship collaboration mega-collaborations
asked Dec 29 '18 at 14:01
rhombidodecahedronrhombidodecahedron
482216
I have just started a post-doc. So far all of my papers have had small author lists (4-5 people). I have just been invited as a co-author on several papers with hundreds of authors. The papers are pitched as community-wide collaborations: some being white papers describing a future experiment that the community plans to engage in, others being the results from first data from such experiments. My contribution, and the contribution of 99% of the authors whose names are already there, have been negligible. What are the pros and cons of agreeing to be on such a paper?
authorship collaboration mega-collaborations
authorship collaboration mega-collaborations
asked Dec 29 '18 at 14:01
rhombidodecahedronrhombidodecahedron
482216
asked Dec 29 '18 at 14:01
rhombidodecahedronrhombidodecahedron
482216
asked Dec 29 '18 at 14:01
rhombidodecahedronrhombidodecahedron
482216
asked Dec 29 '18 at 14:01
rhombidodecahedronrhombidodecahedron
482216
asked Dec 29 '18 at 14:01
rhombidodecahedronrhombidodecahedron
482216
482216
3
Pros: papers for your CV; being a member of a collaboration; meetings. Cons (conditional): if you don't publish anything outside the collaboration, you are considered as a free-loader. Doesn't apply if you regularly publish papers not directly related to the collaboration.
– corey979
Dec 29 '18 at 14:17
3
If there are hundreds of authors, realistically how big a contribution can one author make? Be a part of it if you are in the field. The field will understand the level of contribution.
– Jon Custer
Dec 29 '18 at 17:11
1
@corey979 I'm not sure that meetings should always count as pro.
– Andreas Blass
Dec 29 '18 at 20:46
1
@smci Rather than necessarily being dodgy, this sort of arrangement is completely routine, particularly in fields like genetics, where dozens or hundreds of sites must pool data to reach the numbers required for meaningful analysis. Rather than being dodgy, such papers are often published in prestigious journals and can receive thousands of citations. Also look at large physics collaborations, like the Large Hadron Collider paper on the Higgs boson in Nature: it had 5000 authors.
– Michael MacAskill
Dec 30 '18 at 5:00
2
@smci It's extremely common in physics as well. Far from being predatory, these papers are published in the very best journals of our field, led by the top experts of our field. Surely it is field-dependent, but given that these papers often have many thousands of authors, it is a question that affects many academics.
– rhombidodecahedron
Jan 1 at 11:40
|
show 4 more comments
3
Pros: papers for your CV; being a member of a collaboration; meetings. Cons (conditional): if you don't publish anything outside the collaboration, you are considered as a free-loader. Doesn't apply if you regularly publish papers not directly related to the collaboration.
– corey979
Dec 29 '18 at 14:17
3
If there are hundreds of authors, realistically how big a contribution can one author make? Be a part of it if you are in the field. The field will understand the level of contribution.
– Jon Custer
Dec 29 '18 at 17:11
1
@corey979 I'm not sure that meetings should always count as pro.
– Andreas Blass
Dec 29 '18 at 20:46
1
@smci Rather than necessarily being dodgy, this sort of arrangement is completely routine, particularly in fields like genetics, where dozens or hundreds of sites must pool data to reach the numbers required for meaningful analysis. Rather than being dodgy, such papers are often published in prestigious journals and can receive thousands of citations. Also look at large physics collaborations, like the Large Hadron Collider paper on the Higgs boson in Nature: it had 5000 authors.
– Michael MacAskill
Dec 30 '18 at 5:00
2
@smci It's extremely common in physics as well. Far from being predatory, these papers are published in the very best journals of our field, led by the top experts of our field. Surely it is field-dependent, but given that these papers often have many thousands of authors, it is a question that affects many academics.
– rhombidodecahedron
Jan 1 at 11:40
3
3
Pros: papers for your CV; being a member of a collaboration; meetings. Cons (conditional): if you don't publish anything outside the collaboration, you are considered as a free-loader. Doesn't apply if you regularly publish papers not directly related to the collaboration.
– corey979
Dec 29 '18 at 14:17
Pros: papers for your CV; being a member of a collaboration; meetings. Cons (conditional): if you don't publish anything outside the collaboration, you are considered as a free-loader. Doesn't apply if you regularly publish papers not directly related to the collaboration.
– corey979
Dec 29 '18 at 14:17
3
3
If there are hundreds of authors, realistically how big a contribution can one author make? Be a part of it if you are in the field. The field will understand the level of contribution.
– Jon Custer
Dec 29 '18 at 17:11
If there are hundreds of authors, realistically how big a contribution can one author make? Be a part of it if you are in the field. The field will understand the level of contribution.
– Jon Custer
Dec 29 '18 at 17:11
1
1
@corey979 I'm not sure that meetings should always count as pro.
– Andreas Blass
Dec 29 '18 at 20:46
@corey979 I'm not sure that meetings should always count as pro.
– Andreas Blass
Dec 29 '18 at 20:46
1
1
@smci Rather than necessarily being dodgy, this sort of arrangement is completely routine, particularly in fields like genetics, where dozens or hundreds of sites must pool data to reach the numbers required for meaningful analysis. Rather than being dodgy, such papers are often published in prestigious journals and can receive thousands of citations. Also look at large physics collaborations, like the Large Hadron Collider paper on the Higgs boson in Nature: it had 5000 authors.
– Michael MacAskill
Dec 30 '18 at 5:00
@smci Rather than necessarily being dodgy, this sort of arrangement is completely routine, particularly in fields like genetics, where dozens or hundreds of sites must pool data to reach the numbers required for meaningful analysis. Rather than being dodgy, such papers are often published in prestigious journals and can receive thousands of citations. Also look at large physics collaborations, like the Large Hadron Collider paper on the Higgs boson in Nature: it had 5000 authors.
– Michael MacAskill
Dec 30 '18 at 5:00
2
2
@smci It's extremely common in physics as well. Far from being predatory, these papers are published in the very best journals of our field, led by the top experts of our field. Surely it is field-dependent, but given that these papers often have many thousands of authors, it is a question that affects many academics.
– rhombidodecahedron
Jan 1 at 11:40
@smci It's extremely common in physics as well. Far from being predatory, these papers are published in the very best journals of our field, led by the top experts of our field. Surely it is field-dependent, but given that these papers often have many thousands of authors, it is a question that affects many academics.
– rhombidodecahedron
Jan 1 at 11:40
|
show 4 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
What are the pros and cons of agreeing to be on such a paper?
Pros
- Your contributions to the collaboration are formally acknowledged, both incentivizing you to continue working on it as well as putting the candle under your butt to get up to speed on anything you should be getting good at.
- Leaders in the collaboration see you listed as a contributing member, allowing your candidacy for the next round of projects that need attention by working group members. Generally, people reach out to include you going forward.
- You will be put on mailings that automatically include all researchers on the paper, keeping you up to speed as developments happen in real time.
- Your association with the project is beneficial to both your career (i.e., Look at this thing I worked on!) and the project itself (i.e., Look at this great contributor we have!).
Cons
- None. Literally none.
There is a related problem in academia called illegitimate co-authorship, or sometimes authorship inflation, but that is a problem to be tackled by policy. If this problem bothers you, find ways to contribute to the policies and incentives that systematically reinforce this behavior. Boycotting it personally will only serve to harm your career and be a drop in the bucket of the larger problem.
answered Dec 29 '18 at 19:23
user1717828user1717828
2,90421125
2
Cons: they will always be highly-cited papers which will inflate your citation count and other metrics. People will interpret your citation counts with more skepticism or a "correction factor", so your individual work may get lost in the noise.
– user71659
Dec 29 '18 at 22:29
add a comment |
This sort of thing is common in many fields and unheard of in others. I suspect that in your field there are many such papers and, among other things, they establish your connection to a group of researchers who will, in the future, become leaders in the field.
So, yes, do that. And, as your career progresses your contributions will improve and increase.
There is at least one example of a paper in which the list of authors is longer than the paper itself. Possibly in a field like biochemistry, but I don't remember the details.
answered Dec 29 '18 at 15:17
BuffyBuffy
53.8k16175268
1
Large particle physics collaborations used to have a full author list in the paper. Fortunately that did not count against the page limit in, e.g., Physical Review Letters. Now the ‘author’ of those is a ‘collaboration’, the members of which can be found online.
– Jon Custer
Dec 29 '18 at 17:10
3
@JonCuster You likely refer to the (current) champion with 5154 authors (journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803, open access). Which is set in context to a few other "hyperauthorship" papers in a nature publication (nature.com/news/…) -- equally accessible by open access.
– Buttonwood
Dec 29 '18 at 21:35
@Buttonwood - even back in the 80's there were PRLs with an author list longer than the actual paper (nominally limited to 3 pages only at that time!). Somewhere around 1988 or so they switched to listing just the 'collaboration', thereby keeping everyone to the 3 page limit.
– Jon Custer
Dec 30 '18 at 1:31
@JonCuster The varying discern of 'collaboration' and 'co-authorship' (e.g. the related drosophila paper with ~900+ contributing undergrads), which may be a problem already within much smaller groups of authors, too is a reason why I like a section "Author Contributions" in PLoS One's publications. And why the OP should seek to publish his/her results, if reasonable, separately, where his/her contributions may be more visible & influential to others. As reading body and SI of nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06185-8, the "management style" in such "enterprise-like" groups varies.
– Buttonwood
Dec 30 '18 at 2:32
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f122234%2fshould-i-accept-authorship-on-large-collaborations-for-which-i-have-made-little%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
What are the pros and cons of agreeing to be on such a paper?
Pros
- Your contributions to the collaboration are formally acknowledged, both incentivizing you to continue working on it as well as putting the candle under your butt to get up to speed on anything you should be getting good at.
- Leaders in the collaboration see you listed as a contributing member, allowing your candidacy for the next round of projects that need attention by working group members. Generally, people reach out to include you going forward.
- You will be put on mailings that automatically include all researchers on the paper, keeping you up to speed as developments happen in real time.
- Your association with the project is beneficial to both your career (i.e., Look at this thing I worked on!) and the project itself (i.e., Look at this great contributor we have!).
Cons
- None. Literally none.
There is a related problem in academia called illegitimate co-authorship, or sometimes authorship inflation, but that is a problem to be tackled by policy. If this problem bothers you, find ways to contribute to the policies and incentives that systematically reinforce this behavior. Boycotting it personally will only serve to harm your career and be a drop in the bucket of the larger problem.
answered Dec 29 '18 at 19:23
user1717828user1717828
2,90421125
2
Cons: they will always be highly-cited papers which will inflate your citation count and other metrics. People will interpret your citation counts with more skepticism or a "correction factor", so your individual work may get lost in the noise.
– user71659
Dec 29 '18 at 22:29
add a comment |
What are the pros and cons of agreeing to be on such a paper?
Pros
- Your contributions to the collaboration are formally acknowledged, both incentivizing you to continue working on it as well as putting the candle under your butt to get up to speed on anything you should be getting good at.
- Leaders in the collaboration see you listed as a contributing member, allowing your candidacy for the next round of projects that need attention by working group members. Generally, people reach out to include you going forward.
- You will be put on mailings that automatically include all researchers on the paper, keeping you up to speed as developments happen in real time.
- Your association with the project is beneficial to both your career (i.e., Look at this thing I worked on!) and the project itself (i.e., Look at this great contributor we have!).
Cons
- None. Literally none.
There is a related problem in academia called illegitimate co-authorship, or sometimes authorship inflation, but that is a problem to be tackled by policy. If this problem bothers you, find ways to contribute to the policies and incentives that systematically reinforce this behavior. Boycotting it personally will only serve to harm your career and be a drop in the bucket of the larger problem.
answered Dec 29 '18 at 19:23
user1717828user1717828
2,90421125
2
Cons: they will always be highly-cited papers which will inflate your citation count and other metrics. People will interpret your citation counts with more skepticism or a "correction factor", so your individual work may get lost in the noise.
– user71659
Dec 29 '18 at 22:29
add a comment |
What are the pros and cons of agreeing to be on such a paper?
Pros
- Your contributions to the collaboration are formally acknowledged, both incentivizing you to continue working on it as well as putting the candle under your butt to get up to speed on anything you should be getting good at.
- Leaders in the collaboration see you listed as a contributing member, allowing your candidacy for the next round of projects that need attention by working group members. Generally, people reach out to include you going forward.
- You will be put on mailings that automatically include all researchers on the paper, keeping you up to speed as developments happen in real time.
- Your association with the project is beneficial to both your career (i.e., Look at this thing I worked on!) and the project itself (i.e., Look at this great contributor we have!).
Cons
- None. Literally none.
There is a related problem in academia called illegitimate co-authorship, or sometimes authorship inflation, but that is a problem to be tackled by policy. If this problem bothers you, find ways to contribute to the policies and incentives that systematically reinforce this behavior. Boycotting it personally will only serve to harm your career and be a drop in the bucket of the larger problem.
answered Dec 29 '18 at 19:23
user1717828user1717828
2,90421125
What are the pros and cons of agreeing to be on such a paper?
Pros
- Your contributions to the collaboration are formally acknowledged, both incentivizing you to continue working on it as well as putting the candle under your butt to get up to speed on anything you should be getting good at.
- Leaders in the collaboration see you listed as a contributing member, allowing your candidacy for the next round of projects that need attention by working group members. Generally, people reach out to include you going forward.
- You will be put on mailings that automatically include all researchers on the paper, keeping you up to speed as developments happen in real time.
- Your association with the project is beneficial to both your career (i.e., Look at this thing I worked on!) and the project itself (i.e., Look at this great contributor we have!).
Cons
- None. Literally none.
There is a related problem in academia called illegitimate co-authorship, or sometimes authorship inflation, but that is a problem to be tackled by policy. If this problem bothers you, find ways to contribute to the policies and incentives that systematically reinforce this behavior. Boycotting it personally will only serve to harm your career and be a drop in the bucket of the larger problem.
answered Dec 29 '18 at 19:23
user1717828user1717828
2,90421125
answered Dec 29 '18 at 19:23
user1717828user1717828
2,90421125
answered Dec 29 '18 at 19:23
user1717828user1717828
2,90421125
answered Dec 29 '18 at 19:23
user1717828user1717828
2,90421125
2,90421125
2
Cons: they will always be highly-cited papers which will inflate your citation count and other metrics. People will interpret your citation counts with more skepticism or a "correction factor", so your individual work may get lost in the noise.
– user71659
Dec 29 '18 at 22:29
add a comment |
2
Cons: they will always be highly-cited papers which will inflate your citation count and other metrics. People will interpret your citation counts with more skepticism or a "correction factor", so your individual work may get lost in the noise.
– user71659
Dec 29 '18 at 22:29
2
2
Cons: they will always be highly-cited papers which will inflate your citation count and other metrics. People will interpret your citation counts with more skepticism or a "correction factor", so your individual work may get lost in the noise.
– user71659
Dec 29 '18 at 22:29
Cons: they will always be highly-cited papers which will inflate your citation count and other metrics. People will interpret your citation counts with more skepticism or a "correction factor", so your individual work may get lost in the noise.
– user71659
Dec 29 '18 at 22:29
add a comment |
This sort of thing is common in many fields and unheard of in others. I suspect that in your field there are many such papers and, among other things, they establish your connection to a group of researchers who will, in the future, become leaders in the field.
So, yes, do that. And, as your career progresses your contributions will improve and increase.
There is at least one example of a paper in which the list of authors is longer than the paper itself. Possibly in a field like biochemistry, but I don't remember the details.
answered Dec 29 '18 at 15:17
BuffyBuffy
53.8k16175268
1
Large particle physics collaborations used to have a full author list in the paper. Fortunately that did not count against the page limit in, e.g., Physical Review Letters. Now the ‘author’ of those is a ‘collaboration’, the members of which can be found online.
– Jon Custer
Dec 29 '18 at 17:10
3
@JonCuster You likely refer to the (current) champion with 5154 authors (journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803, open access). Which is set in context to a few other "hyperauthorship" papers in a nature publication (nature.com/news/…) -- equally accessible by open access.
– Buttonwood
Dec 29 '18 at 21:35
@Buttonwood - even back in the 80's there were PRLs with an author list longer than the actual paper (nominally limited to 3 pages only at that time!). Somewhere around 1988 or so they switched to listing just the 'collaboration', thereby keeping everyone to the 3 page limit.
– Jon Custer
Dec 30 '18 at 1:31
@JonCuster The varying discern of 'collaboration' and 'co-authorship' (e.g. the related drosophila paper with ~900+ contributing undergrads), which may be a problem already within much smaller groups of authors, too is a reason why I like a section "Author Contributions" in PLoS One's publications. And why the OP should seek to publish his/her results, if reasonable, separately, where his/her contributions may be more visible & influential to others. As reading body and SI of nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06185-8, the "management style" in such "enterprise-like" groups varies.
– Buttonwood
Dec 30 '18 at 2:32
add a comment |
This sort of thing is common in many fields and unheard of in others. I suspect that in your field there are many such papers and, among other things, they establish your connection to a group of researchers who will, in the future, become leaders in the field.
So, yes, do that. And, as your career progresses your contributions will improve and increase.
There is at least one example of a paper in which the list of authors is longer than the paper itself. Possibly in a field like biochemistry, but I don't remember the details.
answered Dec 29 '18 at 15:17
BuffyBuffy
53.8k16175268
1
Large particle physics collaborations used to have a full author list in the paper. Fortunately that did not count against the page limit in, e.g., Physical Review Letters. Now the ‘author’ of those is a ‘collaboration’, the members of which can be found online.
– Jon Custer
Dec 29 '18 at 17:10
3
@JonCuster You likely refer to the (current) champion with 5154 authors (journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803, open access). Which is set in context to a few other "hyperauthorship" papers in a nature publication (nature.com/news/…) -- equally accessible by open access.
– Buttonwood
Dec 29 '18 at 21:35
@Buttonwood - even back in the 80's there were PRLs with an author list longer than the actual paper (nominally limited to 3 pages only at that time!). Somewhere around 1988 or so they switched to listing just the 'collaboration', thereby keeping everyone to the 3 page limit.
– Jon Custer
Dec 30 '18 at 1:31
@JonCuster The varying discern of 'collaboration' and 'co-authorship' (e.g. the related drosophila paper with ~900+ contributing undergrads), which may be a problem already within much smaller groups of authors, too is a reason why I like a section "Author Contributions" in PLoS One's publications. And why the OP should seek to publish his/her results, if reasonable, separately, where his/her contributions may be more visible & influential to others. As reading body and SI of nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06185-8, the "management style" in such "enterprise-like" groups varies.
– Buttonwood
Dec 30 '18 at 2:32
add a comment |
This sort of thing is common in many fields and unheard of in others. I suspect that in your field there are many such papers and, among other things, they establish your connection to a group of researchers who will, in the future, become leaders in the field.
So, yes, do that. And, as your career progresses your contributions will improve and increase.
There is at least one example of a paper in which the list of authors is longer than the paper itself. Possibly in a field like biochemistry, but I don't remember the details.
answered Dec 29 '18 at 15:17
BuffyBuffy
53.8k16175268
This sort of thing is common in many fields and unheard of in others. I suspect that in your field there are many such papers and, among other things, they establish your connection to a group of researchers who will, in the future, become leaders in the field.
So, yes, do that. And, as your career progresses your contributions will improve and increase.
There is at least one example of a paper in which the list of authors is longer than the paper itself. Possibly in a field like biochemistry, but I don't remember the details.
answered Dec 29 '18 at 15:17
BuffyBuffy
53.8k16175268
answered Dec 29 '18 at 15:17
BuffyBuffy
53.8k16175268
answered Dec 29 '18 at 15:17
BuffyBuffy
53.8k16175268
answered Dec 29 '18 at 15:17
BuffyBuffy
53.8k16175268
53.8k16175268
1
Large particle physics collaborations used to have a full author list in the paper. Fortunately that did not count against the page limit in, e.g., Physical Review Letters. Now the ‘author’ of those is a ‘collaboration’, the members of which can be found online.
– Jon Custer
Dec 29 '18 at 17:10
3
@JonCuster You likely refer to the (current) champion with 5154 authors (journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803, open access). Which is set in context to a few other "hyperauthorship" papers in a nature publication (nature.com/news/…) -- equally accessible by open access.
– Buttonwood
Dec 29 '18 at 21:35
@Buttonwood - even back in the 80's there were PRLs with an author list longer than the actual paper (nominally limited to 3 pages only at that time!). Somewhere around 1988 or so they switched to listing just the 'collaboration', thereby keeping everyone to the 3 page limit.
– Jon Custer
Dec 30 '18 at 1:31
@JonCuster The varying discern of 'collaboration' and 'co-authorship' (e.g. the related drosophila paper with ~900+ contributing undergrads), which may be a problem already within much smaller groups of authors, too is a reason why I like a section "Author Contributions" in PLoS One's publications. And why the OP should seek to publish his/her results, if reasonable, separately, where his/her contributions may be more visible & influential to others. As reading body and SI of nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06185-8, the "management style" in such "enterprise-like" groups varies.
– Buttonwood
Dec 30 '18 at 2:32
add a comment |
1
Large particle physics collaborations used to have a full author list in the paper. Fortunately that did not count against the page limit in, e.g., Physical Review Letters. Now the ‘author’ of those is a ‘collaboration’, the members of which can be found online.
– Jon Custer
Dec 29 '18 at 17:10
3
@JonCuster You likely refer to the (current) champion with 5154 authors (journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803, open access). Which is set in context to a few other "hyperauthorship" papers in a nature publication (nature.com/news/…) -- equally accessible by open access.
– Buttonwood
Dec 29 '18 at 21:35
@Buttonwood - even back in the 80's there were PRLs with an author list longer than the actual paper (nominally limited to 3 pages only at that time!). Somewhere around 1988 or so they switched to listing just the 'collaboration', thereby keeping everyone to the 3 page limit.
– Jon Custer
Dec 30 '18 at 1:31
@JonCuster The varying discern of 'collaboration' and 'co-authorship' (e.g. the related drosophila paper with ~900+ contributing undergrads), which may be a problem already within much smaller groups of authors, too is a reason why I like a section "Author Contributions" in PLoS One's publications. And why the OP should seek to publish his/her results, if reasonable, separately, where his/her contributions may be more visible & influential to others. As reading body and SI of nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06185-8, the "management style" in such "enterprise-like" groups varies.
– Buttonwood
Dec 30 '18 at 2:32
1
1
Large particle physics collaborations used to have a full author list in the paper. Fortunately that did not count against the page limit in, e.g., Physical Review Letters. Now the ‘author’ of those is a ‘collaboration’, the members of which can be found online.
– Jon Custer
Dec 29 '18 at 17:10
Large particle physics collaborations used to have a full author list in the paper. Fortunately that did not count against the page limit in, e.g., Physical Review Letters. Now the ‘author’ of those is a ‘collaboration’, the members of which can be found online.
– Jon Custer
Dec 29 '18 at 17:10
3
3
@JonCuster You likely refer to the (current) champion with 5154 authors (journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803, open access). Which is set in context to a few other "hyperauthorship" papers in a nature publication (nature.com/news/…) -- equally accessible by open access.
– Buttonwood
Dec 29 '18 at 21:35
@JonCuster You likely refer to the (current) champion with 5154 authors (journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803, open access). Which is set in context to a few other "hyperauthorship" papers in a nature publication (nature.com/news/…) -- equally accessible by open access.
– Buttonwood
Dec 29 '18 at 21:35
@Buttonwood - even back in the 80's there were PRLs with an author list longer than the actual paper (nominally limited to 3 pages only at that time!). Somewhere around 1988 or so they switched to listing just the 'collaboration', thereby keeping everyone to the 3 page limit.
– Jon Custer
Dec 30 '18 at 1:31
@Buttonwood - even back in the 80's there were PRLs with an author list longer than the actual paper (nominally limited to 3 pages only at that time!). Somewhere around 1988 or so they switched to listing just the 'collaboration', thereby keeping everyone to the 3 page limit.
– Jon Custer
Dec 30 '18 at 1:31
@JonCuster The varying discern of 'collaboration' and 'co-authorship' (e.g. the related drosophila paper with ~900+ contributing undergrads), which may be a problem already within much smaller groups of authors, too is a reason why I like a section "Author Contributions" in PLoS One's publications. And why the OP should seek to publish his/her results, if reasonable, separately, where his/her contributions may be more visible & influential to others. As reading body and SI of nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06185-8, the "management style" in such "enterprise-like" groups varies.
– Buttonwood
Dec 30 '18 at 2:32
@JonCuster The varying discern of 'collaboration' and 'co-authorship' (e.g. the related drosophila paper with ~900+ contributing undergrads), which may be a problem already within much smaller groups of authors, too is a reason why I like a section "Author Contributions" in PLoS One's publications. And why the OP should seek to publish his/her results, if reasonable, separately, where his/her contributions may be more visible & influential to others. As reading body and SI of nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06185-8, the "management style" in such "enterprise-like" groups varies.
– Buttonwood
Dec 30 '18 at 2:32
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f122234%2fshould-i-accept-authorship-on-large-collaborations-for-which-i-have-made-little%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
Pros: papers for your CV; being a member of a collaboration; meetings. Cons (conditional): if you don't publish anything outside the collaboration, you are considered as a free-loader. Doesn't apply if you regularly publish papers not directly related to the collaboration.
– corey979
Dec 29 '18 at 14:17
3
If there are hundreds of authors, realistically how big a contribution can one author make? Be a part of it if you are in the field. The field will understand the level of contribution.
– Jon Custer
Dec 29 '18 at 17:11
1
@corey979 I'm not sure that meetings should always count as pro.
– Andreas Blass
Dec 29 '18 at 20:46
1
@smci Rather than necessarily being dodgy, this sort of arrangement is completely routine, particularly in fields like genetics, where dozens or hundreds of sites must pool data to reach the numbers required for meaningful analysis. Rather than being dodgy, such papers are often published in prestigious journals and can receive thousands of citations. Also look at large physics collaborations, like the Large Hadron Collider paper on the Higgs boson in Nature: it had 5000 authors.
– Michael MacAskill
Dec 30 '18 at 5:00
2
@smci It's extremely common in physics as well. Far from being predatory, these papers are published in the very best journals of our field, led by the top experts of our field. Surely it is field-dependent, but given that these papers often have many thousands of authors, it is a question that affects many academics.
– rhombidodecahedron
Jan 1 at 11:40