3 ms·

> I wrote the majority of the analysis code for one of the chapters of the IPCC 5th Assessment and yet was told my name couldn't be put anywhere as I wasn't a '

> I wrote the majority of the analysis code for one of the chapters of the IPCC 5th Assessment and yet was told my name couldn't be put anywhere as I wasn't a 'scientist'. Can you be more specific about the nature of your contributions? Writing code would seem analogous to performing experiments, which alone is insufficient to warrant authorship (but should get an acknowledgment).

geebee 11y ago
You raise an important question. It is important to detail the actual contribution, since programming may be perceived as purely implementing an idea with no creative input. That said… in my career so far, I don't think I've ever seen a clean example of coding someone else's idea to spec. If you successfully take an idea from concept to working software, or if a research project requires complex software to be written, I think it is almost inevitable that the software developer will end up making a creative contribution. I'm also a bit suspicious about the justification that you can't be listed because aren't a "scientist". Of course, I don't know the details, but it seems fishy.
- raincom 11y ago
  Isn't this simialar to what experimental physics is. Just having an idea is different from implementing and testing it.
  - geebee 11y ago
    Sorry, I really don't know anything about experimental physics, so I couldn't comment. eI see software development as somewhat similar to writing a novel - someone could give you an idea, a general outline, even a fairly detailed outline, but the writer who puts it into words will almost inevitably make a meaningful creative contribution. Here's one way to think about it - if you had two different writers, or software developers, how different would the end product look?
- OopsCriticality 11y ago
  > You raise an important question. It is important to detail the actual contribution, since programming may be perceived as purely implementing an idea with no creative input. Beyond creative input, there's also the question of liability in case of academic misconduct. I'd question if someone acting in a technician role (say a programming professional) would have a full understanding of the manuscript and so could accept authorship; they may also lack the ability to check the findings of the manuscript which is also problematic. > If you successfully take an idea from concept to working software, or if a research project requires complex software to be written, I think it is almost inevitable that the software developer will end up making a creative contribution. I think we need to be careful about how we define creative contribution; there's a line to be drawn somewhere in there between a creative contribution for the sake of the software (i.e., speeding up execution time by 4x for a simulation running on a cluster) versus a creative contribution that enables the research (i.e., a novel real-time optimization algorithm for electrostimulation). The latter certainly warrants authorship, but I don't think the former does. > I'm also a bit suspicious about the justification that you can't be listed because aren't a "scientist". Of course, I don't know the details, but it seems fishy. Ditto, which is why I asked. My first thought was that it sounded like scholarly authorship was poorly explained and if so I was hoping to help out with that.
  - geebee 11y ago
    > I think we need to be careful about how we define creative contribution; there's a line to be drawn somewhere in there between a creative contribution for the sake of the software (i.e., speeding up execution time by 4x for a simulation running on a cluster) versus a creative contribution that enables the research (i.e., a novel real-time optimization algorithm for electrostimulation). The latter certainly warrants authorship, but I don't think the former does. I agree, and the distinction you have made is a big part of why I consider the notion of an academic research programmer to be an intriguing idea. I think you've identified exactly the kind of innovation that isn't really recognized or rewarded through the current academic system. Your "former" example, for example, might still require a high level of innovation (perhaps a novel way of splitting up a calculation so that it can be solved in parallel on a cluster), but this innovation isn't really part of the study itself. How do you recognize this as creative work? And even if it isn't part of the study itself, what if this "solution in parallel" was an essential part of the study (i.e.., solution times without would have been so long that it wouldn't have been possible to refine the model to the point of having usable results?)

geebee 11y ago

You raise an important question. It is important to detail the actual contribution, since programming may be perceived as purely implementing an idea with no creative input. That said… in my career so far, I don't think I've ever seen a clean example of coding someone else's idea to spec. If you successfully take an idea from concept to working software, or if a research project requires complex software to be written, I think it is almost inevitable that the software developer will end up making a creative contribution. I'm also a bit suspicious about the justification that you can't be listed because aren't a "scientist". Of course, I don't know the details, but it seems fishy.

raincom 11y ago
Isn't this simialar to what experimental physics is. Just having an idea is different from implementing and testing it.
- geebee 11y ago
  Sorry, I really don't know anything about experimental physics, so I couldn't comment. eI see software development as somewhat similar to writing a novel - someone could give you an idea, a general outline, even a fairly detailed outline, but the writer who puts it into words will almost inevitably make a meaningful creative contribution. Here's one way to think about it - if you had two different writers, or software developers, how different would the end product look?
OopsCriticality 11y ago
> You raise an important question. It is important to detail the actual contribution, since programming may be perceived as purely implementing an idea with no creative input. Beyond creative input, there's also the question of liability in case of academic misconduct. I'd question if someone acting in a technician role (say a programming professional) would have a full understanding of the manuscript and so could accept authorship; they may also lack the ability to check the findings of the manuscript which is also problematic. > If you successfully take an idea from concept to working software, or if a research project requires complex software to be written, I think it is almost inevitable that the software developer will end up making a creative contribution. I think we need to be careful about how we define creative contribution; there's a line to be drawn somewhere in there between a creative contribution for the sake of the software (i.e., speeding up execution time by 4x for a simulation running on a cluster) versus a creative contribution that enables the research (i.e., a novel real-time optimization algorithm for electrostimulation). The latter certainly warrants authorship, but I don't think the former does. > I'm also a bit suspicious about the justification that you can't be listed because aren't a "scientist". Of course, I don't know the details, but it seems fishy. Ditto, which is why I asked. My first thought was that it sounded like scholarly authorship was poorly explained and if so I was hoping to help out with that.
- geebee 11y ago
  > I think we need to be careful about how we define creative contribution; there's a line to be drawn somewhere in there between a creative contribution for the sake of the software (i.e., speeding up execution time by 4x for a simulation running on a cluster) versus a creative contribution that enables the research (i.e., a novel real-time optimization algorithm for electrostimulation). The latter certainly warrants authorship, but I don't think the former does. I agree, and the distinction you have made is a big part of why I consider the notion of an academic research programmer to be an intriguing idea. I think you've identified exactly the kind of innovation that isn't really recognized or rewarded through the current academic system. Your "former" example, for example, might still require a high level of innovation (perhaps a novel way of splitting up a calculation so that it can be solved in parallel on a cluster), but this innovation isn't really part of the study itself. How do you recognize this as creative work? And even if it isn't part of the study itself, what if this "solution in parallel" was an essential part of the study (i.e.., solution times without would have been so long that it wouldn't have been possible to refine the model to the point of having usable results?)