> 3. I recently read a genome-wide association study (GWAS) with over 400 authors (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28714976 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub

> 3. I recently read a genome-wide association study (GWAS) with over 400 authors (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28714976 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28714976). I think 400 authors is way above median, but even relatively tame GWAS typically require a group effort just for data QC. Here, somehow these two guys did it all themselves. This is from Framingham. The QC was all done well before, so not having 400 authors is no more suspicious than a one or two-author paper using UKBB data from 500k people - the point of having a long-running systematic study such as Framingham or UKBB or the twin registries is, among other things, to amortize the cost of data collection and preparation, instead of expecting every paper to collect an entire new sample and build a pipeline and analyze it.