5 ms·

> equal contribution, order determined by a rock-paper-scissors tournament. I hope to see more and more bizarre ways of picking the author order on these kind

> equal contribution, order determined by a rock-paper-scissors tournament. I hope to see more and more bizarre ways of picking the author order on these kind of papers.

codetrotter 3y ago
I want to see one where it says > equal contribution, three of the authors are the real authors, the other seven names were generated by an AI
- TOMDM 3y ago
  Why?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - codetrotter 3y ago
    Just for fun
- lucubratory 3y ago
  Already been done and already been banned. Journals don't like it any more than any other publication.
qrian 3y ago
I've seen one determined by a harry potter quiz. > Order of authorship was determined by the top score each person received across all three levels of the official Pottermore “Back to Hogwarts Quiz.” For information about the exact scores (and houses), please contact the authors. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/spc3.12425 https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/spc3...
_Nat_ 3y ago
It's nice that they explicitly state the meaning of the author-order. For a while, [StackExchange.Academia](https://academia.stackexchange.com/ https://academia.stackexchange.com/) (like StackOverflow, but for questions about academic life) seemed to be getting a lot of questions about the meaning of author-order, where it seemed to vary across fields and even then be prone to subjective interpretation based on unstated rules. It was a very silly situation, made sillier by the fact that those doing it seemed to be under the misimpression that it was the serious, respectable way of conveying authors' relative contributions. Of course, their particular approach to doing this does leave open one potential avenue for confusion. In particular, are they doing this because: 1. they're researchers who want to stress that the name-ordering is arbitrary in a humorous way; or 2. they're hardcore rock-paper-scissors competitors who were primarily motivated by a desire to better advertise the results of their tournament? (Though, in the spirit of being clear-and-explicit, I'm just kidding about that last part!)

> equal contribution, order determined by a rock-paper-scissors tournament. I hope to see more and more bizarre ways of picking the author order on these kind of papers.

codetrotter 3y ago

I want to see one where it says > equal contribution, three of the authors are the real authors, the other seven names were generated by an AI

TOMDM 3y ago
Why?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- codetrotter 3y ago
  Just for fun
lucubratory 3y ago
Already been done and already been banned. Journals don't like it any more than any other publication.

qrian 3y ago

I've seen one determined by a harry potter quiz. > Order of authorship was determined by the top score each person received across all three levels of the official Pottermore “Back to Hogwarts Quiz.” For information about the exact scores (and houses), please contact the authors. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/spc3.12425 https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/spc3...

_Nat_ 3y ago

It's nice that they explicitly state the meaning of the author-order. For a while, [StackExchange.Academia](https://academia.stackexchange.com/ https://academia.stackexchange.com/) (like StackOverflow, but for questions about academic life) seemed to be getting a lot of questions about the meaning of author-order, where it seemed to vary across fields and even then be prone to subjective interpretation based on unstated rules. It was a very silly situation, made sillier by the fact that those doing it seemed to be under the misimpression that it was the serious, respectable way of conveying authors' relative contributions. Of course, their particular approach to doing this does leave open one potential avenue for confusion. In particular, are they doing this because: 1. they're researchers who want to stress that the name-ordering is arbitrary in a humorous way; or 2. they're hardcore rock-paper-scissors competitors who were primarily motivated by a desire to better advertise the results of their tournament? (Though, in the spirit of being clear-and-explicit, I'm just kidding about that last part!)