> Again, you're likely to just fall back to whatever is the first author or institution in your mind. And that's exactly the problem we're trying to solve :-)

> Again, you're likely to just fall back to whatever is the first author or institution in your mind. And that's exactly the problem we're trying to solve :-) If only the first author is in your mind, then the rest of them aren't getting enough credit. Next time you're reading a new paper and it's written by the 4th author, are you going to recognize their name and go "Oh, this was written by that author that wrote that other great paper, I should read it!"? Or will you not have a clue who they are because only the first author stuck out? Disrupting the thought process so that you either need to refer to all of them or their team or the paper by name is the point. If it's written by 2 teams, it's the same problem. You would have to randomize Google/Meta and Meta/Google. Although..well maybe not if it's short enough that it's always referred to in full. With regards to paper names being too long, we have that problem at my office sometimes too. I just give them cute shorter code names so they're easier to refer to.