5 ms·
Fun ways of deciding authorship order (2016)
- jghn 1y agoTFA touches on this, but one thing I initially found surprising is how few people understand different domains have different best practices around authorship order. It does make sense, people are typically not as involved in other domains and not exposed to those papers. But I do still find it surprising how different the practices can be overall.
- madcaptenor 1y agoThe American Mathematical Society has a statement basically saying “in math, authorship order is alphabetical” that people going up for tenure can put in their files, in case people involved in the decision come from other disciplines which have other conventions. https://www.ams.org/learning-careers/leaders/CultureStatement04.pdf https://www.ams.org/learning-careers/leaders/CultureStatemen...
- dmurray 1y agoSomeone should study whether that statement is disproportionately included by authors with names later on in the alphabet.
- xenonite 1y agoAlso I suppose that Z authors might have more publications because they are nice to collaborate with.
- setopt 1y agoAlphabetical order sounds interesting when you mix non-anglicized international names. Do you go by Unicode sort order? I’m in physics, we have this thing where the first author did the most and the last author supervised the most, and the person in the middle just had an occasional coffee with them.
- Wevah 1y agoI’d guess it’d be a particular collation, rather than Unicode order…otherwise ö would always come after z (which is incorrect for English, but correct for, e.g., Swedish).
- thaumasiotes 1y ago> otherwise ö would always come after z Really? Wouldn't that depend on how you spelled it and what kind of Unicode ordering you specified? Which comes first? '\u0047\u00f6\u0064\u0065\u006c' '\u0047\u006f\u0308\u0064\u0065\u006c'
- jpmattia 1y agoThe wordpress post is old, and so the author didn't have the chance to include my favorite method: Every Author as First Author: (pdf) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01393 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01393
- madcaptenor 1y agoThis is biased in favor of authors with long names (which they mention at the beginning of their Future Work section)
- rendaw 1y agoThat's addressed in "Future work"!
- Etheryte 1y agoThe only shortcoming is that they currently use opacity even if there is only one author. In that case, it would seem natural to render the text as-is.
- MortyWaves 1y agoWhy does it contain half-redacted words?
- maartin0 1y agoThey're not redacted. If you zoom in you'll just see a very large number of stacked names which is ironic (I thought the same for a second)
- JohnKemeny 1y agoExtra funny, considering it's written by Demaine and Demaine.
- dhosek 1y agoKind of reminds me of the system we used in my band in the 90s: The person who brought the initial idea to the band gets to be first. After that, it was based on importance of contributions as determined by myself as the benign dictator, but if I contributed, my name always came last (unless I was the one who brought the idea to the band).
- bix6 1y agoThis is the method I use at work, feels right, puts the team first.
- jvanderbot 1y agoThis is exactly how most professors and managers do it. Unless they themselves do the majority of the writing they are last by convention so it actually has some prestige to be last. What you don't want is second-to-last on a paper w 4 or more authors. That's the worst.
- hinkley 1y ago> the order of their authorship was determined by executing the following commands in R: set.seed (7998976/5271) x ‹- sample (c("Anne", "Peder"), 1) print (paste ("The winner is", x, "!")) But who picked the seed, Anne? And how do we know they didn’t have their thumb on the scale?
- madcaptenor 1y agoI was wondering if this number was somehow significant in the paper, but it doesn't seem to be: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2515245918770963 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/251524591877096...
- _Algernon_ 1y agoMaybe we can solve this with blockchain?
- JohnKemeny 1y agoOr maybe quantum?
- zvorygin 1y agoMy guess is that each simultaneously picked a number, one for numerator and one for denominator.
- hinkley 1y agoHopefully. Though I wonder if that can be gamed if you pick the denominator and the value is rounded. Eg a large prime.
- fph 1y agoThat is weird; from what I understand (not an R expert), set.seed takes an integer, so I assume that number gets truncated / approximated to an integer. That means that all nearby seeds give the same result: for instance changing 7998976 to 7998977 or 7998975 makes no difference, up to the next multiple of 5271. This makes the result look a lot less random. Was Anne cheating?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- MortyWaves 1y agoWhat surprising timing! I have started making a bookmarks page on my personal site and soon realised that any papers I linked to would need to deal with this. I couldn’t find a reliable answer so decided I would simply have authors listed in exactly the same order as found on the paper/site/wherever.
- setgree 1y agoAnother idea is to only co-author with people with your last name, as in "A Few Goodmen: Surname-Sharing Economist Coauthors" by Allen C. Goodman, Joshua Goodman, Lucas Goodman, and Sarena Goodman: > We explore the phenomenon of coauthorship by economists who share a surname. Prior research has included at most three economist coauthors who share a surname. Ours is the first paper to have four economist coauthors who share a surname, as well as the first where such coauthors are unrelated by marriage, blood or current campus. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/joshuagoodman/files/goodmans.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/joshuagoodman/files/goodma...
- Der_Einzige 1y agoYou should in general prefer to give people as much credit as possible. in AI/ML we have the astrik of "equal contribution" which can be used to make N authors technically "first author".
- tpoacher 1y agoYes but you'd still cite the paper as "as shown in FirstFirstAuthor et al (2024)" which rather defeats the purpose. And citing as "FirstFirstAuthor and SecondFirstAuthor and [...] et al" is both impractical and petty. Which is what caused the whole "race to first authorship" mentality in the first place.
- Der_Einzige 1y agoNo, you cite the very first author only. The "multiple first author" stuff is for when you talk about your paper to others.
- a_e_k 1y agoI was once an author on a systems paper where everyone after the primary author was ordered by (decreasing) tenure on the development team.
- dfltr 1y agoMy partner is a mathematician who realized (along with the other members of their working group) that if they were to deviate from the standard alphabetical authorship order, they could author a paper on the DILF Theorem.
- setopt 1y agoSounds like they’re on track for a FILD medal with that paper.
- tpoacher 1y agoI once co-wrote a paper with a person who insisted on alphabetical order as a means of ensuring fairness. Except his surname was Aaronson and mine starts with a P.