From: dasu@sscux1.ssc.gov (Sridhara Dasu)
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Organization: SSC Laboratory, Dallas, TX
	<DASU.92Aug28183543@sscux1.ssc.gov>
	<1992Aug31.050420.8740@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 05:13:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.050420.8740@mailhost.ocs.mq.edu.au> wskelly@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (William Skelly) writes:

>   1. "author" -- "authorship"
>	 one who writes --- he/she who has written. Period.
>	 everyone one else should be acknowledged but if they
>	  didn't help _write_ the paper, they are not 
>	  entitled to _authorship_

	Just don't call the names listed at the top of the paper "authors".
Call them "contributors" if you like. That anyone who has made technical
contributions belongs to the collaboration is the policy followed by
High Energy Physics groups. Those who worked on the physical act of
"writing" the paper are just performing their part as "contributors" to
the paper. In assence they are designated by the collaboration to analyse
the data on their behalf. It is ridiculous to suggest that only they 
be "authors". If such policy is followed by any HEP collaboration the 
group will dissolve in a day, and there will be no papers to write!

>   2. "honesty" -- authorship of an academic paper, is the same
>       as signing a bank cheque --- its your reputation that goes
>       on the line, you are saying that you stand by your commitment
>       --- wrt. to the cheque it means you will honour your debt,
>       wrt. to authorship it means that this is YOUR work, that
>       you have not plagerised or perpetrated ANY dishonesties in
>       the research represented under YOUR authorship.  For me,
>       this is deadly serious.  Not only is itPaper dishonest to put
>       your name on a paper that you did not help write, its bloody
>       stupid, it basically says to anyone who knows, that MY 
>       reputation really isn't worth a whole hell of a lot.

	Yes, honesty is of utmost importance. When a large group of
people are involved this "intellectual accountability" refers to the specific
contribution made by one. Together, the collaboration takes the
responsibility of the truth in the paper. That is why it is important
to list all the contributors rather than those who "wrote" the paper.


	....

>      primary method of comunicating your research.  Dishonest,
>      "all aboard" authorships are making it more and more difficult
>      to accurately assess what you have done!  People doing the
>      hiring realise that there is a problem. Paper counting is NOT
>      always delivering them the best people. Soon ONLY the first
>      author will matter for the pramatic purpose of getting a job!

	Dishonest! In your view. It is truly dishonest if a small fraction
of the collaboration takes over the hard work of others! You have to look
at the complete picture. It is precisely my point that the people doing
hiring should not go by "author" lists, but by other means when multiple
"authors" are present. The primary purpose of the papers is NOT to allow for
selection of job applicants, but is to propagate knowledge. The primary
purpose of "authors" is for accountability as discussed earlier.
 
>     Another reason that the "authorship" is important is much less
>      pragmatic for you and I.  Its called history.  Perhaps there is
>      a historian or two following this group who could shed some light
>      on how difficult it will be to sort out this "mess" in a hundred
>      years time?  Perhaps history is unimportant?

	History needs to know who all contributed to the work. Not just
who "wrote" the paper.

>   I put it to those who don't have a problem with "honorary 
>   authorship" (an ironic term if there ever was one) that the "all
>   abord syndrome" is as detrimental to good science as is the
>   "you site me --- I'll site you" game that also gets played a 
>   fair bit.  It can be a bloody mess if you have to sort either
>   out.

	You should understand the nature of multi-"author" work before
inflicting your morals on them.

				- Sridhara Dasu
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.med