HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vugranam@pike.ee.mcgill.ca (Vugranam Chakravarthy Sreedhar)
Subject: Re: co-authorship (was Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science)
Organization: McGill University - VLSI Laboratory, Montreal, CANADA.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 20:23:03 GMT

In article <21226@optima.cs.arizona.edu> debray@cs.arizona.edu (Saumya K. Debray) writes:
>bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>contributions" to a paper to get co-authorship.  Monetary support and minor
>technical contributions should be mentioned under "Acknowledgements",
>along the lines of "This work was supported by ..." or "This paper has
>benefited from discussions with ..."
>
>When I was a grad student, my advisor appeared as co-author on those papers
>where he helped significantly with the ideas (e.g., suggested better
>algorithms).  On papers where his participation was limited to, say,
>discussing proofs, he didn't appear as co-author, but was thanked under
>"Acknowldegements".  Both he and I were comfortable with this arrangement,
>and I respect him greatly for his integrity.
>
I wish there were more like your advisor or you. 
>I follow a similar policy with my students and colleagues.  I have no
>problem with my students having single-authored papers: if they've put 
>in the work they deserve the credit, and it's something I can be proud 
>of as an advisor.  On more than one occasion, I've withdrawn my name from
>authorship of papers where I felt I hadn't made enough of a contribution.
>
>-- 
>Saumya Debray
>Dept. of Computer Science, University of Arizona, Tucson
>debray@cs.arizona.edu


I agree. Sometimes it is ok for grad students  to put
his advisors name. What is really pathetic is post-docs and
research fellows are sometimes forced (directly or indirectly) to include
senior profs name as co-author. I have seen a one or two
page correspondence in journals have multiple auhors(>3). This
is bad.

I feel a researcher  (however senior he may be) should 
produce single author papers (atleast one per one or two years of journal
quality and not some survey papers).
I usually don't give much regards to researchers who never
produce single author papers. I personally feel guilty
to include my name as a coauthor if I have no (or very little)
contributions.  

Fabrikant's accusations should be taken seriously and analysed.
I read his letters. I don't think he was mad from the beginning,
he was made one. Back in my country there is a proverb "You
can chase a cat upto a corner, and then it is going to
pounce back on you." I feel this what happened with Fabrikant.
I know a few cases where students (and post-docs) were
frustrated with constant abuse and politics and went 
back to their country. 

Sreedhar

Newsgroups: sci.research
From: aaron@juliet.caltech.edu (Packman, Aaron I.)
Subject: Re: Naive Question about Publication Practices
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:39:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.210301.25308@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman) writes...
>The current thread on co-authorship (inspired by Dr. Fabrikant) has raised
>some questions in my mind concerning the practices of scholarly
>publications.  It has been suggested that an outstanding result in a
>non-mainstream or controversial research area would be rejected by
>mainstream journals unless the author has a "reputation".  This strikes me
>as anomalous.  If the editorial board and referees of the journal are
>competent (and I assume that most are much more than competent), then is it
>not the case that they are capable of evaluating a paper on its merits
>alone rather than its origin?  In fact, to dismiss any result due to its
>origin rather than its content is a logical fallacy.  Educated people
>should know better.
> 
>Comments?  (I am particularly interested to know how things are in the
>mathematical sciences.)
> 

This reminds me of the "publications history" of one of my old professors
at Washington University.  Twenty-to-thirty years ago he tried to publish
a paper in the field of fracture mechanics.  Unfortunately, his ideas were
not accepted by the mainstream fracture mechanicists and his paper was
rejected by several major, refereeed journals.  So, he got it published in
some small, unimpressive journal instead.  In time, however, the mainstream
eventually caught up with him, and the article was later recognized in one
of those "Most Important Papers in Fracutre Mechanics" books.  The message
here, of course, is that time will tell.  The major journals showed their
ignorance, and it didn't matter in the end.

Aaron Packman
aaron@caltech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Subject: Re: a few comments on Fabrikant
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:25:29 GMT

In article <BtnvIz.4pF@cs.dal.ca> kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi) writes:
>	Point taken.  Though I must point out, I find it
>	hard to believe that any biochemical imbalance 
>	in the brain (I'm sure you would agree that
>	schizophrenia and like neuroses can be linked to
>	biochemistry) would allow a manc
>	to function at the top of his intellectual ability.

     Actually, I'm quite sure that this is wrong too.  Many paranoid
schizophrenics are very highly talented individuals.  (I saw one
documentary once which actually called paranoid schizophrenia a disease
of the hyperintelligent.  One of the case studies in this documentary
was a professor as well.  He was quite productive between bouts of the
disease and sometimes even in the midst of attacks.)
     Isn't anyone else suspicious about the fact that he seemed to be
doing quite well until last year?  (By this I mean that all the reports
we have seen indicate that he was well-respected and working normally at
Concordia.)  Sudden degradations in work relationships are a classic sign
of paranoid schizophrenia.
     Again, I have no training in psychology, so if anyone out there
does and can either confirm my impressions or contradict them, feel free
to do so.

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
From: tpm@anat.UMSMED.EDU (Terence P. Ma)
Subject: Re: Medics as scientists ?
Organization: Dept. of Anatomy, Univ. Mississippi Medical Center
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 01:54:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.202346.10727@maths.tcd.ie> arora@maths.tcd.ie (Ashish Arora) writes:
>	Do you find that good doctors (medical doctors) make good researchers,
>or is it the case that good doctors and good researchers are mutually
>exclusive groups?
>	Only comments please -- no flaming.

I know many outstanding researchers who are medical doctors.  I know
many terrible researchers who are medical doctors.  I know many
outstanding researchers who are medical doctors.  I know very few
outstanding researchers who are outstanding medical doctors.

In my experience, depending on the research, most persons with a MD
will be outstanding in research or in practice, but rarely both.  But
that depends on the field and the area of research.
-- 
Terence P. Ma, Ph.D.		Department of Anatomy
VOICE:	   601-984-1654		University of Mississippi Med. Ctr.
FAX:	   601-984-1655		2500 North State Street
INTERNET:  tpm@anat.UMSMED.EDU	Jackson, MS 39216-4505
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
From: sworking@unixg.ubc.ca (Scott Workinger)
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:26:12 GMT

In article <17lpf7INNchs@function.mps.ohio-state.edu> edgar@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) writes:
>Here is a story told to me by a mathematician.  He discussed a research
>problem with one of his colleagues in chemistry, who politely sat there
>and made no remarks.  Six months later, when the work was being
>prepared for publication, he received a note from the chemist requesting
>co-author listing.  The mathematician thought that odd, so he appealed
>to the Dean, who ruled in favor of the chemist.  (The Dean was also a chemist.)
This seems to be one of a variety of stories that are being posted here.
One of the interesting things about these postings is that they are
almost all about other people, other departments.  Now we can hypothesize
that they are only stories, but perhaps there is another reason.  Perhaps
there are significant numbers of people working in abusive environments
who think it wise to keep silent...  

Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
From: mancini@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Derrick C. Mancini)
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, University of Wisconsin
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 08:20:52 GMT

I want only to add that I know from personal experience that such type
of events are becoming only to common in academia.  I, too, was asked to
include names on a paper I was to present at a conference by request of
my supervisor.  Not only had they not contributed, but even inhibited the
work for their own ends at the time.  However, they were a possible source
of funding for  my supervisor.  Finally it came down to my supervisor saying
I either included thequestionable authorship or I did not publish the
results.  I chose the latter in the end.  I made it clear that I considered
it an ethical problem, and in part feel my supervisor no longer was supportive
of my work because I had apparently questioned his ethics.  What disappointed
me most is that he could not acknowledge at least some doubts about such
behavior, maintaining it was the norm.  Just felt I had to let people know
others do experience the negative effects of the current climate in science.

dcm
From: masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: University/industry research diaspora
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:52:15 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Someone posted an article about the deteriorating quality of academic
research in a response to the Fabrikant affair. I heartily agree, and
see the following reasons:

- A glut on the number of researchers, which produces:

- The "publish or perish" syndrome of academia, which inflates the
  number of junk articles, and is basically incompatible with:

- Industrial research that is increasingly driven by next quarter's
  profit margin, making long-term or basic research projects unstable.
  All of which results in:

- The difficulty in getting collaboration between industry and
  academia. Industry sees academic research as useless to them;
  academia values neat theory and sees industrial research problems as
  too complex to be good research topics.

I know of one school (Renssalear or Rochester, I forget which) that
requires its professors to collaborate with industry. But that is the
exception in the U.S. 

Comments?

- Steve (masticol@cs.rutgers.edu).
From: baldwin@cps.msu.edu (Reid A Baldwin)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: mega-author papers
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:15:50 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University

In article <1992Aug31.223411.5525@ast.saic.com>, seymour@ast.saic.com (Ken Seymour) writes:
|> 
|> The original poster was in the High-Energy Physics field.  In that field
|> a single experiment takes longer than the length of one doctoral
|> candidacy.  The early people build parts of the detector machinery.  
|> Then some other people write software to acquire all the data onto
|> tapes.  Then, still other people run the experiment and analyze the data.  
|> The entire experiment can require 50-100 scientists to perform.
|> 
|> It is not uncommon for someone to have built a few racks of the detector
|> electronics (they usually fill up a trailer or two) then get his PhD and
|> leave the project.  Then a few years later, when they have data to
|> analyze, another scientist writes a paper on the results and lists all
|> the scientists that built the equipment and wrote the software and ran
|> the experiment as authors.
|> 
|> The number of authors in a High-Energy Physics paper reflects the
|> reality that nothing can be done in this field by a single individual
|> without help of a team of 50-200 or so people over a period of 10-15
|> years.

The field of High-Energy Physics seems to operate much differently than
Computer Science.

How many papers would be published in this 10-15 year period? If only
one paper results from each experiment, the journals must be quite thin.

Could the person who built parts of the detector machinery write papers
about those parts of the detector machinery and receive credit at that
time? Presumably, many of them write dissertations.

Does each citation in a bibliography require several pages?
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: co-authorship
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:13:18 GMT

In article <5223@dove.nist.gov> gilligan@bldrdoc.gov (Jonathan Gilligan 303-497-3861) writes:
>In article <21226@optima.cs.arizona.edu> debray@cs.arizona.edu (Saumya K. Debray) writes:
>>On the flip side, I know a group where the head of the group gets his
>>name on all his students' papers just because he's the head of the group.
>>His credibility with me has eroded somewhat because of this.
>
>
>I don't think that this is necessarily the best policy, but that's how
>it is and I haven't seen any injustice result from it in my limited
>experience So, while injustice certainly does happen, I don't think
>that it's very widespread.

If something is unjust, then it is unjust. period. You don't
wait for the results of the injustice to surface, you prevent it in 
the first place. 

>
>---Jon
>-- 
>
>Disclaimer --- The government probably disagrees with my opinions.


Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
From: wskelly@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (William Skelly)
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Organization: Macquarie University, Australia.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 05:04:20 GMT


Someone just recently metioned the physics field where
as many as 50 "authors" maybe more will be listed.  He
goes on to say this is ok, even if some (most?) have
not even read the paper!!! Ugh.  Some one else has 
suggested that its not about "honesty" that we are
dealing with custom and that in each field their are
different customs and as long as everyone knows the 
rules its AOK.  Someone else even went so far as to
suggest that this was all irrelavent because what 
matters is the content not the names listed on the
front.

Lets take these one at a time:

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_

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.

3. "authors" vs. "content" -- I think it is really silly to
   suggest that the content matters but the authorship really
   doesn't. First and most pragmatically, your entire reputation
   rests with your publications, your publications are the 
   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!

   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?


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.

chris 
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Subject: Re: Medics as scientists ?
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 15:17:21 GMT

In article <56dnpxb@lynx.unm.edu> bhjelle@carina.unm.edu writes:
>In article <28qpbz8c@csv.warwick.ac.uk> csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug28.202346.10727@maths.tcd.ie> arora@maths.tcd.ie (Ashish Arora) writes:
>>>
>>>	Do you find that good doctors (medical doctors) make good researchers,
>>>or is it the case that good doctors and good researchers are mutually
>>>exclusive groups?
>>>	Only comments please -- no flaming.
>>
>>Interesting question. I'm a doctor (ex, actually, decided life was more
>>important than work...),
>
>What do you do now?

Just finished a BSc in Comp. Sci....

[my stuff about the death of good minds...]
>This is a tired old canard. I suppose the best argument against
>this is the innumerable stellar scientists who happen to be MDs,
>including people like Dan Nathans, Harold Varmus, Hamilton Smith,
>Mike Bishop, etc, etc (if you don't know who these people
>are, check recent editions of Who's Who, or the roster of
>Nobel Prize winners).
>

Come on! Even if you multiply that list by a hundred, you're still not talking
about 1% of the number of doctors, in the UK alone. You're trying to draw
conclusions from an insignificant sample. The *best* minds will out, no matter
what, but the vast majority of doctors, along with researchers are not the
best of minds. We can't all be in the top 1% of the top 1%...

>What always amazes me is the notion that the rote memorization
>required for medical school somehow robs one of the ability to
>have original thought. While such training may not provide
>the purer intellectual challenges of graduate training, there
>is a tradeoff in that one gains a more global perspective of
>mammalian biology than might be obtained from many graduate
>programs.
>

True, but when you use that mode of thought for several years of clinical
practise, it does damage. I hear this from other doctors, BTW, not from
outsiders...

BTW, why does my post bother you so much?

The Wisp.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 03:45:29 GMT

In article <87265@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:

>Very well.  Here is how I have "learned to live with jerks": I recommend
>against granting them tenure.  Is this real enough for you?

Mr S. Tate: Does the above sound arrogant enough for you, or you
think this above poster is a  "decent human being" ? 

Just wondering...

>---Rsk

Dov
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Naive Question about Publication Practices
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<1992Aug31.234134.10117@oracle.pnl.gov>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 04:21:47 GMT

There was a study some time ago where identical papers were given
different institutions of attribution and submitted to a variety of
journals.  The acceptance rate was a function of perceived prestige of
institution.  

Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read this, or exactly when.  I
think it was about five years ago and I read about it in that science
tabloid that was around for a while (Research News?  Science Today?
something like that).  I think it was also mentioned in Science.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous
From: srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:41:49 GMT
Organization: Duke University Computer Science Dept.; Durham, N.C.

In article <BtMEFC.Hps@cs.dal.ca> kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi) writes:
>
>		From the piggy-backed postings of Dov Bai, two
>	things stick out.  One, Fabrikant seems to be a very capable
>	and intelligent research scientist (ie. the quantity
>	of publication attests to this, as well as the variety of
>	different journals that have accepted his articles).
>	Why then, was he refused tenure? (I'm assuming he was 
>	eligible for tenure).

This comment represents an attitude that really gets to me.  I have
known people who believe that as long as a scientist puts out good
research, then nothing else matters.   Go back and read the messages
written by Fabrikant --- the man was abusive, arrogant, and more
than a little unstable.  Would *YOU* want to work with someone like
that on a daily basis?  I wouldn't!  As far as I'm concerned, if someone
is as big a pain as Fabrikant seems to have been, it doesn't matter
one whit how good their research was.  The scientific community can
certainly wait for another person to come along that knows how to
deal with human beings.

As far as what the department "owed" Fabrikant, I don't believe ANY
university is obligated to give tenure to such an abusive person.


>ps:	In the end, no matter what, Fabrikant proved to be
>	what his critics charged, ie. unstable.

You couldn't have read his postings and not realized the man was
unstable...  I do have one question about the whole situation:
the night of the shooting, Headline News reported that Fabrikant
was reported to have brought a gun to a previous faculty meeting.
Does anyone know if that is true?  If so, why wasn't he out on his
butt long ago?


-- 
Steve Tate srt@cs.duke.edu | The reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem,
Dept. of Computer Science  | above all other sciences, is that its laws are
Duke University     | absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of all
Durham, NC  27706   | other sciences are to some extent debatable. (Einstein)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers