HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:04:51 GMT
Organization: Cardiothoracic Imaging Research Center

In article <1992Aug28.034529.8723@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>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" ? 

Mr. Tate doesn't know me, and neither do you.  If you are willing
to leap to conclusions about whether or not I am a "decent human being"
based on one short Usenet article, then I am willing to conclude that
your reasoning methods leave much to be desired.  In any case, I was
simply giving my method for "learn[ing] to live with jerks" in the
"real world", as a previous article suggested; in no way did I suggest
that this method would be appropriate for anyone other than myself.

---Rsk
From: fc03@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Frederick W. Chapman)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Naive Question about Publication Practices
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:03:01 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

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.)

Thanks,

Fred Chapman
Naive but Self-Supporting Research Mathematician
-- 

o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
|  Frederick W. Chapman, User Services, Computing Center, Lehigh University |
|    Campus Phone:  8-3218     Preferred E-mail Address:  fc03@Lehigh.Edu   | 
|         "The day after yesterday is the second-to-last day before         |
|               the rest of your life the day after tomorrow."              |
o ------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: zukicn@wl.aecl.ca
Subject: COMPUTER MODELLER Position - R&D
Organization: AECL RESEARCH
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:19:34 GMT

I am posting this for my manager & branch. Do NOT send your resumes, 
inquiries, etc. to me, as it all has to go through the Human
Resources and the person listed below. Our phone is: (204) 753-2311. 

Thank you,

Nermin Zukic

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

               RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

                               for A

                         SCIENTIFIC COMPUTER
                          MODELLER/ANALYST

             To Work in a Multi-Disciplinary Environment

                   Salary:  CDN $35,000 to 57,500
             depending on qualifications and experience


        A Computer Modeller/Analyst is required to develop and
        utilize computer codes to analyze the thermal and
        mechanical response of CANDU fuel channels under transient
        conditions.  Immediate work involves the development of
        theoretical models or computer codes to facilitate the
        understanding of the physical phenomena embedded in the
        various experiments, and the comparison of the actual
        experimental results with the predictions.

        An advanced degree in Mechanical, Chemical or Nuclear
        Engineering, Applied Mathematics, or Physics is preferred,
        although a bachelors degree with high academic standing and
        relevant experience in research will also be considered.  

        A strong background in heat transfer and scientific
        programming is essential.  Additional background in fluid
        flow dynamics, solid mechanics or materials science is
        desirable.  Demonstrated technical report writing and oral
        communications skills would be useful assets.

        The Whiteshell Laboratories is located at Pinawa, an
  attractive recreational/residential community on the banks of the
  Winnipeg River, northeast of Winnipeg.  We are a 1000 employee
  laboratory with research interests in both nuclear and non-
  nuclear activities.  The laboratory has a strong, comprehensive
  complement of in-house support services/facilities and research
  is well supported with advanced experimental equipment and
  computers.


  INTERESTED?    Contact A. Portman
                 AECL Research
                 Whiteshell Laboratories
                 Pinawa, Manitoba
                 R0E 1L0
                 (File No. WSR2017)
Xref: sparky sci.research:974 sci.research.careers:849
From: gilligan@bldrdoc.gov (Jonathan Gilligan 303-497-3861)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:36:47 GMT
Followup-To: sci.research
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology

In article <1992Aug28.204404.29264@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>Please explain why it is not dishonesty. Saying "it is the custom"
>only shows that the custom itself is dishonst. 

Honesty means telling the truth. Interpreting what inclusion in an
author list signifies is custom. Dishonesty is when the author list is
at odds with the customary interpretation of what it means to be an
author.

If everyone interprets the author list as meaning, ``All the authors
made substantial intellectual contributions to this work, each
understands this work in its entirety, and each takes full
responsibility for its accuracy,'' that's one thing, and including an
author whose only contribution was to secure funding would be
dishonest. But if the custom in a field is to interpret the author
list as, ``Each of the authors made some contribution to this work.
Some thought up the experiment, some did the lab work, and some
secured funding,'' then as long as everyone else in the field knows
that this is what the author list means, where's the dishonesty in
including the group leader?

BTW, I recommend reading an excellent novel about honesty and
integrity in scientific research: _Cantor's_Dilemma_. (Sorry, I'm
drawing a blank on the author, although I should remember the name.
He's a prominent biochemist). This novel addresses the question of who
goes on the author list, what the order of the names should be, trust
among colleagues, faking experiments, and other issues. It's also well
written and populated with compelling characters.

---Jon
-- 

Disclaimer --- The government probably disagrees with my opinions.
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: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:56:31 GMT

In article <714936705@pike.cs.duke.edu> srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.154754.20355@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>
>
>Wouldn't it be nice if all
>tenured faculty were also decent human beings?  

What is your metric of decent human beings? Why do you think that
_your_ metric should determine the scientific career of a junior faculty
member ? Different people have different tastes.

Universities are there for doing research and teaching. If a faculty
member is doing these well and it is documented as such the rest 
has relevance to his propmotion as his race, religion or sexual 
orientation.

>>>As far as what the department "owed" Fabrikant, I don't believe ANY
>>>university is obligated to give tenure to such an abusive person.
>>
>>If Fabrikant's claims regarding pressures for writing someone else's
>>name on publications are correct, whould you agree that these faculty
>>members were abusive and therfore their tenure should be taken, and they
>>should not have had any say  in tenure decision of Fabrikant ?
>
>Yes, I agree totally if he was pressured.  However, from what I read,
>it didn't sound like he was ever pressured to put anyone's name on
>a publication.  It sounded like he put other names on (someone whose
>last name starts with an "S" --- I'd have to look back to see for
>sure who it was) out of "professional courtesy", since the work was
>done supported by their labs.  It sounded like Fabrikant, entirely
>on his own, decided to put their names on the papers, without ever 
>being asked to do so (did I misread the postings?).  This is clearly 
>common practice, and doesn't really hurt much.  

I  can'nt argue with that, I dont know enough facts about Fabrikant's
case. That's why I said "if". 

>Furthermore, I 
>distinctly recall reading a letter from one of these senior people 
>arguing quite strongly for Fabrikant's tenure.  That doesn't sound 
>like mistreatment to me!

But that is only one person. Tenure decisions are are not made
by a single person. Not all senior faculty members are mistreating
younger faculties. In fact, some senior faculty members are _helping_
junior faculty against mistreatment by other senior faculty members.
See an example in my posting regarding universities in small towns
in sci.research.career. 

>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)

Dov
From: alexa@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Alexander Anger)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:09:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA
Newsgroups: sci.research

It is true that Dr. Fabrikant did not win sympathy by shooting people
before trying to work the Canadian legal system (which if as bad as
the U.S. would have lead him to despair anyways).  His English wasn't
great either, and he did sound unstable.  However, the tales of which
he tells are true and becoming more grotesque than ever before.  The
more materialistic the world is becoming, the more greedy those in
power seem to become.  Sounds almost like a tautology, doesn't it?
Well, this shooting isn't the first one to occur in science (remember
the Chinese graduate student at Idahoe University who killed about
5 people and then himself?)  Science is no longer blessed by the
historical peace and cooperative spirit that gave it its noble
reputation.  It is becoming yet another hunting ground for the
greedy, and as such, is only reflecting the larger trend that is
haunting our society and driving it to newer lows.

But, let's not give up hope.  All things destroyed can be rebuilt
if the will in the populace develops.  After all, we do live in
a democracy - well sort of.

Alex


Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
From: dasu@sscux1.ssc.gov (Sridhara Dasu)
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Organization: SSC Laboratory, Dallas, TX
	<28AUG199212501453@utkvx2.utk.edu>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:35:43 GMT

In article <28AUG199212501453@utkvx2.utk.edu> lwtsai@utkvx2.utk.edu (Liang Wu Tsai @ U. of Tenn., Knoxville) writes:


   > 
   >He was ranting like a lunatic.  Much of what he said may have been 
   >the exaggerations of a paranoid.  Consider his argument that some people
   >had been co-authors on his papers and didn't even know what the paper
   >was about.  *I* have been co-author of a few papers that *I* didn't even
   >know about.  I was asked for help in a problem and contributed (presumably
   >to the author) enough to be included as an "et al".  If you found some of
   >those papers and asked me about them, I'd probably give you serously
   >blank looks.  Maybe he did the same thing and then in his paranoia

...

   I think a proper way is to express his appreciation in the Acknowledgement
   section of the paper. 

   For a junior researcher, especially when a graduate student working with a
   professor with a good reputation, the junior tends to include the senior's name
   in his publication. From the junior side, this helps him to get into the
   research circle a little easier, and make his boss a little happier (in most
   cases). Form the senior side, this help him to accumulate the publication
   count. This is very very common in academia. I would like to appeal to those
   seniors, be honest.


   >  ...
   >  TED FEUERBACH   Scientific Systems Consultant  Trilogy Consulting, Inc. 
   >

   L. W. Tsai 


I think that there is too much fuss in the academia about the authorship
etc. How does it matter whose name is listed and in what order? For most
readers of the article it is the content that matters, and when they
refer to that work one wants others to be able to relocate the article.
The list of names represents those who contributed to the paper. If a
professor brings funding to the group you can call that a contribution
too! If his name is only included to get the article published without
much fuss with the editor, that's fine too. The whole academia should
recognize that the names don't tell you who is the "brain" behind the
work. The "honest" interpretation of names these days is just that.

In my field (Expt. High Energy Physics) there are usually more than
50, sometimes even 300 authors listed. Obviously several of those
listed have not even read the paper, and many are not even
aware of the fact that a paper was published in their name!
Most of the people have indeed not contributed to the subject of the
paper but without their contribution in building and operating the
detector, the paper would not have been possible. So, the collaboration
feels that they should be acknowledged. Everyone knows that. When
someone applies for a job the employers do not go by list of publications
alone. One specifies what part of the big project one was involved
in, and what one's "physics" contribution is.

				- Sridhara Dasu





Newsgroups: sci.research
From: scollnik@acs.ucalgary.ca (David Peter Michael Scollnik)
Subject: Re: co-authorship (was Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 16:22:57 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <21226@optima.cs.arizona.edu> debray@cs.arizona.edu 
(Saumya K. Debray) writes:
>
>I agree with Dov.  In my opinion, one has to make "significant technical
>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 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.

  First of all , I agree  with you entirely.  However, what  about
  those  instances in which  a student is attempting to publish an
  outstanding result, yet one sufficiently controversial or within 
  some area of research currently out of vogue. Although worthy of 
  publication,  many mainstream journals  would reject the article 
  out of hand  if the student had no  'reputation'  or  publishing 
  record.  In these cases,  how would you  feel about a supervisor 
  lending his  name  for co-authorship  in order  to  increase the 
  chances of publication ? 
       
                  
-- 
David P.M. Scollnik 
Department of Mathematics and Statistics            MS 590 
University of Calgary                       (403) 220 7677
scollnik@acs.ucalgary.ca
From: srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:31:36 GMT
Organization: Duke University Computer Science Dept.; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Aug28.203848.29074@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>You still did not answer my question: Why is your metric should be the
>one to be used, even if it is against the goals of a University. You just
>repeat saying "because I like it that way and if I have the power
>it will continue to be that way forever". This is not a reasoned argument,
>but maybe you _don't_ care  to give any.

I never said anything of the kind!  I did say "only my metric should
be used" followed immediately by a ":-)" and to make it even more clear,
said "It's a joke, son" (which, of course, should be read in the voice
of Foghorn Leghorn).  It was meant with heavy sarcasm, as only a very
narrow minded individual would say that (as narrow minded as "the only way
things should be is my way".... kind of like "the only things that should
ever be considered are research output and teaching ability, because that's
what I say").

What I did clearly say was that the department should choose people that can
work with the current people in the department, without disrupting the
current work.  Yes, this will sometimes give you departments that are
full of "jerks", but if that's the way the people at the department and
university feel they get the most work done, then let them do it!
Not all departments will use the same measures for tenure decisions ---
it depends on what the department considers valuable, and is almost always
a weighing of various factors.  A person who is a world class researcher,
but mildly disruptive might be tolerated.  But a solid researcher who
works harmoniously with the department might be selected over a similar
level researcher who causes problems --- how can you possibly say with
a straight face that it should be otherwise?

Your statements about the "goals of the University" are most interesting...
How are the goals of any University furthered by introducing a personality
that is harmful to the work going on there? 

-- 
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)
Xref: sparky sci.research:955 sci.research.careers:839
From: edgar@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Date: 28 Aug 1992 13:57:59 -0400
Organization: The Ohio State University, Dept. of Math.
NNTP-Posting-Host: function.mps.ohio-state.edu

In article <1992Aug28.170505.4700@u.washington.edu> jars@milton.u.washington.edu (Juan Rodriguez-Sero) writes:
>I wholly agree with Dov (and, hopefully, many others); people who "don't
>even know about" a paper and "would give blank stares if asked about
>them" are not co-authors. They should be included in the acknowledge-
>ments if at all, but not as co-authors.

The custom varies from one field to another.  It is simplistic to
call one custom "dishonest".

Certainly what you say is true in my field (mathematics).  When I talk
to scientists in other fields, and mention that multiple-authors in
mathematics are traditionally listed in alphabetical order, some of
them seem amazed:  "But how would you know who is the principal author?"

A faculty screening committee was reading applications for the director
of a new research hospital.  One candidate had a gigantic publication
list.  It turned out that every paper written by anyone at the institute
he currently directed was required to list him as a co-author.

There was a case recently where a medical researcher had faked the data
in a paper.  When the legislative committee asked her co-authors about
the papers in question, they admitted they knew nothing about the
procedures that had been followed.  That proved embarassing to them.

A zoologist told me that the custom there is that the first author is the
one who did the work, the last author is the one who obtained the funding,
and the authors in between--who knows?

I am listed as an in-between author in a certain biochemistry paper.
I helped the principal author solve a mathematical problem, then
proof-read several drafts of the paper.  Whether the application of
fractal dimension to biochemistry means anything in biochemistry
is beyond my expertise to say.

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.)
-- 
  Gerald A. Edgar                Internet:  edgar@mps.ohio-state.edu
  Department of Mathematics      Bitnet:    EDGAR@OHSTPY
  The Ohio State University      telephone: 614-292-0395 (Office)
  Columbus, OH 43210             -292-4975 (Math. Dept.) -292-1479 (Dept. Fax)
From: dct@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu (David C. Tuttle)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: Fraud and extortion at Concordia University (Canada) (part LXIX)
Date: 25 Aug 1992 16:59:57 GMT
Organization: University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center

gjnelson@ee.umn.edu (Grad student Greg Nelson) writes:
>
> Dr. V. Fabrikant:
> Please quit cluttering up this topic with all this crap.
> Perhaps you got a raw deal at Concordia.  Deal with it!

And so he did... in his own way.
Perhaps this wasn't such good advice after all.

This venomous sarcasm reflects only my opinion, and not necessarily
that of my employers.
-- 
David C. Tuttle                               dct@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu
Software Systems Specialist               Department of Biomathematics
University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center    Houston, Texas, USA
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers