HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 04:32:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.204404.29264@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <17lpf7INNchs@function.mps.ohio-state.edu> edgar@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) writes:
>>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".
>
>Please explain why it is not dishonesty. Saying "it is the custom"
>only shows that the custom itself is dishonst. 
>
>>-- 
>

Fraid I really really have to agree. It is dishonest. Period.
Its a lie that has become acceptable in academia.  It does
not further science, just the careers of those with the 
power.

It is time this crap stops.  I vote that Journal request
the authors (all the authors) of every paper submitted to
also submit a one page outline of their contributions to 
the paper AND ALL the authors sign ALL the outlines!!!

Chris
From: dadmun@maple.circa.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: fraud etc.
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:53:24 GMT
Reply-To: dadmun@maple.circa.ufl.edu
Organization: University of Florida - CIRCA

Does anyone know who was shot by Mr. Fabrikant?  Someone here heard
mention of it on the news, but being so far removed from Canada - he
didn't pay close attention.  I - believe it or not - have been following
the posts on the subject and I am curious as to who got it.  The the 
victims survive?  etc.                                      ^Did^
Andy D.
From: PAPAI@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan Papai)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:15:07 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

alexa@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Alexander Anger)

>
>It is true that Dr. Fabrikant did not win sympathy by shooting people
>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?)
>
>Alex

	Actually, it was U. of Iowa, but I suppose that all those
states in the middle of the country blur together.  That case was
a Physics Grad. student who was pissed off about not winning some
award or another for his research.

J.P. Papai	Papai@kcgl.eng.OHIO-state.edu
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: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:06:48 GMT

In article <715275094@pike.cs.duke.edu> srt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Stephen R. Tate) writes:
>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).  

You did not say it explicitly, but I paraphrased what your post 
actually implying, because you did not provide any evidence to 
support your metric.

>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").

The difference is: research+teaching are what universities are for.

>
>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!

People can feel whatever they want, but they have to provide evidence.
Unless they do it is just a load of faith. I brought evidence to support my 
claims you did not.

>
>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? 
>

You chose to omit the first part of my posting, in which I said that
what appear to some faculty  as disruptive is actually constructive
to teaching+research, and it is often made by innovative individuals,
who are disliked by some faculty members. You did not counter my argument.

>-- 
>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

Xref: sparky sci.research:953 sci.research.careers:838
From: jars@milton.u.washington.edu (Juan Rodriguez-Sero)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:05:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug28.170505.4700
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug28.030530.7738@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.132822.4428@bb1t.monsanto.com> tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com writes:
>>*I* have been co-author of a few papers that *I* didn't even know about.  
>
>But that is the whole point - it is common but wrong! Not every common
>practice is right. Why should anyone who does _not_ consider it right
>as you do be expected to participate or approve of it ? Dont you agree
>that there is an intellectual dishonesty in that practice ? 
>

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.



Juan Antonio Rodriguez-Sero; jars@u.washington.edu
(School of Oceanography; University of Washington, WB - 10)
-------------------------------------------------------------
It is always with the best intentions that
the worst deeds are done.
				Oscar Wilde
From: rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on Fabrikant.
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:22:59 GMT
Organization: Cardiothoracic Imaging Research Center

In article <1992Aug28.214318.1166@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>In article <87317@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@aspen.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?
>>
>>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.
>
>Wonderful attitude.
>Just to prevent any misunderstanding: The previous line is a SARCASM.

Hmmm.  This is interesting.  I mention that I recommend against granting
tenure to jerks; and I further mention that this is simply my approach,
and may not be suitable for everyone.  What part of this do you have a 
problem with?  (Do you think that I should, instead, recommend *for*
granting tenure to jerks?  Or do you think that I should, instead,
demand that everyone adopt my attitude?)

This is probably all moot, anyway, as my recommendations on tenure are
not frequently sought; and happily, most of the time when I am consulted,
the people involved are capable researchers and teachers who are very
much removed from the sort of "jerks" mentioned here.

---Rsk
From: d3a132@pnl.gov (Carl P Baker)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:56:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: oracle.1992Aug27.015622.14373
Reply-To: d3a132@pnl.gov
Organization: Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories

In article 3328@otago.ac.nz, helpdesk@otago.ac.nz () writes:
>What a sad situation

Definitely.  Very sad.  Regarding Mr. Firestones post, I can
only add that if even 1/10 of Mr. Fabrikant's allegations are
founded, then both the survivors and the non-survivors are
probably in a well-deserved hell.  There are things that
God'll getcha for!

I can only feel fortunate that I haven't had to deal with this.
It is shocking that things got this far out of hand in Dr. Fabrikant's
case.


-- carl

Carl P Baker
cp_baker@pnl.gov
509-375-2724

Disclaimer: I am not the official spokesperson for anyone.  For which
organizations that use spokespersons are profoundly grateful.
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:00:26 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_

     This is a ridiculous criterion.  Often, the person who writes the
paper did not do all (or, in some cases any) of the science.  Should
the people who conceived and did the work not be included in the author
list?
     Remember:  Only one person, or at most two, can write the paper
(disregarding proofreading and such activities); many can participate in
the science.

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
From: maniattb@cs.rpi.edu (Bill Maniatty)
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:21:44 GMT

In article <DASU.92Aug28183543@sscux1.ssc.gov>, dasu@sscux1.ssc.gov (Sridhara Dasu) writes:
|> In article <28AUG199212501453@utkvx2.utk.edu> lwtsai@utkvx2.utk.edu (Liang Wu Tsai @ U. of Tenn., Knoxville) writes:

	[stuff deleted]
|>    >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.
	[stuff deleted]
|> 
|>    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).
	[more stuff deleted]
>  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.
	[more stuff deleted]
|> 
|> 				- Sridhara Dasu
|> 
	I suspect that many places of employment prefer scientists with active
research interests.  The problem lies in the fact that publication and
citation counts are used as metrics for hiring and promotion purposes.
Employers can be faked out into rewarding non contributors if they use this
metric and non contributors get into the author lists.  The problem seems to lie
with poorly chosen tools and the ability of undeserving individuals to circumvent
the system.

Bill

-- 
|
|	maniattb@cs.rpi.edu - in real life Bill Maniatty
|
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: jars@milton.u.washington.edu (Juan Rodriguez-Sero)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: Cross-posting of Montreal News on Fabricant (long)
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:19:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep3.151925.27293
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <BtzoM6.Ir0@cs.dal.ca> kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi) writes:
School of Oceanography          | such privileges as we enjoy

(lots of material about lawsuits by Dr. Fabrikant and his wife deleted)

I think that is a frequent happening; people are raised in a very op-
pressive, authoritarian environmente; then they get out, and they take
literally the promises of justice the judicial (at least implicitly,
and often explicitly) makes. When they try to have some of their wrongs 
redressed, they find the judicial system is less effective than they
were led to belive; and the judicial system finds them "arrogant".
They (and, in fact, all of us) should remember an old Gipsy curse:

 "May you go to court!"
 

Juan Antonio Rodriguez-Sero     | Those who have long enjoyed
School of Oceanography          | such privileges as we enjoy
University of Washington, WB-10 | forget in time that
Seattle, WA 98195               | men have died to win them.
jars@u.washington.edu           |
(206) 543 - 7003 (work)         |      Franklin D. Roosevelt 
Xref: sparky sci.research:1005 sci.med:16652
From: d3a132@pnl.gov (Carl P Baker)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:59:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: oracle.1992Sep2.155933.14138
Reply-To: d3a132@pnl.gov
Organization: Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories

In article 3701@darwin.ntu.edu.au, b_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au (Brian Duke) writes:
>Do we include their names or not? If we do not, as the rules might suggest, 
>it smacks of a senior person doing down a junior. If we do, we might be 
>including someone who can not take responsibility for the whole paper. I
>include them. They need encouragement and I should not put them down. I try
>to get them involved as much as possible in the writing of the paper, although
>by then they have often graduated and left the university.
>
>What do others suggest?

It seems to me that this would be handled on a case-by-case basis.  If the
student was around and involved in the actual writing of the paper, and can
take at least some responsibility for the whole thing, then by all means
include them.  If they have since left the university and were not involved
in writing the paper then either they have gone on to graduate school and are
developing their own publication list and do not need additional exposure
(however much they may want it) and they understand why they are not on
the authors list - or they have gone into industry (are not doing research)
and don't care.  IMHO.  How's that for a long sentence? :-).  I agree that
while the rules that have been posted are sensible, some fine interpretations
still have to be made in a couple of cases.  This is one, and it sounds like
some of the high energy physics papers are another.


-- carl

Carl P Baker
cp_baker@pnl.gov
509-375-2724

Disclaimer: I am not the official spokesperson for anyone.  For which
organizations that use spokespersons are profoundly grateful.
Xref: sparky sci.research:946 sci.research.careers:835
From: debray@cs.arizona.edu (Saumya K. Debray)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
Subject: co-authorship (was Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science)
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:22:36 GMT
Followup-To: sci.research
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:

> In article [...] tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com writes:
> >He was ranting like a lunatic. [...] 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.  
> 
> But that is the whole point - it is common but wrong! Not every

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.
I do believe that in the long run, the professional respect this earns me
from my colleagues (presumably, they believe that I *have* contributed
reasonably to papers where my name does appear as a co-author) is well 
worth having a marginally shorter list of publications.

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.

Do credibility and professional respect matter?  Maybe it varies from
person to person: I know that grant proposal evaluations or letters of
recommendation that I write are influenced quite a bit by the subject's
credibility with me.
-- 
Saumya Debray
Dept. of Computer Science, University of Arizona, Tucson
debray@cs.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky sci.research:1029 sci.research.careers:916
From: ethan@ut-emx.uucp (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Summary: multiple authorship
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:02:56 GMT
Followup-To: sci.research
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <DASU.92Aug31231325@sscux1.ssc.gov>, dasu@sscux1.ssc.gov (Sridhara Dasu) writes:
> 	History needs to know who all contributed to the work. Not just
> who "wrote" the paper.
> 
and 

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

For most of us, the problem is not with the idea of multiple-author
papers, including those who never wrote a word of them, but in where
to draw the line.  Let me be more specific. I'm an astronomer, a theorist.
When I read a list of authors for a theory paper I assume that everyone
on that list contributed to the ideas being presented in the paper
in some important way.  Merely being present for the discussion doesn't
cut it and I assume that other people feel the same way.  I *do not*
put my name on papers written by (for example) my postdoc unless
I had some role in them.  I feel that it doesn't matter that I wrote
the grant that is supporting him.  His papers will be included in
my application for grant renewal.  In my field, partial authorship on a 
paper means much more than having been a conduit for the money.
It means having contributed to the *science*.  For this reason the 
common practice of putting the name of a laboratory head on a paper
(common in chemistry and medicine anyhow) makes my skin crawl.  
Intellectually I know that this is common practice, and the role of
that particular `author' is understood by others in that field, but
it feels deeply wrong to me.  I think it encourages parasites.

None of this is meant as a slap at observers, or HEP types, or anyone
else who conducts experiments that rely on the expertise of many
people.  In that case all those people really are contributing to
the science and deserve to have their names on the paper.  It
would be grossly unfair (for example) to insist that the people
whose creativity made a particular observation possible should not
share in the credit.  I don't think that's what's being discussed here.


-- 
"Quis tamen tale studium, quo ad primam omnium rerum causam evehimur,
tamquam inutile aut contemnendum detractare ac deprimere ausit?"-Bridel
Ethan T. Vishniac, Dept. of Astronomy, The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas, 78712                   ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi)
Subject: Re: Cross-posting of Montreal News on Fabricant (long)
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:53:37 GMT

        Well...I'm having a few reservations about this guy.  Before, I
	read the article, I thought Fabricant was a victim in this whole
	tragedy  (although not as much as the three people he killed).
	Now, I'm not sure.  It seems to me that he suffers from the
	same "terracentric" delusions of spoiled children, not that he is
	one himself.  When a person is arrogant that is one thing. 
	But when they attempt to pervert the system of law by making
	the bailiff a member of their extended family *sarcasm*, then...
        well, let's just say they are in "The State of Denmark".
	
	I still think an investigation into the Engineering Faculty at 
	Concordia will shed us some light on the suspect nature of
	"grant and granting";  but I'm afraid credibility as shifted
	away from Fabrikant and into a buffer zone between the two sides.
	Who's to say the professors accused have not been slandered? 
	Not me.   



			Kumar

	ps:	The Fabrikants' 1000+ claim on the suitcase deemed to be
		worth only $150  (8-9 years old);  is a dishonest act. 
		I wonder if he wasn't dressed in motley when he first 
		 embarked on the "moral crusade for honesty in science".  
-- 
                                  *******************************************
   Kumar Yelubandi                 **  I don't believe in a lot           **
   (good wines > good times!)      **  of things. And I quit thinking     **
   ...in the year 2525...          **  six years ago, so...DON'T BOTHER ME!!! 
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers