Re: [Texascavers] Authors of Scientific Articles

[Logan McNatt via Texascavers]

  
  
Mr. Mixon just loves to poke at the scientists on this list
  because he knows he'll get a reaction (especially from Diana!).
  I've enjoyed the explanations and comments from her and others.
  The Texas caver family includes quite a few scientists in a
  variety of fields, many of them karst related. Their research and
  discoveries make the news fairly often (e.g. aquifers, hydrology,
  blind fish and other endangered species, long/deep caves and cave
  dives, etc). I think it's great that the rest of us have an
  opportunity to know these people, support some of them in their
  fieldwork, and often are among the first to learn about their
  findings at Grotto meetings.  The more we learn from them about
  karst geology, hydrology, biology, astronomy, etc., the more
  interesting and fun caving is! (Just kidding about
astronomy.)

Logan McNatt
lmcn...@austin.rr.com

On Aug 31, 2016 Bill Mixon wrote
Wow! Fourteen alleged authors for an article with eight paragraphs.
How many of those people do you think were really authors, i.e.,
writers? How many of them were just bottle washers? -- Mixon

  

___
Texascavers mailing list | http://texascavers.com
Texascavers@texascavers.com | Archives: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/texascavers@texascavers.com/
http://lists.texascavers.com/listinfo/texascavers

Re: [Texascavers] Authors of scientific articles

[Don Arburn via Texascavers]

Hey! You two get a room!


--Don

> On Aug 31, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Bill Steele via Texascavers 
>  wrote:
> 
> You're so cute.
> 
>> On Aug 31, 2016, at 3:13 PM, Diana Tomchick via Texascavers 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Oddly enough, this afternoon I received a form that I need to fill out in 
>> order to have a paper reviewed in eLife, an Open Access journal.
>> 
>> The form is entitled, "eLife’s transparent reporting form.”
>> 
>> It consists of detailed questions about how the data was collected, analyzed 
>> and any statistical analysis performed on the data.
>> 
>> This is information that is required from the authors, not from the people 
>> cited in the acknowledgements.
>> 
>> I refer interested parties to the following web site:
>> 
>> https://elifesciences.org/elife-news/elife-method-and-methodology-data-collection
>> 
>> I love y’all as cavers, but please, if you’re going to pass judgement on 
>> scientific publishing, try to think about how scientific publishing is done 
>> nowadays, and realize that for different fields, there are different methods 
>> of data collection. Not to mention the rapidly changing field of open versus 
>> closed access publication—this stuff is changing almost under our feet.
>> 
>> Diana
>> 
>> **
>> Diana R. Tomchick
>> Professor
>> Departments of Biophysics and Biochemistry
>> University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
>> 5323 Harry Hines Blvd.
>> Rm. ND10.214A
>> Dallas, TX 75390-8816
>> diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu
>> (214) 645-6383 (phone)
>> (214) 645-6353 (fax)
>> 
>>> On Aug 31, 2016, at 2:57 PM, texascavers@texascavers.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> As a scientist, I generally agree with the need for multiple "authors",
>>> including people who had nothing to do with actually writing an article.
>>> However it does seem to have gotten a bit out of control and now people
>>> are listed as authors who should more correctly be listed in the
>>> Acknowledgments.
>>> As cavers, we do not follow this trend. Caving articles, even about
>>> whole expeditions, are usually authored by no more than three people,
>>> and usually just one or two. Typically every member of the expedition
>>> was important, and they should be mentioned by name in the text, but I
>>> don't think they should be listed as authors.
>>> 
>>> Geary,
>>> Long lists of authors have been a hallmark of physics papers for
>>> decades. I have a paper from 1989 (Physical Review Letters) with 188
>>> authors. The list took up the entire first page of the article. And that
>>> was long before the CERN Large Hadron Collider came into being. As huge
>>> collaborations in physics and astronomy become more common, long author
>>> lists are, sadly, likely to become ever more common.
>>> 
>>> Mark Minton
>>> mmin...@caver.net
>>> 
 On Wed, August 31, 2016 1:46 pm, via Texascavers wrote:
 That said, it is often the case that the relative value of an article is
 inversely proportional to the number of authors cited. Given the current
 frenzy to publish and be recognized for Pd work, it would not be
 surprising if the number of authors exceeded the length of the article.
 
 Jerry Atkinson.
 
> On Wed, August 31, 2016 1:27 pm, Geary Schindel via Texascavers wrote:
> Diana,
> 
> Very well said, I was thinking of replying also but you hit the nail on
> the head. Most research these days are a collaboration between many
> scientists and laboratories. I think the best example I've seen is some
> of the Super Collider work that might have 150 authors for a paper.
> 
> Geary Schindel
> gschin...@edwardsaquifer.org
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Texascavers On Behalf Of Diana Tomchick via Texascavers
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 12:16 PM
> To: Cave Tex
> Subject: Re: [Texascavers] White-Nose Syndrome in PNW scientific article
> 
> Let me clarify what constitutes authorship on a scientific article.
> 
> It does not necessarily mean that a person wrote one of the paragraphs.
> In fact, in the future we may have artificial intelligence to thank for
> writing much of the routine text in our articles and technical manuals.
> 
> It DOES mean that an author is a person that is responsible for one or
> more of the following:
> 
> Coming up with the original idea (i.e., the hypothesis) for the
> experiment Collecting data Analyzing data Presenting data (in graphical,
> written or other forms such as videos, etc.) Supervising the people that
> collect, analyze and present the data Drawing important conclusions from
> the data and testing new hypotheses that result from this all-important
> step Writing the text of the final document
> 
> You want and NEED all of these people to be listed as authors-as they
> are the ones that are legitimately 

Re: [Texascavers] Authors of scientific articles

[Bill Steele via Texascavers]

You're so cute.

> On Aug 31, 2016, at 3:13 PM, Diana Tomchick via Texascavers 
>  wrote:
> 
> Oddly enough, this afternoon I received a form that I need to fill out in 
> order to have a paper reviewed in eLife, an Open Access journal.
> 
> The form is entitled, "eLife’s transparent reporting form.”
> 
> It consists of detailed questions about how the data was collected, analyzed 
> and any statistical analysis performed on the data.
> 
> This is information that is required from the authors, not from the people 
> cited in the acknowledgements.
> 
> I refer interested parties to the following web site:
> 
> https://elifesciences.org/elife-news/elife-method-and-methodology-data-collection
> 
> I love y’all as cavers, but please, if you’re going to pass judgement on 
> scientific publishing, try to think about how scientific publishing is done 
> nowadays, and realize that for different fields, there are different methods 
> of data collection. Not to mention the rapidly changing field of open versus 
> closed access publication—this stuff is changing almost under our feet.
> 
> Diana
> 
> **
> Diana R. Tomchick
> Professor
> Departments of Biophysics and Biochemistry
> University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
> 5323 Harry Hines Blvd.
> Rm. ND10.214A
> Dallas, TX 75390-8816
> diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu
> (214) 645-6383 (phone)
> (214) 645-6353 (fax)
> 
>> On Aug 31, 2016, at 2:57 PM, texascavers@texascavers.com wrote:
>> 
>> As a scientist, I generally agree with the need for multiple "authors",
>> including people who had nothing to do with actually writing an article.
>> However it does seem to have gotten a bit out of control and now people
>> are listed as authors who should more correctly be listed in the
>> Acknowledgments.
>> As cavers, we do not follow this trend. Caving articles, even about
>> whole expeditions, are usually authored by no more than three people,
>> and usually just one or two. Typically every member of the expedition
>> was important, and they should be mentioned by name in the text, but I
>> don't think they should be listed as authors.
>> 
>> Geary,
>> Long lists of authors have been a hallmark of physics papers for
>> decades. I have a paper from 1989 (Physical Review Letters) with 188
>> authors. The list took up the entire first page of the article. And that
>> was long before the CERN Large Hadron Collider came into being. As huge
>> collaborations in physics and astronomy become more common, long author
>> lists are, sadly, likely to become ever more common.
>> 
>> Mark Minton
>> mmin...@caver.net
>> 
>>> On Wed, August 31, 2016 1:46 pm, via Texascavers wrote:
>>> That said, it is often the case that the relative value of an article is
>>> inversely proportional to the number of authors cited. Given the current
>>> frenzy to publish and be recognized for Pd work, it would not be
>>> surprising if the number of authors exceeded the length of the article.
>>> 
>>> Jerry Atkinson.
>>> 
 On Wed, August 31, 2016 1:27 pm, Geary Schindel via Texascavers wrote:
 Diana,
 
 Very well said, I was thinking of replying also but you hit the nail on
 the head. Most research these days are a collaboration between many
 scientists and laboratories. I think the best example I've seen is some
 of the Super Collider work that might have 150 authors for a paper.
 
 Geary Schindel
 gschin...@edwardsaquifer.org
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Texascavers On Behalf Of Diana Tomchick via Texascavers
 Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 12:16 PM
 To: Cave Tex
 Subject: Re: [Texascavers] White-Nose Syndrome in PNW scientific article
 
 Let me clarify what constitutes authorship on a scientific article.
 
 It does not necessarily mean that a person wrote one of the paragraphs.
 In fact, in the future we may have artificial intelligence to thank for
 writing much of the routine text in our articles and technical manuals.
 
 It DOES mean that an author is a person that is responsible for one or
 more of the following:
 
 Coming up with the original idea (i.e., the hypothesis) for the
 experiment Collecting data Analyzing data Presenting data (in graphical,
 written or other forms such as videos, etc.) Supervising the people that
 collect, analyze and present the data Drawing important conclusions from
 the data and testing new hypotheses that result from this all-important
 step Writing the text of the final document
 
 You want and NEED all of these people to be listed as authors-as they
 are the ones that are legitimately responsible for the final published
 work. If there are any questions about what is presented in the work,
 everyone knows who is responsible.
 
 We call this transparency, which unfortunately is lacking in other
 important human 

Re: [Texascavers] Authors of scientific articles

[Diana Tomchick via Texascavers]

Oddly enough, this afternoon I received a form that I need to fill out in order 
to have a paper reviewed in eLife, an Open Access journal.

The form is entitled, "eLife’s transparent reporting form.”

It consists of detailed questions about how the data was collected, analyzed 
and any statistical analysis performed on the data.

This is information that is required from the authors, not from the people 
cited in the acknowledgements.

I refer interested parties to the following web site:

https://elifesciences.org/elife-news/elife-method-and-methodology-data-collection

I love y’all as cavers, but please, if you’re going to pass judgement on 
scientific publishing, try to think about how scientific publishing is done 
nowadays, and realize that for different fields, there are different methods of 
data collection. Not to mention the rapidly changing field of open versus 
closed access publication—this stuff is changing almost under our feet.

Diana

**
Diana R. Tomchick
Professor
Departments of Biophysics and Biochemistry
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
5323 Harry Hines Blvd.
Rm. ND10.214A
Dallas, TX 75390-8816
diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu
(214) 645-6383 (phone)
(214) 645-6353 (fax)

> On Aug 31, 2016, at 2:57 PM, texascavers@texascavers.com wrote:
>
>  As a scientist, I generally agree with the need for multiple "authors",
> including people who had nothing to do with actually writing an article.
> However it does seem to have gotten a bit out of control and now people
> are listed as authors who should more correctly be listed in the
> Acknowledgments.
>  As cavers, we do not follow this trend. Caving articles, even about
> whole expeditions, are usually authored by no more than three people,
> and usually just one or two. Typically every member of the expedition
> was important, and they should be mentioned by name in the text, but I
> don't think they should be listed as authors.
>
> Geary,
>  Long lists of authors have been a hallmark of physics papers for
> decades. I have a paper from 1989 (Physical Review Letters) with 188
> authors. The list took up the entire first page of the article. And that
> was long before the CERN Large Hadron Collider came into being. As huge
> collaborations in physics and astronomy become more common, long author
> lists are, sadly, likely to become ever more common.
>
> Mark Minton
> mmin...@caver.net
>
> On Wed, August 31, 2016 1:46 pm, via Texascavers wrote:
>> That said, it is often the case that the relative value of an article is
>> inversely proportional to the number of authors cited. Given the current
>> frenzy to publish and be recognized for Pd work, it would not be
>> surprising if the number of authors exceeded the length of the article.
>>
>> Jerry Atkinson.
>>
>> On Wed, August 31, 2016 1:27 pm, Geary Schindel via Texascavers wrote:
>>> Diana,
>>>
>>> Very well said, I was thinking of replying also but you hit the nail on
>>> the head. Most research these days are a collaboration between many
>>> scientists and laboratories. I think the best example I've seen is some
>>> of the Super Collider work that might have 150 authors for a paper.
>>>
>>> Geary Schindel
>>> gschin...@edwardsaquifer.org
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Texascavers On Behalf Of Diana Tomchick via Texascavers
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 12:16 PM
>>> To: Cave Tex
>>> Subject: Re: [Texascavers] White-Nose Syndrome in PNW scientific article
>>>
>>> Let me clarify what constitutes authorship on a scientific article.
>>>
>>> It does not necessarily mean that a person wrote one of the paragraphs.
>>> In fact, in the future we may have artificial intelligence to thank for
>>> writing much of the routine text in our articles and technical manuals.
>>>
>>> It DOES mean that an author is a person that is responsible for one or
>>> more of the following:
>>>
>>> Coming up with the original idea (i.e., the hypothesis) for the
>>> experiment Collecting data Analyzing data Presenting data (in graphical,
>>> written or other forms such as videos, etc.) Supervising the people that
>>> collect, analyze and present the data Drawing important conclusions from
>>> the data and testing new hypotheses that result from this all-important
>>> step Writing the text of the final document
>>>
>>> You want and NEED all of these people to be listed as authors-as they
>>> are the ones that are legitimately responsible for the final published
>>> work. If there are any questions about what is presented in the work,
>>> everyone knows who is responsible.
>>>
>>> We call this transparency, which unfortunately is lacking in other
>>> important human endeavors.
>>>
>>> Diana
>>>
>>> **
>>> Diana R. Tomchick
>>> Professor
>>> Departments of Biophysics and Biochemistry University of Texas
>>> Southwestern Medical Center
>>> 5323 Harry Hines Blvd.
>>> Rm. ND10.214A
>>> Dallas, TX 

Re: [Texascavers] Authors of scientific articles

[Mark Minton via Texascavers]

  As a scientist, I generally agree with the need for multiple "authors",
including people who had nothing to do with actually writing an article.
However it does seem to have gotten a bit out of control and now people
are listed as authors who should more correctly be listed in the
Acknowledgments.
  As cavers, we do not follow this trend. Caving articles, even about
whole expeditions, are usually authored by no more than three people,
and usually just one or two. Typically every member of the expedition
was important, and they should be mentioned by name in the text, but I
don't think they should be listed as authors.

Geary,
  Long lists of authors have been a hallmark of physics papers for
decades. I have a paper from 1989 (Physical Review Letters) with 188
authors. The list took up the entire first page of the article. And that
was long before the CERN Large Hadron Collider came into being. As huge
collaborations in physics and astronomy become more common, long author
lists are, sadly, likely to become ever more common.

Mark Minton
mmin...@caver.net

On Wed, August 31, 2016 1:46 pm, via Texascavers wrote:
> That said, it is often the case that the relative value of an article is
> inversely proportional to the number of authors cited. Given the current
> frenzy to publish and be recognized for Pd work, it would not be
> surprising if the number of authors exceeded the length of the article.
>
> Jerry Atkinson.
>
> On Wed, August 31, 2016 1:27 pm, Geary Schindel via Texascavers wrote:
>> Diana,
>>
>> Very well said, I was thinking of replying also but you hit the nail on
>> the head. Most research these days are a collaboration between many
>> scientists and laboratories. I think the best example I've seen is some
>> of the Super Collider work that might have 150 authors for a paper.
>>
>> Geary Schindel
>> gschin...@edwardsaquifer.org
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Texascavers On Behalf Of Diana Tomchick via Texascavers
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 12:16 PM
>> To: Cave Tex
>> Subject: Re: [Texascavers] White-Nose Syndrome in PNW scientific article
>>
>> Let me clarify what constitutes authorship on a scientific article.
>>
>> It does not necessarily mean that a person wrote one of the paragraphs.
>> In fact, in the future we may have artificial intelligence to thank for
>> writing much of the routine text in our articles and technical manuals.
>>
>> It DOES mean that an author is a person that is responsible for one or
>> more of the following:
>>
>> Coming up with the original idea (i.e., the hypothesis) for the
>> experiment Collecting data Analyzing data Presenting data (in graphical,
>> written or other forms such as videos, etc.) Supervising the people that
>> collect, analyze and present the data Drawing important conclusions from
>> the data and testing new hypotheses that result from this all-important
>> step Writing the text of the final document
>>
>> You want and NEED all of these people to be listed as authors-as they
>> are the ones that are legitimately responsible for the final published
>> work. If there are any questions about what is presented in the work,
>> everyone knows who is responsible.
>>
>> We call this transparency, which unfortunately is lacking in other
>> important human endeavors.
>>
>> Diana
>>
>> **
>> Diana R. Tomchick
>> Professor
>> Departments of Biophysics and Biochemistry University of Texas
>> Southwestern Medical Center
>> 5323 Harry Hines Blvd.
>> Rm. ND10.214A
>> Dallas, TX 75390-8816
>> diana.tomch...@utsouthwestern.edu
>> (214) 645-6383 (phone)
>> (214) 645-6353 (fax)
>>
>>> On Aug 31, 2016, at 11:59 AM, Cavers Texas wrote:
>>>
>>> Wow! Fourteen alleged authors for an article with eight paragraphs.
>>> How many of those people do you think were really authors, i.e.,
>>> writers? How many of them were just bottle washers? -- Mixon

___
Texascavers mailing list | http://texascavers.com
Texascavers@texascavers.com | Archives: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/texascavers@texascavers.com/
http://lists.texascavers.com/listinfo/texascavers