Contemplating the nature of authorship

Just another quick link, this time to this post at Improbable Research.

As a usually-solitary author (well, writer: author‘s pretty hifalutin’ for my stuff), fortunately not in STM, I’m blown away by the notion that some gargantuan number of “authors” actually wrote an article in ScienceNature. (No, I’m not going to count the list.)

Update: Science, Nature, one of those… And I count (rather, Word’s replace function, replacing a comma with a comma, counts) between 190 and 192 authors for a six-page paper. Which, as Wow!ter’s comment notes, is tiny compared to an IgNobel Prize Winner.

2 Responses to “Contemplating the nature of authorship”

  1. WoW!ter Says:

    Don’t forget the 1993 Ig Nobel prize for Literature. They listed a few more. http://www.improbable.com/ig/1993/1993-lit.html

  2. walt Says:

    I just approved the above comment which had been trapped for moderation–and I now think I know why. Probably a combination of the link and the exclamation point in the username…

    In any case, 972 coauthors for a nine-page paper certainly trumps the modest example cited in the post. Presumably, each author contributed one short sentence…

    [Just realized that it\'s easy to count the number of authors using a Word replace command: for the example in the post, I get 191 or 192 authors for a six-page paper. Pikers; they need to recruit some additional coauthors.]


This blog is protected by dr Dave\\\\\\\'s Spam Karma 2: 104263 Spams eaten and counting...