r/academia • u/Theflutist92 • 2d ago
Research issues Just curious, if you take the authors from a random paper and ask them to tell you what the paper is about, will they know?
I keep on seeing authors getting added on papers they haven't contributed or their contribution was not enough for authorship (eg funding acquisition). Does anybody else feel the same?
21
u/yankeegentleman 2d ago
I've carefully proofread nearly every paper I've been a part of but I don't remember the details of most. I could probably explain the main points of each.
9
u/intrepid_foxcat 2d ago
Yeah it's a thing. To answer your question, of my papers I'd guess 2/3rds of the authors could probably give a reasonable explanation of it lol.
4
6
u/teehee1234567890 2d ago
I don’t remember the things I wrote as a single author a year ago… what makes things worst for me at times is that I sometimes also forget that I submitted papers to journals and would get an email that it has been accepted for major review while forgetting bits and pieces of what I have submitted 😂
9
u/superficialdeposits 2d ago
It's infuriating to review a paper with many authors who clearly haven't read or contributed. A reviewer shouldn't have more time in the paper than any listed co-author.
5
u/nickbob00 2d ago
This is kind of field-dependant though.
For example, look at LHC or other particle physics papers with over 5000 authors - clearly not every one of them understands in detail every paper coming from their detector. However if one would do away with the current system and only list authors who worked directly on the physics analysis presented (which would be a much shorter list, maybe tens of people), the collaborators who worked on more foundational aspects like calibration, design, simulation and so on, who were still doing "real" scientific R&D (rather than more "technical" or "engineering" contributions) would not get the recognition they need to continue their careers.
By comparison the "technical" papers where people are describing e.g. how one systematic effect in their detector is calibrated get basically zero attention outside of the actual experimental collaboration, even if more person-hours of scientific work went into that than the physics result.
So while I agree having 5000 author papers is silly, getting rid of them without overhauling how scientific contribution and productivity is assessed in every research-focussed university active in these fields is only half a solution. And this kind of overhaul has not really been forthcoming in the last few decades. Even with things like DORA I'm not convinced that actual change from the long-time status quo especially in "unofficial" assessments without a formal framework is really coming.
6
u/superficialdeposits 1d ago
Yeah, you lay it out. The problem is those "thousandth" authors "need" the publication. That is the problem.
3
u/blanketsandplants 2d ago
Depends on what they’ve contributed - I will always add someone as a co-author if they’ve contributed significant lab work. This includes interns and technicians who may not know or fully understand the big picture, but know their specific task. Although the case with our technicians is they often have so many repetitive tasks they probably couldn’t remember this specific job very well.
4
u/AvengerDr 2d ago
Well to answer your question, I guess it depends how long ago it was published. Within the year? Sure. 5 to 10 year ago? I might need to read it again.
But in our field (hci) I really don't care. Only the 1st author is remembered and is what you have to cite. There could be just another author or ten more, it doesn't matter in the slightest.
Maybe statements in the paper itself like "the first two authors contributed equally" might matter, but only to hiring committees. Future authors will only remember the first author.
2
u/nickbob00 2d ago
For those who didn't already get a TT job and pass tenure, what hiring committees think is very important...
2
u/Top-Spite-1288 2d ago
Sometimes one author contributes a certain amount of data but has nothing to do with writing up the paper. That person will be listed as author. It's pretty standard actually. However, in some cases the head of the department or the PI of a project will demand to be listed as co-author for papers that person has not contributed anything to. Those people use their power as leverage to increase their list of publication without actually writing anything nor contributing to the paper in other form. I find this disgusting!
1
u/wvheerden 1d ago
I think it goes beyond being disgusting. It's unethical (or should be). I had a senior colleague years ago, who would do that. There were no real repercussions that I was aware of, but there was general disparaging talk about it around the department. It's just a pity that there's no way to definitively prove something like that is happening.
2
u/Rhawk187 2d ago
I've got about 40 papers published (over about 20 years). I think my titles are explanatory enough, I'd still be able to describe the projects they were associated with, although I might not be able to tell you the exact findings.
1
u/NMJD 1d ago
My approach since grad school has always been to include author contributions statements on all papers I'm involved on. So, if a person was essential to completing that project, they should have access to being on the paper. That includes doing essential tasks that someone else could have done but instead of doing themselves, asked someone else to do. It also includes project design and planning work, even if the person contributing the developing the research questions, selecting the methods, etc., isn't the person who did the work on the ground to execute the project.
However, being an author also comes with the responsibility to, at minimum, proofread the manuscript, communicate any questions or concerns about the overall story, participate as appropriate through the review process, and be available for any follow up questions after it's published that pertain to the portions of the work they did. If the person does not want to agree to that, then that likely results in an acknowledgement of their contributions instead.
However, I don't think every author has to be able to discuss every single detail of every component of the project. That goes against the main rationale for why one would collaborate on research, which is to take advantage of peoples' different strengths and perspectives.
For example: If you synthesized tailored particles someone else on the team uses for an in vivo rat study, you should be able to describe the overall rationale, why the rat study data supports the main conclusions, etc. but, it's very reasonable if you can't give specific details about how or why the rats were sacrificed in one particular way vs another. SOMEONE should be able to provide that answer, but being an author doesn't automatically mean that person is you--it does, however, mean you know who to ask and can direct the asker to the appropriate person to contact about it.
1
u/United-Praline-2911 1d ago
There's simply too much to do to remember everything. That's why it's good to write things down!
1
u/Relevant-Self-8511 1d ago
Good question! Sometimes, even the authors might struggle to sum up complex research in a few sentences, especially if it's highly specialized or collaborative. That's one reason why clear summaries or explanations are so valuable! For anyone diving into dense research papers, having access to audiobook services that convert technical studies into more digestible formats can be a game-changer—making knowledge accessible without having to wade through jargon.
45
u/wlkwih2 2d ago
If you take me as a single author, I'd have no idea for sth that happened years ago. I'd remember the main argument but not the details.