Nautilus

As part of our ongoing discussion about the accountability of authors and co-authors (comments are still very welcome), I decided to take a snapshot look at the popularity of Author Contributions statements in Nature. We strongly encourage authors to make these statments, specifying the ways in which the authors contributed to the paper, but we do not make it mandatory. Should that change? Part of the answer to that question lies in how useful authors find the idea. So it is of interest to note that in the past three or four issues of Nature, about half of the Articles and Letters (primary research) carried contributions statements. Here are some examples, all from the same issue of Nature (1 November 2007):

J.L., J.R.S. and J.W.L. conceived the Brainbow strategies. J.R.S. and J.W.L. supervised the project. J.L. built initial constructs and validated them in vitro and in vivo. T.A.W. performed all cerebellar axonal tracing and colour profile analysis with programs developed with J. Lu. H.K. performed all live imaging experiments. R.W.D. generated Brainbow-1.0 lines expressing cytoplasmic XFPs, and R.A.B. generated Brainbow-1.1 constructs and lines. J.L., T.A.W. and R.W.D. screened mouse lines.

S.H.C. designed and performed experiments, analysed data and wrote the paper; N.C., M.T. and J.M.G. designed and performed experiments; D.R. and M.B.G. developed analytical tools; and C.I.B. designed experiments, analysed data and wrote the paper.
(more on the post continuation page)

Continue reading "Author contributions audit" »

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 05, 2007
Categories: Authors, Authorship, Categories, Policies | Permalink | Comments (3)

Dr Robin Rose writes: Recently, the scientific community was presented with a paper containing the names of no fewer than 21 authors in Nature. The race for recognition in certain areas of study appears to have many scientists battling for authorships on as many papers as will accept them. Any number of journals seem to find this acceptable. Thinking back through my long career in science I cannot recall ever seeing an article or "letter," in this case, with so many authors: 1/21 would suggest an average 4.76% contribution, with some contributing more and some less (!). While collaboration is often praiseworthy, I found myself asking more than a few questions:

(1) How does a paper with so many authors actually get written, accepted for review, and then revised? What does author mean in such a case?
(2) How does such a paper 'count' in terms of value in academic promotion and tenure? Did 20+ people have the same idea at the same time?
(3) What level of credit does each author take when such a paper is part of a resumé or when citation statistics are considered?
(4) After the first three to five authors, how is the contribution of the rest gauged?
(5) Does the author order have some significance when there are 20+?
(6) Is research more credible with 20+ authors? Should journals allow for 30+ authors?
(7) Are 20+ authors meant as some sort of statement, whether scientific, political or scientifically political?
(8) Were authors added as a way to strengthen the conclusions, but also implying that a few did most of the work, more did a bit of the work, and the rest did very little?
(9) Are the authors part of a collective group? Why not use the group name as the author?
(10) Are we witnessing "author inflation?"

Such questions are important for scientists, journal editors, and their supervisors to sort out. Maybe papers with high author counts are intended to display some harmony that exists in the international academic and research community. Maybe we need to stop using the vague "et al" and go to "first author name plus 20" (the specific number of co-authors) so as to better clarify multiple contributions. There may be more issues, questions, and possibilities but I'll leave those to countless other authors.

Dr Robin Rose, Research Cooperative College of Forestry, Oregon State University.

Maxine Clarke, on behalf of the Nature journals, adds: we welcome responses (in the comments section below) to Dr Rose's points. Our authorship policies do not specify a particular order or maximum number of authors, but we do strongly encourage authors to include a statement in the end notes to specify the actual contribution of each coauthor to the completed work.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 21, 2007
Categories: Authors, Authorship, Policies | Permalink | Comments (8)

Nature 448, 149 (2007).
Obituary: Pierre-Gilles de Gennes (1932–2007): Pioneer of soft-matter physics.
Françoise Brochard-Wyart writes:

"De Gennes fostered a collective research effort that is scarcely imaginable today. Papers were signed not with the names of individuals, but with the name of the group. Theoreticians would spend half their time contemplating liquid crystals under the microscope and discussing practical experiments. Researchers would often arrive in the morning to find a note from de Gennes that would launch them in yet another ground-breaking direction. Calling on his vast knowledge of physics, de Gennes drew analogies between different fields. For example, he realized that laws developed to describe superconductivity phenomena could be used to understand phase transitions in liquid crystals."

Read the rest of this biographical note at Nature.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on July 18, 2007
Categories: Authors | Permalink | Comments (0)