Authorship order #145
Comments
|
The proposal in the 3rd paragraph sounds good to me, and indeed, I am +1 on Matt Turk being the author after "The yt project" -- Matt, you've done the vast majority of the writing and pushing this through. |
|
+1 on the proposal in 3rd paragraph and on Matt Turk being first after the project. For how to assess the first tier "amount of effort toward this specific paper" -- one thing that I've seen other large research groups do when publishing is to create a rubric and form and ask folks to self report their effort. This might be something like a set of questions along the lines of: (1 point): Did you write a section of the paper? Then have folks answer the form, tally the numbers and sort by total score. I'm sure that any rubric used would put Matt first... it does of course introduce the question of how to set the rubric, but having community sign off on the questions that would be included would be more transparent than trying to gauge individual effort of others. |
|
Without a doubt in my mind, I think Matt should be first author for combined leadership of the paper and the project. I am quite a bit less comfortable with the two-tier author system. If the paper is to stand for the project, then I am against what this says about contribution valuing. Is a small contribution to the paper worth more than a large contribution to the project? What about those with large contributions to yt-4 who departed the project prior to the paper? I think the size and diversity of contribution to this project makes the exercise of ranking contribution nearly undoable. I don't like random either because it is either ambiguous or implies some sort of lottery, which itself attributes value to placement in the list. I am wary of the point system described above. There are lots of biases involved in a system of self-reporting contributions. Who will put themselves forward? Who will hesitate to consider something a contribution? My personal preference would be Matt then alphabetical. It makes a clear statement. I hope this doesn't sound like I am upset. I have strong feelings, which is different. I also don't want my point of view to rule the conversation and I am happy to be outvoted. |
|
Dear all,
I also unequivocally agree that Matt is first author of this paper.
I think that the whole authorship list should be alphabetical after Matt,
for the reasons Britton outlined below.
Best,
Stephanie
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 5:56 AM Britton Smith ***@***.***> wrote:
Without a doubt in my mind, I think Matt should be first author for
combined leadership of the paper and the project.
I am quite a bit less comfortable with the two-tier author system. If the
paper is to stand for the project, then I am against what this says about
contribution valuing. Is a small contribution to the paper worth more than
a large contribution to the project? What about those with large
contributions to yt-4 who departed the project prior to the paper?
I think the size and diversity of contribution to this project makes the
exercise of ranking contribution nearly undoable. I don't like random
either because it is either ambiguous or implies some sort of lottery,
which itself attributes value to placement in the list. I am wary of the
point system described above. There are lots of biases involved in a system
of self-reporting contributions. Who will put themselves forward? Who will
hesitate to consider something a contribution? My personal preference would
be Matt then alphabetical. It makes a clear statement.
I hope this doesn't sound like I am upset. I have strong feelings, which
is different. I also don't want my point of view to rule the conversation
and I am happy to be outvoted.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#145 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACHE2BF2ZJA7DQMROQLPPTDXSDSTRANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TDM4W4>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
--
--
Dr. Stephanie Tonnesen
Research Scientist
CCA, Flatiron Institute
New York, NY
she/her
***@***.***
|
|
all good points, @brittonsmith ! I was initially attracted to the tiers because as a more recent member of the yt community who only started contributing after the initial yt 4.0 push and hasn't contributed text to the 4.0 paper I didn't feel like I warranted the same level of attribution on this paper as others. But a Matt + alphabetical list is fine by me if those that have contributed more are OK with that. |
|
Totally fair, @chrishavlin! For what it's worth, I think you have made some fairly significant contributions and seem likely to continue to do so for some time. This paper will very likely be thee yt citation for many years, and so one could argue it would be unfair to penalize you for your relative newness. |
|
I'm in general agreement with 1st author Matt, alphabetical afterwards. I think it's unequivocal that Matt has been the lead of the project since the start, but sorting the dozens of other contributors/authors will be a very difficult, potentially messy process. |
|
Hi everyone,
I am late to this discussion, but I think Britton articulated my opinion on
this process very well. Ranking contributions to the project and to the
paper are challenging indeed, and by keeping it alphabetical it sets a
reasonable standard that we're all contributors. I think having Matt as
first author is justified based on his status within the project and as
primary author of the paper. Thanks for getting this paper out, Matt. I
think I speak for all of us when I say we are extremely grateful for this
updated and super awesome paper. It's been a pleasure watching it take
shape, and I'm happy that you're including us all on it.
Cameron
…On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 1:36 PM Ben Keller ***@***.***> wrote:
I'm in general agreement with 1st author Matt, alphabetical afterwards. I
think it's unequivocal that Matt has been the lead of the project since the
start, but sorting the dozens of other contributors/authors will be a very
difficult, potentially messy process.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#145 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB66M56FNAAG4DBRYK6YH33XTAJNBANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TDM4W4>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
--
Cameron Hummels
Computational Astrophysicist
California Institute of Technology
http://chummels.org
|
I've been giving a fair bit of thought to the order of authorship on the paper. I personally reject the premise that authorship requires contribution of text, but, the there may be some validity in ordering the authors based on textual contributions.
I would really like to be the first author after "The yt project" but I'm not sure I can ethically justify special-casing for that. But, if I could, what I am leaning toward is a two-tier system. Those authors who have contributed text to the paper (including whose text has been committed to the repository by me, like @langmm ) would be in Tier One, and they would be in the first set of authors. The second set of authors would be those who are authors on the paper, but have not contributed substantial text to the paper.
My proposal would be to explore either randomizing or alphabetizing the second tier of authors, and potentially ordering the first by "amount of effort toward this specific paper." The issue I run into there is that I'm not sure we can really quantify or order in that tier. (It would, though, probably result in me getting my position toward the top.)
I'll include a link to this issue when I email to the co-author list, and solicit ideas and feedback.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: