Tweeps, an accepted article has just had proofs returned with in-text citations changed to first-named author "et al", for 3 authors listed alphabetically. Do I take a stand on this and insist that it must be reverted before I agree to the proofs?
-
-
Replying to @Quasilocal
I’m a bit confused, perhaps by the wording .. they just cited “et. Al?”
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @InertialObservr
I wrote "The result of A, B and C [N]..." and they changed it everywhere to sat "The result of A et al [N]"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @InertialObservr
Well, in some fields they have this notion of "first author" to signify who really gets the credit, or something(??). Imagine you wrote a paper with Anderson and Chen, listed alphabetically. This journal would change in-text citations to that to just say "Anderson et al"
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Quasilocal
ah I see .. that is a bit sticky .. is it consistent with their previous practices?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr
I think it might be. Since >2 authors in math is uncommon, I didn't find enough cases to check. But everything I found just didn't refer to any authors, eg "a result of [N]" to avoid this. Even if consistent, it's shitty practice for the field so I felt something had to be said
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I feel that good on ya mate
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.