Specially theorists, but hurts everyone, it discourages collaboration and creates a system where people speculate whether a given position as author is worth the effort put in the paper.
-
-
Replying to @Adrian_Jacobo @andpru and
It's also odd in light of (1). I have a bunch of middle author papers because I found a niche, ran with it, and other people found it helpful. That honestly seems like a better hiring signal than "I sat in a dark room and patched all these cells BY MYSELF" but...what do I know?
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @prokraustinator
.
@prokraustinator@Adrian_Jacobo@andpru@neuromusic The "hiring signal" depts looking for isn't whether other people find you helpful, but whether you can lead your own program.2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @mnitabach
.
@prokraustinator@Adrian_Jacobo@andpru@neuromusic Not taking a position on whether this is a good idea or not, just that it exists.1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @mnitabach
.
@prokraustinator@Adrian_Jacobo@andpru@neuromusic And hiring depts definitely try to figure out how & why someone is a first author.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mnitabach @prokraustinator and
But if the paper is a 50/50 collaboration where one person did the experiments and the other did the theory and both came up with the ideas figuring out who is the "first author" is an ill defined enterprise.
0 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @cian_neuro @andpru and
I basically quit a paper over something along these lines but even worse, sadly. They added in another modeller/theorist without even telling us who did some other random stuff that was actually really misplaced because unlike us they were not there at the inception of the work.
0 replies 1 retweet 5 likes
Yup! Depressing and actually disgusting.
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.