I think the answers for many are yes, no, and no. Many people want creators of data to get credit as co-authors, which I support in principle. But I have heard nobody want creators of models or software to get credit as co-authors. Wondering why.
-
-
Again, it’s not the difficulty level. BOTH ARE HARD. It’s the level of control. If your code is hard to debug, that’s on you—you wrote it! If you have a hard time publishing something, you picked the topic. Exp have these problems too, obviously.
-
I still don't get it. Why are non-modellers always behaving like it's zero sum? Also... all debugging is hard and not all code is single-developer code.
-
We are talking about *authorship*, it should be obvious that whoever builds a model authors it, that authorship does not rely on the difficulty or riks entailed in a task. However, and talking as both empirical (animal) scientist and modeller, I don't think that
-
using others' models, data or methods directly qualifies someone as co-author. IMO, it would depend on their implication on that specific study. Your research is not an investment in others'
-
Yeah, totally agreed. I do think
@shravanvasishth is picking up a on real thing though were data collectors are more protective than modellers. And modellers do get very little recognition in general. Many relegated to middle author almost always. -
This is why I do very little when I am asked to model something for people now, because I know I will be middle author even if I do a tonne of modelling.
-
The only way as a modeller I can be first author is if I don't allow any data-collectors to be involved.

-
So just being 100% a data parasite and/or collecting the data myself.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Also debugging and designing complex code isn't easy...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I have literally never said that. I spend about 1/2 my time on analysis and modeling stuff and realize exactly how hard it is. That part of my life feels limited by my time and abilities, rather than the happenstance of experiments. That randomness has career implications too...
-
You didn't yourself, no. I thought this thread is about the group-level dynamics and you wanted to chat to me about them since I and the OP asked?
-
Ok, so then....My point is these risks make experimentalists territorial. Offering to collaborate, even when not ‘legally’ necessary, defuses that feeling and, more importantly, often yields a better paper (or at least prevents people from chasing artifacts).
-
I always think the kind thing to do is to ask the originator if they would like to collaborate. Like if I give my neighbor apricots from my tree, they're free to make and eat an apricot torte, but it's always nice if they share a slice with me.
-
Someone pointed out on this thread that what that collaboration would do is destroy the independence of the researcher who may be demonstrating problems in the original claims. That is a killer argument against having the orig. author as collaborator.
-
I guess it depends on your view of science, and of human nature.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.