Y****N
发帖数: 8694 | 1 倡议：
If we really want transdisciplinary research, we must ditch the ordered
listing of authors that stalls collaborative science, says Gretchen L. Kiser.
全文：
Every academic scientist has heard a tale of someone being shafted on an
authorship list, or had it happen to them. Less appreciated is how much the
attribution of credit impedes cross-disciplinary approaches to difficult
questions. It creates a negative feedback loop that hinders research.
Most scientists agree that research questions and approaches have become
more complex, so the need to engage in expanded team science has increased.
I’ve found, however, that there is great reluctance among faculty members
to join such efforts. I find myself asking, ‘What if we completely blow up
the way in which we attribute authorship?’ I suspect that if we got rid of
first authors, last authors and the fight for asterisks, we might interrupt
the negative feedback loop and see more innovation.
Since 2012, I’ve led the Research Development Office at the University of
California, San Francisco (UCSF). One of our goals is to bring together
researchers of varying backgrounds to encourage innovative thinking and new
approaches. My team identifies and cajoles ‘champions’ to invite
colleagues to participate in team-building events. We offer financial and
logistical support; we bring in interesting speakers; we provide drinks and
food (and not just pizza!) — all to get scientists to talk to each other
about their research, needs and ambitions. But the resource that really
matters is not mine to dispense: credit for scientific contributions.
There are real successes: one of our ‘speed-networking’ events at UCSF
introduced neurologist Dena Dubal, who investigates the molecular mechanisms
of longevity and neurodegenerative disease, to psychologist Aric Prather,
who researches the effects of stress on health. That led to a project that
revealed an association between chronic psychological stress and lower
levels of a longevity hormone. They published that work and continue to
collaborate (A. A. Prather et al. Transl. Psychiatr. 5, e585; 2015).
Other teams we’ve helped have received follow-on support from external
funders such as the US National Institutes of Health. Surveys tell me that
faculty members enjoy our team-building events, even when they did not
expect to, and that they would recommend them to others.
Nevertheless, there seems to be an undeclared disincentive for researchers
to build unconventional collaborations. I get frustrated with the disconnect
between what we say about the need for transdisciplinary teams to solve
complex problems and the reluctance to try something new to build those
teams.
The assessment of publications during promotion and tenure decisions is a
big part of the problem. Although these processes often have some mechanism
to recognize a researcher’s team contributions, the culture remains largely
unchanged from 50 years ago. The gravitas associated with ‘first’ and ‘
senior’ authorship is entrenched. What about the middle author who might
have significantly altered the approach? Or the fourth-place author who
linked different disciplines? Often these researchers are left to find only
self-satisfaction.
Many journals now allow, and even require, statements that explain
contributors’ roles in their publications. Taxonomies and standardized
vocabularies for describing authors’ roles have been developed. Similarly,
promotion and tenure committees are using contribution narratives in their
assessments. These changes are helping. They capture a fuller spectrum of a
researcher’s productivity so that evaluators can consider more than where
someone sits in an author list.
Still, I’ve had senior faculty members tell me that, even though they look
at the contribution narratives, they still expect to see first-author and
then senior-author papers when assessing candidates.
Meanwhile, research projects are starting to incorporate data that no one on
the immediate team collected, and there are no settled conventions for
crediting outside researchers or incentivizing that valuable work.
We need a cultural shift to recognize and reward scientists who make their
work useful to others, including researchers who might never meet but whose
data are used. One way to make this happen is to get rid of ordered author
lists. By developing author contribution taxonomies and narratives, we have
already acknowledged the need to reflect the multifaceted nature of
authorship. Large consortia and organizations are adopting contribution
frameworks to reflect author roles and participation more accurately. We are
also moving to use repository tools that assign authorship to different
types of research output, such as data sets. More effort, creativity and
diversity of thought are needed. We should stop trying to apply old
attribution models to the innovative ways we now generate data.
If we can reveal the shape of proteins at atomic resolutions, tweak genes to
order and detect cosmic signals from the beginning of time, then surely we
can work out better ways to represent author contributions. We already send
complex basic research and clinical data into ‘information commons’ and
build computational ‘knowledge network’ tools to inform patient
diagnostics and therapeutics. A well-annotated data set might be combined
with other data to expand its impact synergistically. Can we imagine an
author attribution method that would use cutting-edge computational tools
similar to those being applied to scientific research itself? A tool that
gives credit where credit is due?
If we acknowledge the products of research in more-innovative ways, the
value of ‘team-ness’ might grow in academic culture and the cutting edge
will get sharper. Perhaps, then, I won’t have to cajole anyone to
participate in team-building activities. |
G****1
发帖数: 8414 | |
Y****N
发帖数: 8694 | 3 以后都按字母顺序来
姓艾的PI们可以领风气之先，规定实验室以后作者都按字母顺序来
姓张的PI们可以把姓改为Aaaaaron，再响应倡议
【在 G****1 的大作中提到】
: 尼玛共产主义了
|
H****y
发帖数: 2992 | 4 正纳闷什么人提这种建议，一查，果然又是加州的。
现在整个加州就是这么一种风气：无论一种传统，一种法律，在过去的几百年里运行的
多好，只要他自己在某一个特例上碰壁了，他就要全盘推翻，让所有的人跟着自己倒霉
。比如一个对自己性别定义模糊的人就可以要求全部厕所都取消性别，一个吸毒没吸爽
的就可以要求法律把吸毒合法化。
Authorship的制度本来就不是完美的。当你遇到问题的时候，好好动脑，好好协商，最
终不都还是解决了？彻底取消排名，有些不需要实验的学科可行。让每天跑猴子坚持两
年的，和兑了一个月药水的都一样贡献，谁还干活？ |
u*******o
发帖数: 111 | 5 姓 Zhao Zhang Zhou Zhu 的好惨 |
T*********s
发帖数: 20444 | |
Y****N
发帖数: 8694 | 7 没有物理和数学专业的出来说两句？
据说这两个专业从来都是按字母顺序排名？ |
g******t
发帖数: 11249 | 8 没native给你校对啊
【在 T*********s 的大作中提到】
: 以后就自己投
: 就我一个author
|
T*********s
发帖数: 20444 | 9 我从来没用过谁给校对啊
【在 g******t 的大作中提到】
: 没native给你校对啊
|
g******t
发帖数: 11249 | 10 啊
俺一般还是会去找50+资深大牛的
改改英文就能挂个名字，ta们也很乐意
BTW: 俺校某计算机老教授被小本投诉了
上课时候吹牛逼，说自己从来不编程:-)
【在 T*********s 的大作中提到】
: 我从来没用过谁给校对啊
|
|
|
T*********s
发帖数: 20444 | 11 大牛也不是native
一把年纪了 英文说的还没我利索
【在 g******t 的大作中提到】
: 啊
: 俺一般还是会去找50+资深大牛的
: 改改英文就能挂个名字，ta们也很乐意
: BTW: 俺校某计算机老教授被小本投诉了
: 上课时候吹牛逼，说自己从来不编程:-)
|
g******t
发帖数: 11249 | 12 sigh
来美多年，还没在中国人组干过。。。。
自己招的学生也是小美
【在 T*********s 的大作中提到】
: 大牛也不是native
: 一把年纪了 英文说的还没我利索
|
t*******t
发帖数: 1067 | 13 我是数学专业的，我一直按照贡献来排名，虽然我的名字按照字母顺序靠前。
【在 Y****N 的大作中提到】
: 没有物理和数学专业的出来说两句？
: 据说这两个专业从来都是按字母顺序排名？
|
g******t
发帖数: 11249 | 14 俺们专业搞科研的时候都自吹做数学的
结果分钱的时候又是按工科规矩排名
【在 t*******t 的大作中提到】
: 我是数学专业的，我一直按照贡献来排名，虽然我的名字按照字母顺序靠前。
|
t*******t
发帖数: 1067 | 15 我是数学专业的，我一直按照贡献来排名，虽然我的名字按照字母顺序靠前。
【在 Y****N 的大作中提到】
: 没有物理和数学专业的出来说两句？
: 据说这两个专业从来都是按字母顺序排名？
|
Y****N
发帖数: 8694 | 16 当年老杨我跟李政道合作
一直按字母排序，他排在我前头
结果他说我们的诺奖成果主要是他的idea
两人因此反目成仇
同志们
不按贡献排名害死人啊！
【在 t*******t 的大作中提到】
: 我是数学专业的，我一直按照贡献来排名，虽然我的名字按照字母顺序靠前。
|
g******t
发帖数: 11249 | 17 关键合作项目是还有第一第二单位的问题
有些地方评奖只看第一单位
【在 t*******t 的大作中提到】
: 我是数学专业的，我一直按照贡献来排名，虽然我的名字按照字母顺序靠前。
|
d********f
发帖数: 43471 | 18 作者什么时候ａａ？
Kiser.
the
.
【在 Y****N 的大作中提到】
: 倡议：
: If we really want transdisciplinary research, we must ditch the ordered
: listing of authors that stalls collaborative science, says Gretchen L. Kiser.
: 全文：
: Every academic scientist has heard a tale of someone being shafted on an
: authorship list, or had it happen to them. Less appreciated is how much the
: attribution of credit impedes cross-disciplinary approaches to difficult
: questions. It creates a negative feedback loop that hinders research.
: Most scientists agree that research questions and approaches have become
: more complex, so the need to engage in expanded team science has increased.
|
T*******g
发帖数: 2322 | |
p*****i
发帖数: 1 | 20 这个只会鼓励single authorship.
哥发了6篇文章了，都是不错的杂志，全部solo，我谁也不欠。
social science就是这么自由。 |
|
|
w*********o
发帖数: 3030 | 21 Funny to see a bunch of newly minted slave owners discussing how to keep the
slavery system.
Have any of your losers passed spy test today? |
y********o
发帖数: 218 | 22 一个authorship AA就弄得风声鹤唳，左x见识也太短浅了
应该直接弄个IF AA，投nature，随机在其他journal上发表，所有journal IF都3.0 大
家就没意见了
Kiser.
the
.
【在 Y****N 的大作中提到】
: 倡议：
: If we really want transdisciplinary research, we must ditch the ordered
: listing of authors that stalls collaborative science, says Gretchen L. Kiser.
: 全文：
: Every academic scientist has heard a tale of someone being shafted on an
: authorship list, or had it happen to them. Less appreciated is how much the
: attribution of credit impedes cross-disciplinary approaches to difficult
: questions. It creates a negative feedback loop that hinders research.
: Most scientists agree that research questions and approaches have become
: more complex, so the need to engage in expanded team science has increased.
|
w*********o
发帖数: 3030 | 23 See. Vagina issues.
My bad, I forgot another possibility. Other than yellow dump kissers and
robots, behaviorist also tend to have both English sensitivity and vagina
issues.
【在 y********o 的大作中提到】
: 一个authorship AA就弄得风声鹤唳，左x见识也太短浅了
: 应该直接弄个IF AA，投nature，随机在其他journal上发表，所有journal IF都3.0 大
: 家就没意见了
:
: Kiser.
: the
: .
|
M*****l
发帖数: 4478 | |
w*********o
发帖数: 3030 | 25 https://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/Biology/32095793.html
The problem of Chinese faculties in US is, most of them would see Xie as a
loser and tend to do things worse than her former boss. That's the reason I
have always been warning people with yellow skin tone about Chinese
faculties in US. One exception I saw so far is that females with low self-
esteem or willing to flirt with their bosses to get what they want might
overcome the limit of their skin color with their male Chinese faculty
bosses. |
l*******k
发帖数: 922 | 26 数学专业很多是这样的。我申请绿卡时还特意写信说明，因为我的字母比较靠后。 |
s******r
发帖数: 5309 | 27 粒子物理几百作者按姓排序。 最后得挠背儿的时候只有PI有份。 |
s******r
发帖数: 5309 | 28 其他专业只有第一作者真干活，老板基本屁也不干当倒数第一作者。其他作者全是搭车
。这些人之所以上paper是因为互相署名心照不宣。 |
s**********e
发帖数: 2888 | 29 写这个文章的倡议这个主意人根本也不是一线做科研的人，就是纸上谈兵。
Kiser.
the
.
【在 Y****N 的大作中提到】
: 倡议：
: If we really want transdisciplinary research, we must ditch the ordered
: listing of authors that stalls collaborative science, says Gretchen L. Kiser.
: 全文：
: Every academic scientist has heard a tale of someone being shafted on an
: authorship list, or had it happen to them. Less appreciated is how much the
: attribution of credit impedes cross-disciplinary approaches to difficult
: questions. It creates a negative feedback loop that hinders research.
: Most scientists agree that research questions and approaches have become
: more complex, so the need to engage in expanded team science has increased.
|
W******e
发帖数: 529 | 30 我从此改名叫 Above Ace， 排名应该基本都是第一。
若发领炸腰奖时也这样，那么我也是排第一。
哈哈哈哈哈哈哈啊啊哈哈哈哈 |
