Papers with 20+ authors are not that rarethough I'm in theory so 1-5 is more normal. My average is probably 2. In observational work you're beginning to look at about 100 authors.
A very quick hunt threw up this one with 34 authors, arxiv.org/abs/1003.0270
(A very quick hunt threw up this one with 34 authors, arxiv.org/abs/1003.0270
boris the spider,
Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:40,
archived)
A hundred is insane.Mind you, I find the tradition in the sciences of senior members of staff getting authorship despite having made no material contribution insane.
I much prefer the humanities approach: you fuck off and write something, and possibly mention someone in the footnotes if you can remember their name.
(I much prefer the humanities approach: you fuck off and write something, and possibly mention someone in the footnotes if you can remember their name.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:47,
archived)
we were talking about this over lunch today, actuallythe conclusion was that the current system in our field is fucking lunatic but there's no easy way of dealing with it, and no good way of controlling senior professors getting their names added regardless of whether they've done anything or not.
( boris the spider,
Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:52,
archived)
I had an applicant for one of our Masters courseswho was a senior medical person from somewhere-or-other.
The publications section was 45 pages long.
Something tells me that he didn't have much involvement in most of the papers cited.
(The publications section was 45 pages long.
Something tells me that he didn't have much involvement in most of the papers cited.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 14 Apr 2010, 15:55,
archived)