5 or even 6 co-authors is okay nowadays. Especially if lots of data collection involved. Our field is getting closer to physics, where it does not matter how many authors but how innovative the idea.
FRAUDSTER detected!
Brainless pseudo-academic like this one, who are only good at things that a chimpanzee could do with some training, must be kicked out.
You simply cannot infer their contribution from coauthor sets alone, you have to do some work. Ask them deep questions about the literature and how the paper relates to it. Ask them how the papers fit into their broader research agenda. Ask them about technical details of the theory or empirical analysis.
If they have no other papers besides these, it's a red flag. Good people do not do all their work with a single team of mostly senior people.
5 or even 6 co-authors is okay nowadays. Especially if lots of data collection involved. Our field is getting closer to physics, where it does not matter how many authors but how innovative the idea.FRAUDSTER detected!
Brainless pseudo-academic like this one, who are only good at things that a chimpanzee could do with some training, must be kicked out.
Please do not insult my client sir. I need these types to sell fake secret data to. Not my fault they are scamming you and the academia.
5 or even 6 co-authors is okay nowadays. Especially if lots of data collection involved. Our field is getting closer to physics, where it does not matter how many authors but how innovative the idea.Not true at all.
It is becoming the standard for empirical work. Theory papers usually have a lower number.
5 or even 6 co-authors is okay nowadays. Especially if lots of data collection involved. Our field is getting closer to physics, where it does not matter how many authors but how innovative the idea.
It's probably not a popular view, but I find this a good trend. I care more about good papers than about individual intellectual prowess.
This being said, what I would be weary of is hiring someone who only publishes with a single senior co-author (eg his/her advisor). Too much uncertainty. But someone who is involved in multiple networks and (co)generates good stuff with a broad range of people is fine by me. But I realize I'm in the minority.
There’s an easy fix to this:
Solo author = 100%
Two authors = 50%
Three authors = 33%
Four authors = 25%
Five authors = 20%
So the default should be the two papers are worth 40%, slightly less than a two authored paper and slightly more than a three authored paper.
Then you credit or discount from there, if it’s clear after questioning they were RA then 20% base might fall to less than 5% quickly.
There’s an easy fix to this:
Solo author = 100%
Two authors = 50%
Three authors = 33%
Four authors = 25%
Five authors = 20%
So the default should be the two papers are worth 40%, slightly less than a two authored paper and slightly more than a three authored paper.
Then you credit or discount from there, if it’s clear after questioning they were RA then 20% base might fall to less than 5% quickly.
Save for solo author, the probability of rewarding a free rider for 0% contribution skyrockets after that.
5 or even 6 co-authors is okay nowadays. Especially if lots of data collection involved. Our field is getting closer to physics, where it does not matter how many authors but how innovative the idea.Not true at all.
It is becoming the standard for empirical work. Theory papers usually have a lower number.
This
You simply cannot infer their contribution from coauthor sets alone, you have to do some work. Ask them deep questions about the literature and how the paper relates to it. Ask them how the papers fit into their broader research agenda. Ask them about technical details of the theory or empirical analysis.
If they have no other papers besides these, it's a red flag. Good people do not do all their work with a single team of mostly senior people.
I find you can only really judge people based on their performance as a discussant or author of referee reports. Even referee reports are suspect because people often hand them off to their phd students
5 or even 6 co-authors is okay nowadays. Especially if lots of data collection involved. Our field is getting closer to physics, where it does not matter how many authors but how innovative the idea.It's probably not a popular view, but I find this a good trend. I care more about good papers than about individual intellectual prowess.
This being said, what I would be weary of is hiring someone who only publishes with a single senior co-author (eg his/her advisor). Too much uncertainty. But someone who is involved in multiple networks and (co)generates good stuff with a broad range of people is fine by me. But I realize I'm in the minority.
Amen. Academia is such a low financial reward life path, there is no chance I am going to care about bean counting. I do interesting science with people I like to work with, and use division of labor and comparative advantage when I like. I'll leave for greener pastures if ignoring bean counting drags me down professionally.
Well said
5 or even 6 co-authors is okay nowadays. Especially if lots of data collection involved. Our field is getting closer to physics, where it does not matter how many authors but how innovative the idea.It's probably not a popular view, but I find this a good trend. I care more about good papers than about individual intellectual prowess.
This being said, what I would be weary of is hiring someone who only publishes with a single senior co-author (eg his/her advisor). Too much uncertainty. But someone who is involved in multiple networks and (co)generates good stuff with a broad range of people is fine by me. But I realize I'm in the minority.Amen. Academia is such a low financial reward life path, there is no chance I am going to care about bean counting. I do interesting science with people I like to work with, and use division of labor and comparative advantage when I like. I'll leave for greener pastures if ignoring bean counting drags me down professionally.
About 1000x the contribution of JB of Utah on a paper.
What's the contribution of a newly graduated AP on a paper with four more senior authors?
We are hiring this year and we have a seasoned AP (2 years out) as one of our candidates. He has two rnr at top 3. Both of them have four more coauthors.