Admittedly, this is still not much.
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.
At the end of the day we need a rubric to evaluate people for promotion. Obviously a solo publication should have a high weight and a 4 or 5 coauthored work a lower weight. The question is how. The 1/N is a good start. Juniors likely work more than seniors so maybe a bit more than 1/N for juniors and less for seniors.
At the end of the day we need a rubric to evaluate people for promotion. Obviously a solo publication should have a high weight and a 4 or 5 coauthored work a lower weight. The question is how. The 1/N is a good start. Juniors likely work more than seniors so maybe a bit more than 1/N for juniors and less for seniors.
Juniors usually do ALL the work!
Seniors get work published.
At the end of the day we need a rubric to evaluate people for promotion. Obviously a solo publication should have a high weight and a 4 or 5 coauthored work a lower weight. The question is how. The 1/N is a good start. Juniors likely work more than seniors so maybe a bit more than 1/N for juniors and less for seniors.Juniors usually do ALL the work!
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.
Imagine a low skill secret data paper about something absolutely useless authored by 6+ clowns. Yeah go ahead, reward those types. Re/tarded profession.
Seniors get work published.
At the end of the day we need a rubric to evaluate people for promotion. Obviously a solo publication should have a high weight and a 4 or 5 coauthored work a lower weight. The question is how. The 1/N is a good start. Juniors likely work more than seniors so maybe a bit more than 1/N for juniors and less for seniors.Juniors usually do ALL the work!
I doubt it
Seniors get work published.
At the end of the day we need a rubric to evaluate people for promotion. Obviously a solo publication should have a high weight and a 4 or 5 coauthored work a lower weight. The question is how. The 1/N is a good start. Juniors likely work more than seniors so maybe a bit more than 1/N for juniors and less for seniors.Juniors usually do ALL the work!
Seniors get work published.
At the end of the day we need a rubric to evaluate people for promotion. Obviously a solo publication should have a high weight and a 4 or 5 coauthored work a lower weight. The question is how. The 1/N is a good start. Juniors likely work more than seniors so maybe a bit more than 1/N for juniors and less for seniors.Juniors usually do ALL the work!
Knowing what work can lead to a good paper is way harder than actually doing the work. Sorry, but this is how academia works.
At the end of the day we need a rubric to evaluate people for promotion. Obviously a solo publication should have a high weight and a 4 or 5 coauthored work a lower weight. The question is how. The 1/N is a good start. Juniors likely work more than seniors so maybe a bit more than 1/N for juniors and less for seniors.
My department thought about this a few years ago and formalized a rule that I think is a good one.
We use a 1/sqrt(N) rule. We considered a 1/N rule, but thought it was too harsh. First, in a coauthored work you usually don't just split the work in half and work entirely independently. A lot of the work is done collaboratively and/or working through each other's contribution. Case in point: if you were a proper coauthor you almost certainly know way more about the nuts-and-bolts of a part of a paper your coauthor took the lead on than any paper you weren't a part of. Second, in terms of getting your name and the name of the department out there the coauthor discount is not as steep as 1/N, especially if you exclude sole-authored papers. Third, in part because of the first two factors, we wanted to err on the side of encouraging productive coauthoring. Fourth, we wanted to reduce the incentive to cut people out of co-authorships, particularly grad students who did a lot of good RA type work.
However, to be eligible for full 1/sqrt(N) credit you need to explain how you did something very close to 1/N of the work. For tenure and promotion, we reach out to your coauthors and ask them to provide a blinded summary of your contribution as well. We haven't ever done this, but if there is a dispute or we are particularly suspicious for some reason, we reserve the right to ask follow-up questions and/or supporting evidence. If you did not do your full share, you get downgraded pretty quickly. We are willing to upgrade as well, but it takes a fairly exceptional case of you doing the vast majority of the work.
Since we actually implement this, I would be glad to hear from anyone who has any serious objections/concerns.
How do you rate solo authored papers? 1 three and 1 four authored paper is better than a solo authored paper?
Nop. The discovery matters at the end, really. As a PhD student, you may want to have at least one good solo authored paper. Beyond that, none cares, but only for where the paper has been published and what it found.
At the end of the day we need a rubric to evaluate people for promotion. Obviously a solo publication should have a high weight and a 4 or 5 coauthored work a lower weight. The question is how. The 1/N is a good start. Juniors likely work more than seniors so maybe a bit more than 1/N for juniors and less for seniors.
I wonder if you really do need that though. My experience and research show for example, that the reverse procurement process we use to hand out grants might be no more efficient than a random allocation process, if you meet some basic professional thresholds. I wonder what we are getting, and losing, from all this bean counting?
I just think it’s funny to say this when you’re violating the adding up constraint. All the juniors should add each other to their papers. Overall “Discovery GDP” massively increases.
I think it’s mostly opposite. 1 top A solo pub has more value than three, three authored pub with some well known senior or two. The contribution of the sole author is much clearer and all else equal, the idea is much better, because it’s much harder to get a top pub without the senior connections.
How do you rate solo authored papers? 1 three and 1 four authored paper is better than a solo authored paper?Nop. The discovery matters at the end, really. As a PhD student, you may want to have at least one good solo authored paper. Beyond that, none cares, but only for where the paper has been published and what it found.
Seniors get work published.At the end of the day we need a rubric to evaluate people for promotion. Obviously a solo publication should have a high weight and a 4 or 5 coauthored work a lower weight. The question is how. The 1/N is a good start. Juniors likely work more than seniors so maybe a bit more than 1/N for juniors and less for seniors.Juniors usually do ALL the work!
I doubt it
Hmmm - seniors have their networks and their friends in editorial boards (Tommaso Colussi; Social Ties in Academia: A Friend Is a Treasure. The Review of Economics and Statistics 2018; 100 (1): 45–50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00666)
Don’t ignore the role of luck. One gets lucky with referee can publish 1 or 2 top A. I’d look at how consistently one publishes without seniors and the impact. I don’t care about solo. It is for Phd graduation.
I just think it’s funny to say this when you’re violating the adding up constraint. All the juniors should add each other to their papers. Overall “Discovery GDP” massively increases.
I think it’s mostly opposite. 1 top A solo pub has more value than three, three authored pub with some well known senior or two. The contribution of the sole author is much clearer and all else equal, the idea is much better, because it’s much harder to get a top pub without the senior connections.How do you rate solo authored papers? 1 three and 1 four authored paper is better than a solo authored paper?Nop. The discovery matters at the end, really. As a PhD student, you may want to have at least one good solo authored paper. Beyond that, none cares, but only for where the paper has been published and what it found.
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
How do you rate solo authored papers? 1 three and 1 four authored paper is better than a solo authored paper?
By our system, that is broadly true assuming you were a full partner in the 3 and 4 author papers.
While it isn't there explicitly, I think it would raise eyebrows if you went up for tenure but only had papers with large numbers of co-authors. But if you do have 1 or 2 solid 1 or 2 author papers, then yes, I think the tradeoff is a lot more justifiable.
Seniors get work published.At the end of the day we need a rubric to evaluate people for promotion. Obviously a solo publication should have a high weight and a 4 or 5 coauthored work a lower weight. The question is how. The 1/N is a good start. Juniors likely work more than seniors so maybe a bit more than 1/N for juniors and less for seniors.Juniors usually do ALL the work!
Knowing what work can lead to a good paper is way harder than actually doing the work. Sorry, but this is how academia works.
did someone order a chicken tikka masala? who asked this delivery guy for his opinion