- mentorship of very many young researchers
- leadership of a research team
- becoming full professors, department chairs
- leadership roles in large centres
As the paper states: at the peak of their productivity, some cardiologists publish 10 to 80 times more papers in one year compared with their average annual productivity when they were 35–42 years old. There was also often a sharp decrease after passing the chair to a successor.
In other words, people with checkbooks gets their names engraved on work that is being done by others. Their author metrics like h-index and citation counts would shoot up and the get credit for scholarly publications even if they have played little or no part.
This is extremely sad. These people in leadership roles should be avoiding taking credit to scholarly work that is not theirs.
As the article says, requirements for authorship are the "Vancouver criteria" established in 1988. These specify that authors must do all of four things to qualify: play a part in designing or conducting experiments or processing results; help to write or revise the manuscript; approve the published version; and take responsibility for the article’s contents.
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors does not count supervision, mentoring or obtaining funding as sufficient for authorship. However as credit hungry folks becomes leaders they circumvent all and every ethical line to get their names on everybody else's work whoes paychecks and careers depend on their whims.
Then the professor went through it multiple times and we rewrote a lot of it. Initial push - the choice of problem and choice of articles to read so that I learn enough to even start were also instrumental to my research. It would not be possible without it.
I don't think it is entirely unfair for professor to get credit for that. Knowing what to do, which problem has reasonable potential and is open, knowing what is potentially related and knowing what to read matter a lot. As in, it is be easy and possible to replace student and harder to replace professor in the whole thing.
On the other hand, there are researchers who wouldn't put their name on an article unless they contributed significantly.
Secondly, the four criteria are easy to meet for professors who shouldnt be authors. They "guide" the student which can be construed as playing a part in design, look over the manuscript, approve it, and take responsibility. But their contribution was probably of the order of a few percent of the total effort. If you have enough researchers under you, it's not super hard to meet those and be a hyperprolific publisher.
I send the final paper draft to all my co-authors before submitting to get their approval.
Medical "research" is a shame to our society.
That's also one of plot devices behind "Space Apprentice" by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky.
One important point that the authors are missing is that most of the results published by those teams are null results. This doesn't happen in the other fields considered in the article, e.g. medicine, where there is often a positive-results bias, despite the lower number of publications per author.
You will give a negative impression if:
+ you can not find 10 high-quality articles in your body of work
+ you are not the first author on any of the 10 articles
+ influential work is more positively rewarded than with the h-index
By this definition a CEO of a building company builds a flat in whole year just by himself.
So no, being a CEO is not an automatic qualification. It’s actually a good measure of how narcissistic a CEO is.
But what do you expect? The system rewards publication above everything. And these are intelligent people. Of course they are going to maximise the numbers. Because if they don't, they get fired and replaced by people who will.
After 10 years in industry (publishing patents, not papers) I contacted my PhD adviser and asked what chance he thought I had of getting an academic job. His answer was equivocal, "none".
(Side note: I was amused to see that the LPU has a wikipedia article. It also references "Salami publishing"... Side side note: I was also amused to see that the acronym LPU also stands for "Lovely Professional University" in India.)
I need to graduate at some point and I am afraid my lack of publication will hold me back. I have been working on this project for years and have no feedback from the community. There may be things I've been missing for a long time.
There's a balance to strike here.
So there is only one fair solution, list everyone in alphabetical order.
And if two LHC experiments publish together, that's > 2000 people.
These things are true for other fields as well (machine learning for example), but they don't result in authorship in other fields.
Only physicists (but then there are hundreds of them)
It seems that there can't be that many people actively involved in the paper, but everyone needs to be on, e.g. the Higgs boson paper, not referenced in a supporting work on, e.g. a detector, or their career is trashed.
In our lab we always push for people to write up what they are working on, which may or may not be 'original'. Usually it turns out that there is much innovative or original work, which without documentation the experiment could not be repeated/analysis would have been different, etc. And that kind of tech note/report should be referenced by all the experiments that tool/technique, even if they are not co-authors of the derived work. For example, an experimenter uses visualisation system Y in producing report X: X->Y reference. The vis system uses FFTW documented in report Z: Y->Z. The source and binaries and build chain for the expt and analysis are in VM images archived with the data.
I have chosen to have a paper pulled when I was added as an author without my knowledge. (They had used some of my unpublished work.) These journals should do the same, establishing a minimum threshold of active contribution.