this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
702 points (99.3% liked)

Science Memes

10940 readers
2094 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 112 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is why workers forced movies and shows to put everyone in the closing credits.

Y'all need to unionize.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 2 months ago (3 children)

From what I can tell, et al. is not about socio-political power*. It's just a necessity for ease and efficiency. In-text citations need to be short to limit wasted space. Otherwise, we'd have lots of text dedicated to unnecessary names. An in-text citation that reads (Perez et al., 2023) is much more efficient than (Perez, Washington, Smith, Iwukuni, Johnson, Patel, Boofy, Yamirez, Tate, Hendrix, Apple, Man, & Gargamel, 2023).

Using 7th ed. APA, the citation entries in the bibliography/references include upto the first 20 authors, so contributors are rarely omitted.

  • Perhaps being the first author is in many situations, but APA format can't really address that.
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

And at the same time, you can still get credit for the paper in your resumee etc.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It's not like these are written on literal paper. It's the 21st century, There's no reason to save space in digital documents when you can just format them differently.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Screens still have real estate that you need to fit onto. You can do "click to expand" but frankly, who would look at that. You could have the full list in the bibliography section, but frankly, who reads all that: The stuff I look at is the citation abbreviation ([Miller et al 2003]), then the doi or journal/paper title to copy and paste. Everything in between gets ignored, if I read names then it's on paper titles, not citations. I've also seen a tongue-in-cheek proposal to overlay all author names on top of another in citations, sadly can't find the paper.

Typography isn't the place where you want to attack this issue, at most you can get some token feel-good result that will be ineffective because it ignores the psychology of people looking up papers. Which is to say: You'll do net damage to your cause because you're spending goodwill capital on feel-good BS. If you want to have a systemic impact then attack the issue from the other end, such as cracking down on people which insert themselves as first author of every paper coming out of their department and stuff. Rule of thumb: If someone can't do a thesis style oral defence of a paper, their name has no business being anywhere even close to the front. I don't care when the administrative boss is listed at the end, though they should have the decency to put themselves after any assistant who did actual scientific work, even if it's just pipette wrangling.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Equality of et al - how about no one gets their names inserted into the paper, everyone is just put in the bibliography. No "first authors." Instead, the institution gets the reference i.e. instead of (Miller et al 2005) it can be (Cornell U. et al 2005). Then, because it's digital, mouse over the reference for a full list of people involved.

Solves the problem of worthless administration slapping their personal name on it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The IEEE reference style guide actually often works just like this, the entire reference is just a number in brackets in the text and then the details of the reference is in the bibliography at the end. For example

...a high correlation as shown in [5]... 



[5]     A.N. Author, P. Ostdoc, and O. Verworked "A paper about a thing" Department, University, City, etc. 
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

This is the citation format that makes the most sense to me, especially now that you can just click [5] and be brought straight to the bibliography.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Same for ACM. I think it's good as it's easier to read. But sometimes I still write names (e.g. as Mueller et al. points out, the color blue is actually red [666]), to highlight something. But that's maybe for 5 out of 100 sources.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I imagine they could have some sort of click to expand functionality

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

~~Literally even a spot bumped out on the end where they list everyone, at the very end of the paper, would be infinitely better than "et Al"~~

Uhhhhhh

Yeah I have no defense for this other than having a dumb moment.

Carry on... ^please^

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It sounds like you're talking about the references, which already list all authors

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Then what's the issue? Sounds to me like papers already have comprehensive credits.

Is the issue that it's displayed in two places, so people don't bother to check out the second?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago

That's what bibliography is. It's already like that, or am I missing something?

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago

The idea being that when you go to view the citation, you see the details that were previously et al.

Whereas on movie credits, that's your one chance to be seen credited on the work, outside of IMDB maybe.