Science Memes

10950 readers

2192 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

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

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

Research Committee

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

702

Becoming et al. (mander.xyz)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [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.