in some sciences it is just standard practice that the leader of an institute gets included in the list of authors. Whether that's good or bad is an issue in itselfOf course it's a bad practice - if nothing else it's a form of corruption. Only persons with biased morality could be in doubts about it.
Of course it's a bad practice - if nothing else it's a form of corruption
It's only a form of corruption if the person profits by it.
Not very objective.
The thing that qualifies scientists - apart from being objective - is this: they are not stupid.
I define stupid is choosing to remain ignorant
Especially economics and socialism.
the difference between socialism and communism?
But I haven't written a journal paper in over a decade, so things might have changed.
Do you even have an inkling how stupid the stuff you write actually makes you sound?
How much science was accomplished BEFORE the creation of all the agencies designed to 'help' science?
It's only a form of corruption if the person profits by itOf course some people will profit from it, or the citations of leader of an institute wouldn't be done. The scientists aren't downward idiots and they don't want to share fame and incentives, if they don't have to..;-)
Of course some people will profit from it, or the citations of leader of an institute wouldn't be done.
I'm not sure how many famous scientists there are.
The reason leaders of institutes get sometimes included in the author list is so that you know which group this is fromThis is completely nonsensical reasoning (and an attempt for conservation of contemporary unhealthy state with science), as the affiliations of authors are given in articles explicitly at separate place. After all, the focusing to authors, their origin, qualification etc is unhealthy attitude too - the objective analysis and attention should always focus to the content of work itself. I'm pretty well aware that the contemporary scientists are like voting trolls here at physorg - they focus to persons instead of their ideas, as it helps them to reject the inconvenient truth easier. It's much easier to reject & dismiss the scientific work as a whole, if you know, its author is engaged in cold fusion research too. This attitude leads into contemporary state of taboo and pluralistic ignorance of important findings.
This is completely nonsensical reasoning@ZEPHIR
The only difference is style, not substance@rygg
as the affiliations of authors are given in articles explicitly at separate place.
the objective analysis and attention should always focus to the content of work
I'm pretty well aware that the contemporary scientists are like voting trolls here at physorg - they focus to persons instead of their ideas
antialias_physorg
Mar 11, 2015It's going to be interesting what the differences to the hard sciences are. I'd predict not as much coercive quoting, since there delineating between what actually is a (hard) foundation and what is not is much easier.
As for the gratuitous authorships. This must be looked at with differentiated view: in some sciences it is just standrad practice that the leader of an institute gets included in the list of authors. Whether That's good or bad is an issue in itself (Personally I find it a good indicator of whether I put a paper on the top of the pile for reading or not. You know that some groups have a track record of excellence - and that the head of the institute at least reads the papers to make sure that only excellent papers are submitted)