,
13 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
This is actually something we economists need to talk about: specifically, the rise of research labs.
In other fields, the lab RAs get do-authorship credit (hence papers with 5-10 authors). In economics, we don't give credit.
This is not some small deal.
In other fields, the lab RAs get do-authorship credit (hence papers with 5-10 authors). In economics, we don't give credit.
This is not some small deal.
My sense is that it used to be the case that the role now filled by these uncredited RAs used to be filled by tenure track assistant professors: the ones who did the actual grunt work.
Now? Poof, there is only one author and their army of hidden RAs.
Why does this matter?
Now? Poof, there is only one author and their army of hidden RAs.
Why does this matter?
First, it opens up potential avenues for abuse. You can effectively "erase" someone from a project.
Second, it matters for things that depends on your research productivity: tenure, awards, etc. Is it a one-on-one competition, or a one-on-one-plus-five-hidden-RAs?
Second, it matters for things that depends on your research productivity: tenure, awards, etc. Is it a one-on-one competition, or a one-on-one-plus-five-hidden-RAs?
It also mythologizes/incorrectly presents the author's abilities.
There is no doubt in my mind that there are RAs coding or doing data work (for no co-authorship credit!) that is more technically advanced than what the recorded author can do.
There is no doubt in my mind that there are RAs coding or doing data work (for no co-authorship credit!) that is more technically advanced than what the recorded author can do.
Right now, the labs are mostly concentrated at the top R1s, and are a relatively new development.
This means that the discipline is at the point *right now* where we are determining the cultural precedent on how this should be treated going forward.
This means that the discipline is at the point *right now* where we are determining the cultural precedent on how this should be treated going forward.
For what it's worth: I'm pretty firmly in the "all the RAs get co-authorship credit" camp.
Because I forgot to follow through on this thought, and many people are (rightly) focused on the change of abuse of the RAs given recent events. But... self-preservation tends to be more a motivating force to get *actions* taken.
Imagine you are going up for tenure. Or a grant. Or a prize. And the committee is comparing the CVs of someone with, and someone without, RAs.
The person with RAs will seem more productive and better at research. Every. Single. Time. You will not win.
The person with RAs will seem more productive and better at research. Every. Single. Time. You will not win.
If you think it's difficult to get published in "top" journals now: what happens when labs begin cranking out a paper or two each month?
Even if you think the probability of students getting abused is too small to establish a code of conduct, remember this aspect as well.
Even if you think the probability of students getting abused is too small to establish a code of conduct, remember this aspect as well.
I do want to conclude this thread by making it clear that I'm not against research labs.
As someone who thinks a lot about gatekeeping (especially in the context of my students) I think having paid RA positions is actually a great way to help diversify the field.
As someone who thinks a lot about gatekeeping (especially in the context of my students) I think having paid RA positions is actually a great way to help diversify the field.
Some constructive thoughts/potential solutions that have been offered come for @andresvecino and @JTomMueller: Use ICMJE standards.
Noteworthy authorship clause: everyone on the research team must be given the opportunity to draft.
icmje.org/recommendation…
Noteworthy authorship clause: everyone on the research team must be given the opportunity to draft.
icmje.org/recommendation…
In contrast, these guidelines from the APA manual are broader and don't seem to require writing. Instead, co-authorship encompasses "organizing & conducting the statistical analysis"
I've mentioned in several replies that *literally nothing* stops us from using the algebraic author order (or the randomized variant!), augmented with an "RA" footnote alongside affiliation, indicating what their duty/contribution was if you are concerned about "credit dilution".
