Timeline for Is there a reasonable way to refer to a 23 page article with 28 authors?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
32 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 22, 2020 at 0:27 | comment | added | Hollis Williams | This is why a paper with one author needs to be considered with different weighting to a paper which is written by more than four authors. Writing a paper with 27 other people is not the same as writing an entire paper by yourself. | |
| May 17, 2019 at 19:21 | comment | added | LSpice | I mean: it seems to me that the number of authors alone is the issue; is it any easier or harder to put an entry in your reference list for a short paper with 28 authors, as compared to a long paper with 28 authors? | |
| May 17, 2019 at 19:00 | comment | added | Jim Humphreys | @LSpice: It probably wouldn't matter unless the length of the paper was short but with many authors. | |
| May 17, 2019 at 18:20 | comment | added | LSpice | Why does the length of the paper matter when referring to it? | |
| Apr 8, 2019 at 1:45 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 8, 2019 at 13:02 | |||||
| Dec 1, 2017 at 4:10 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 1, 2017 at 10:09 | |||||
| Oct 26, 2017 at 5:43 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 26, 2017 at 8:58 | |||||
| Sep 11, 2012 at 18:57 | comment | added | Adam Epstein | @Roland Bacher arnaud-cheritat.fr/etale | |
| Oct 15, 2010 at 22:57 | comment | added | JBL | For whatever it's worth, Nat Thiem referred to the main result as "Theorem (Grinning ninnies)" in his talk at the MIT combinatorics seminar. (The name is part of an anagram of the last letters of the last names of the authors.) | |
| Oct 15, 2010 at 22:12 | comment | added | Victor Miller | @JBL, Try this link deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/34194/1/0000483.pdf | |
| Oct 15, 2010 at 14:22 | comment | added | JBL | Victor, that link doesn't work for me. | |
| Oct 15, 2010 at 14:18 | comment | added | Victor Miller | In the late 1960's a large group of number theorists at University of Michigan applied the ideas in Alan Baker's work on diophantine approximations to find all the solutions to a Diophantine equations. They originally submitted this with one author "Ann Arbor". The editor saw through their ruse, and was not amused. sciencedirect.com/… | |
| Oct 14, 2010 at 11:46 | comment | added | Jim Humphreys | @Christopher: My question was originally suggested by the AIM conference group preprint, which seems to be a one-time project and is awkward to reference. The UGA group has published some papers under a consistent label, though the membership of the group changes over time (but is not anonymous like Bourbaki). It will give citation counters a problem, I trust, when tracking the influence of individual authors. This kind of counting is getting very common in academia, including the newly issued NRC ratings. | |
| Oct 12, 2010 at 13:20 | comment | added | Christopher Drupieski | As a coauthor on the VIGRE paper in question, we have no problem being referred to as the UGA VIGRE Algebra Group. I have cited previous papers by the research group as [UGA1], [UGA2], etc. | |
| Oct 12, 2010 at 12:02 | answer | added | Wadim Zudilin | timeline score: 1 | |
| Sep 27, 2010 at 18:04 | comment | added | Jim Humphreys | Allen: Whether or not to number references is definitely an important issue about communication, though not just specific to my question. There are complications: how to preserve alphabetical order in a long reference list for easy location of authors, how to overcome default LaTeX styles, ... | |
| Sep 24, 2010 at 17:58 | comment | added | Allen Knutson | Thank you, by the way, for not numbering your references. I would much rather look at "[Aguiar et al.]" and say "oh, that paper" instead of "[19]" and have to look in the back. Obviously any single such distraction is no big deal but one encounters many in every paper. | |
| Sep 23, 2010 at 7:52 | comment | added | Roland Bacher | I heard the following story concerning "et al" from a librarian. She told me that a student (I think of medical sciences) asked her why this "et al" did not get a Nobel prize for his fantastic amount of papers. | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 20:23 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | It is asked "whether there is a reasonable way for 28 people to write a 23-page article". Maybe a wiki? | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 20:08 | comment | added | John D. Cook | The question I find more interesting is whether there is a reasonable way for 28 people to write a 23-page article. | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 19:53 | answer | added | Jeff Strom | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 19:22 | history | edited | Jim Humphreys | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 669 characters in body
|
| Sep 22, 2010 at 15:59 | answer | added | Noah Snyder | timeline score: 14 | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 14:09 | comment | added | darij grinberg | This paper really shows that we need a Bourbaki collective for algebraic combinatorics... | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 14:08 | comment | added | darij grinberg | "Participants of the Supercharacters and combinatorial Hopf algebras conference 2010, Supercharacters, symmetric functions in noncommuting variables, and related Hopf algebras"? :D | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 13:51 | answer | added | Matt Young | timeline score: 14 | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 13:34 | comment | added | dvitek | I always prefer [N]. | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 13:32 | comment | added | Kevin Buzzard | FWIW my girlfriend is a doctor and is constantly dealing with papers with 20+ authors and always uses "et al". The difference is that in medecine the "lead author" is at the front! | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 13:29 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Jim Humphreys | ||
| Sep 22, 2010 at 13:13 | answer | added | Carl Mummert | timeline score: 9 | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 12:49 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Personally, I don't see anything wrong with "Aguiar et al." | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 12:46 | history | asked | Jim Humphreys | CC BY-SA 2.5 |