Very fun article about apportioning credit among multiple authors of academic papers. Read the article for the details, but the author’s basic argument is that at equilibrium the total value per paper had better be constant with number of authors, or economists will start putting in tons of extra authors on their papers to boost their total credit. (Assuming quality is held constant.)
I see the economic argument. OTOH, it is also true that doing joint work takes more interaction and negotiation (and hence is more difficult) but often seems to me to lead to work that has a bigger impact. Hence, an organization might prefer the joint work even if it is slower per person hour, if they believe the style leads to more impact. (I suppose this is a cheap way of saying I don’t think you can really hold quality constant.)
John
2 Responses to “Co-Credit”
-
-
Comments are closed.Johnny Blaze
Collaboration in anything always takes more effort than working on a project individually. It is no surprise that this holds true with authors as well. The up side is that collaboration usually brings together a better finished product, as there are more voices to democratically find the best solution.
Johnny Blaze – CEO of the Smoke Juice company.
Immobilien
Well.. OTOH, it is also true that doing joint work takes more interaction and negotiation (and hence is more difficult) but often seems to me to lead to work that has a bigger impact.
CHEERS !!!