Post

The protestations here are ridiculous. Even in co-authored scientific pieces spanning multiple fields, every author should have read and understood every cited article. You should not put your name to something that you don't understand.

Dr. Holly Walters@manigarm.bsky.social

I'm sorry, what? In writing my first monograph, I spent six weeks trying to track down a citation in TWO languages I didn't know. And good thing too, because the citation was wrong. That's scholarship. That's research. You know, the thing we're trained to do?!?

18 reposts119 likes

In High Energy physics experiments there are sometimes hundreds of authors (basically the entire collaboration). Is the person who worked on the calorimeter calibration responsible for the algorithms for higher order K+ production channels in Pythia?

The screenshotted people are bad, but the standard you describe is impossible. Lots of scientific research is not going to be comprehensible by collaborators; that's just the reality of disciplinary specialization.

What does this say about the quality of your collaboration if only one of your co-authors can "comprehend" work you're collectively relying on? I think you've overstated your true claim. Do you have an alternate standard to propose which doesn't boil down to "knowledge" based on blind trust?

There's a huge gap between deep expertise + abject ignorance, though For any given topic, we all start at different points on that spectrum + any good research team will choose collaborators accordingly who we trust to do their best work

Machine translation isn’t perfect but it will give you enough of a head start that your co-writer who speaks that language and understands the paper can explain to you why it matters and if they can’t why are either of you citing it?

While I agree, the bar being set here is much lower than that. At least one of the authors needs to confirm that any citations they have added to the manuscript actually exist. I don't think that's too much to ask.