Oops!

Finding typos in a paper post-publication is dismaying, if inevitable. This isn’t usually fatal and will generally go unnoticed. Even after sinking hours of labour into it there are bound to be some miner errors. 

References to ‘screwed data’ and a ‘screwed distribution’ have not stopped a 2004 paper in the International Journal of Obesity from garnering over 300 citations. Likewise, a group of Japanese researchers concluded: ‘There were no significunt differences in the IAA content of shoots or roots between mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal plants’. The paper has racked up 22 citations in spite of the significunt slipup.

An unintentionally honest method appears in another paper, where the authors state: ‘In this study, we have used (insert statistical method here) to compile unique DNA methylation signatures.’

A couple of cringeworthy blunders have drawn the attention of the academic community in recent years. The Gabor scandal started when an internal author note was accidentally included in the final published version of an ecology paper:

Although association preferences documented in our study theoretically could be a consequence of either mating or shoaling preferences in the different female groups investigated (should we cite the crappy Gabor paper here?), shoaling preferences are unlikely drivers of the documented patterns…

The comment was added following peer review during the revision process and unfortunately slipped through the cracks in subsequent rounds of editing. 

A similar mix-up shook the chemistry world in 2014, when an internal note was published that apparently asked an author to fake some data:

Emma, please insert NMR data here! where are they? and for this compound, just make up an elemental analysis…

Elemental analyses are readily fabricated and are easy to slip into a paper if the journal does not ask for a copy of the independent laboratory report (in this case, however, the journal ultimately found no evidence of falsified analyses).

Rest assured that it is not only researchers who make mistakes. The London School of Economics once sent an email to around 200 students to confirm that they had accepted their place at the university, but due to an administrative error the email was addressed to Kung Fu Panda. This error caused some concern in a school where 25% of students are Asian, but apparently the choice of name merely reflected one staff member’s fondness for the film.

Other names in the test database included Piglet, Paddington, Homer, Bob and Tinkerbell.

 

This Study is Subject to Certain Limitations: Overly Honest Academic Caveats

Alison Edwards is an independent researcher, translator, editor, writer, and lover of tennis, infrastructure, and collared shirts done all the way up. This post originally appeared on her blog The Rogue Linguist. Follow Alison on twitter @rogue_linguist

This study is subject to certain limitations. For starters, it is imperceptibly different to the last six studies we salami-sliced into articles. Just as with those papers, we tortured something out of one and the same dataset and had a copyeditor repackage the intro so that it looks sort of newish.

***

One possible objection to our work may be that it appears to have insubstantial theoretical underpinning. That would be a correct, if mild, assessment, given that it has no underpinning of any kind at all.

***

The literature review can at best be described as thin, as we read exactly none of the papers referred to. Instead we pursued the following three-pronged information-gathering strategy. 1) We took what Author X said about Author Y’s work and passed it off as our own interpretation without bothering to cite Author X. 2) We perused the reference lists of previous papers and intuited the content of seemingly relevant articles from their titles alone. 3) On a few rare occasions we were compelled to hunt down a paper ourselves; a shout-out to Sci-hub and internet piracy is in order here. In such cases any direct quotes come from the abstracts, as that is as far as we got in terms of actually reading them.

***

The results of the study are tempered somewhat by the fact that we plucked the methodological technique out of thin air, neglected to validate it in any way and described it in as deliberately vague terms as possible. As a consequence, future researchers trying to replicate the study will almost certainly get entirely different results.

***

This study requires the reader to ingest a good dose of LSD before reading.

***

The generalisability of the results is limited due to the sample size of exactly N=1, namely my three-year-old daughter. Oh sure, I’ve dressed it up as a qualitative, longitudinal study of child language development, but Blind Freddy can see I’ve just recorded my kid at random, cherry-picked a few select utterances and even mimicked her myself when her actual developmental process didn’t align with the fictional one I invented for the paper. Oh, and I don’t have a daughter.

***

At this point in time our conclusions necessarily remain tentative, as we came up with them at the tail end of a heavy night of drinking long before actually having conducted the study. Only by a great leap of the imagination could one accept that they genuinely follow from the results.

***

The device tested in the study was developed by the same body that funded the research. In this sense, should one wish to be all pedantic about it, one could speak of a so-called “conflict of interest”.

***

Arguably, this is actually a pretty solid study in terms of execution; it’s just that the entire underlying premise is wildly wrong. In our view, the traditional imperative to come up with something both well-considered and well-executed falls beyond the scope of the present study; we leave it to future researchers who are more masochistic than ourselves to rectify this minor shortcoming.

Is This the Worst Academic Journal Ever?

Update: Since I first drafted this post, ABRJ has revamped it’s website. Not to worry, it’s still hilarious.

Spoiler alert: yes, probably.

We are all aware of the growth in open access ‘journals’ of dubious quality, but my attention was recently drawn to one of the worst examples I have ever seen. It is so bad, and unintentionally hilarious, that I couldn’t resist sharing it.

The American Based Research Journal (ABRJ) is, and I quote, an “Open-Access–Monthly–Online–Double Blind Peer Reviewed Journal”. This American based journal lists a UK contact address, which google earth shows to be a rather nondescript suburban lane on the outskirts of Manchester.

This is far from the first warning sign. The mere scope of the journal is baffling: “All areas of Accounting and Finance, Business, Management, HRM, Marketing Computer Science, Engineering, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences and Arts (Including Fine Arts) are covered”.

In case that isn’t broad enough, the page provides a long list of specific topics, ranging from “Fundamentals of Income Tax” to “Fashion Designers” and “Fashion Trends”.⁠ The latter two are inexplicably linked to some dodgy looking .biz fashion website which, at the time of writing, hosts a fascinating article entitled “What To Wear With Peasant Top This Summer”.

ABrj-final-logo

The logo the Journal chose to convey this broad scope? A DNA double helix.

As for its peer review policy, the website explains:

We adopt double blind peer review policy in which both authors and reviewers are kept anonymous to each other so as to maintain the high technical and quality standards as required by the researchers’ community these days.

Researchers these days are so picky, with their newfangled double blind studies and whatnot.

The ‘journal’ regularly spams scholars asking them to submit, but at the very least the emails are (unintentionally) funny. Jeffrey Beall has archived it online for posterity. Showing that the sender never learnt how to do a mail merge, the email starts:

Dear Dear Author, We are really impressed after reading your research work: ‘Research Article’

It continues:

Our journal American Based Researche [sic] Journal… with good reputation and published by USA PhD Doctors Collaboration and referred from them, which focuses on business, management,… and relevant subjects.

Online publication costs only $150, and the reader is exhorted to submit  “articles for publish from students, Research scholars and professors for Calls for Papers-Sep-25-2014 publications”.

Here comes my favorite bit. The email is signed:

Best wishes
Editor
Dr. Merry Jeans
New York, USA

No matter how many times I’ve read it, I still chuckle a little at Merry Jeans, possibly the funniest fake name ever concocted. Or is it? The editorial board of ABRJ features other gems, including “Dr. belly Joseph”, “Dr. Jazzy Rolph”, and “Prof. William” (no surname), while reviewers include a “Dr. Phineas drown”. At some point I stopped even bothering to google these names to confirm my strong suspicion that none of them really exist.

This journal is so obviously bullshit, but I had to know who was behind it. I dug around a bit and found that ABRJ’s web address is registered to one Abid Ali from ‘Zoom SEO Services’, based in Lahore, Pakistan. A couple of searches later and I found myself on his personal blog site, which consists of one rather telling page.

Ali is/was in fact a student of the Virtual University of Pakistan (incidentally a real bricks and mortar university, not actually a virtual one). He gloats that his blog had previously been shut down because he had been posting completed university assignments. To his apparent joy and amusement, he reregistered the name when it became available again, only to make this one announcement.

It perhaps comes as no surprise that the worst of all the awful fake open access journals that I’ve seen to date comes from the bedroom of some cheating student in Pakistan – half the battle in the internet age is that pretty much anyone with a computer can throw together a sham journal and, apparently, make some cash.

As Derek Lowe puts it: “It’s a long way down, that’s for sure, and the bottom is nowhere to be seen.”⁠

This Post is Intentionally Left Blank

The PDF version of this paper is available on Figshare.
Authors: 
@AcademiaObscura, @fxcoudert, @astonsplat, @McDawg, @DevilleSy

Abstract

Common in all areas of publishing, the phrase “This Page is Intentionally Left Blank” has been found in peer-reviewed academic articles costing $30 to access. To the best of our knowledge, this paper represents the first known review of Intentionally Blank Pages (IBPs). We looked at the variations in samples from the existing literature, and quantified the amount of blankness on such pages using a new metric, the “Blankness Defect Rate” (BDR). After showing that most blank pages are defective, we suggest a number of alternatives, factually correct or less ambiguous. Finally, we offer some possible explanations for this phenomenon, including “editor’s block”, a creative impairment similar to the well-known “writer’s block”, and identify avenues for future research on this critical topic.

* * *

pipe

Figure 1: Comparison of self-referentialism in surrealist art and academic literature.

1. Context

The phrase “This Page is Intentionally Left Blank” is ubiquitous in the world of printed text, appearing most notably in instruction manuals and exam papers. It is generally accepted that its purpose is to indicate that the page on which it appears is purposely bereft of content. Yet the very inclusion of this phrase nullifies its intent: the page is no longer blank. Indeed, it is now intentionally not blank. By virtue of self-reference, the phrase denies its own existence, despite the fact that we know it is there. This is, essentially, a rather banal, academic version of René Magritte’s surrealist work, The Treachery of Images (Figure 1).

The US Code of Regulations (1984) actually mandates that blank pages in certain books and pamphlets must be marked as such.1 As such, they are especially common in technical works. This has lead to a large number of people attempting to solve the philosophical conundrum such non-blank blank pages create, often through online fora and crowdsourcing platforms. The Office of the General Counsel at the US General Accounting Office, acutely aware of the distress caused, purported in 2001 to have resolved the conundrum in its Principles of Federal Appropriations Law (Second Edition, Volume IV).2 Text on page ii, which is otherwise blank, reads “This page is intended to be blank. Please do not read it.” However, this appears to have only further entrenched the philosophical contradictions, and the subsequent Third Edition contained no such text on its blank page.

It was recently discovered via social media that a number of peer-reviewed academic ‘articles’, costing $30 to access, consist solely of one blank page (Figure 2).3 In order to determine what value was being added to these pages by the peer review process that they have undergone, we set out to investigate their blankness. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic study of intentionally blank pages (IBP) in the academic literature.

screenshot

Figure 2: screenshot of the ScienceDirect checkout page, accessed via an institutional login from SciencesPo, showing the cost of an IBP taken from Verified Synthesis of Zeolitic Materials (2001).

2. Methodology

A total of 56 individual IBPs were found on the online ScienceDirect platform, 24 of which were immediately available for purchase and study. These appear to be a cross-disciplinary selection, so it is felt that this will give a good indication of the treatment of IBPs over a wide range of subjects. It is notable that these IBPs are largely from books. It appears that journals generally do not leave blank pages, intentionally.

blankblankblank

Figure 3: Variability in font family, size and resolution of the text on intentionally blank pages.

3. Analysis

Out of 24 PDFs, only one was truly blank. This was checked by rendering of its contents at high resolution (600 dpi) followed by a search for non-white pixels. The remainder were manually examined, showing some variety in their style (Figure 3). One used a sans-serif font, although the majority (22 out of 24) used a rasterized sans serif font in varying sizes and positioning.

3.1. Blankness

Despite their claim to have been ‘intentionally left blank’, our analysis shows that almost none of the IBPs have, in actual fact, been left blank: all but one of them contain the text “This Page is Intentionally Left Blank”. The exception is an IBP from Parallel Computational Fluid Dynamics 2000 (2001). The reason for the omission of the informative text on this page remains wholly unclear.

The prevalence of text on these ‘blank pages’ will either disappoint readers that have paid $30 for a product that was falsely advertised, or raise existential questions such as, “what is a blank page?” and “why did I choose a career in academia?”

histogram

Figure 4: Histogram of disclaimer text width on IBPs. The data point corresponding to the single perfectly blank page in our sample is highlighted in orange.

The amount of blankness varies, which can be quantified using a factor we have named the “blankness defect rate” (BDR). The BDR can be defined as the amount of space on the page that is in fact not blank, primarily caused by the presence of text. Automated determination of the BDR was undertaken using custom Mathematica scripts. The primary factor affecting the BDR was the size of the informative text (Figure 4), with larger text leading to a higher BDR. The font used may also affect the BDR, whereby fonts with serifs cause higher BDRs, due to their occupying more space. Additional interference effects may also be present.

The average BDR of the sampled IBPs is 0.163% (±0.04%), while the average amount of non-blank space (i.e. ink) is 0.830 cm2 (±0.204).

3.2. File Size

The total size of the 24 IBPs is 237 kB, averaging almost 10kb per page. Individual IBPs varied from 7 kB to an impressive 19 kB, as can be seen in Appendix 1. By contrast, our control has a size of merely 365 bytes. Even the peer-reviewed genuinely blank IBP was 8.2 kB in size. To put this into perspective, only 144 average IBPs provided by journals can be stored on one standard floppy disk; our control allows for the storage of 3945 IBPs. Printing these would certainly provide enough blank pages for most practical purposes.

Figure 5: Chart showing text alignment across the sampled IBPs.

Figure 5: Chart showing text alignment across the sampled IBPs.

3.3. Positioning of Text

Visual observation shows that most pages have their text placed centrally, both horizontally and vertically. There is some variation, however, most commonly horizontal displacement of the text to the right and downwards vertical displacement. This distribution can be seen in Figure 5.

The pages are all designed to be viewed in portrait mode, with no line-breaks being used. What is intended to occur if pages are purchased for use in landscape orientation is unclear, but the text will be misaligned in such situations, causing readers to have to turn either their heads or their reading material in order to confirm that the page is indeed blank.

Being the only truly blank IBP sampled, the IBP from Parallel Computational Fluid Dynamics 2000 (2001) has no predetermined orientation or alignment. In fact, it may be rotated and/or reversed at will, maintaining its original character at all times.

3.4. Cost

The publisher-provided IBPs furnish 31 characters to the reader for $30 (Figure 2), a cost of approximately $1.33 per character. Our control was created in a matter of minutes, for free, using a simple text editor. Considering the current pressure on research funding, and to ensure no unnecessary spending of taxpayer money is undertaken, we recommend the use of our control IBP in future. We have therefore placed it under the Creative Commons CC0 license, and made it available online (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.12593).

At $30 per PDF, anecdotally a common price point for ‘scientific’ papers, readers pay an average of $33.58 per square centimetre of ink (cm–2). There is some variability in this price, owing to variations in the BDR. The most expensive blank page costs $46.35/cm(page 16 of Joe Grand’s Best of Hardware: Wireless and Game Console Hacking); the least expensive is a mere $23.21/cm2 (We couldn’t quite bring ourselves to say “the cheapest”).

Given that the publisher’s cost are partly linked to the size of files hosted on their web servers, a further perspective to consider is the price per MB. These PDF copies of the sample IBPs are sold at $3,331.85 per MB (± $640.97). We note that publishers could substantially increase profit margins by selling truly blank IBPs. Our defect-free IBP, fully compliant with PDF 1.1 and later standards, is a mere 365 bytes (0.000365 MB). If sold at the same nominal price of $30, that would represent $86,184 per MB. Alternatively, if sold at the same price per MB as the sampled IBPs, a true IBP need cost only $1.16. This would greatly alleviate the heavy financial burden borne by academic institutions that frequently require blank pages.

4. Possible explanations

One possible explanation for the inclusion of text in the IBPs is that the stock phrase used in the majority of the sampled papers is, in fact, intended as a kōan, i.e. a statement used in Zen practice to provoke the “great doubt” and test a student’s progress. If this were to be true, the absence of any philosophy or religious texts from the sample is surprising. Such a hypothesis would suggest that the readers of publications such as Frontiers in Dusty Plasmas and Asymptotic Methods in Probability and Statistics are well ahead on the Zen-curve, an unlikely conclusion.

Our preferred hypothesis is that the blank PDFs provided by journals have a higher file size and cost due to their ‘added value’. This value has been added through a rigorous process of peer-review and professional copyediting, and usually takes the form of the added text. By contrast, our control IBP lacks this additional text and has not been peer-reviewed according to normal procedures. The publisher supplied pages are therefore less confusing to most readers, who would otherwise be left to infer for themselves that the pages are, in fact, blank. We are considering the addition of similar text to all blank pages in our possession, and printers.

There is nevertheless an alternative, intriguing explanation. As all writers are well aware, the writer’s block is well-established phenomenon among both professional and amateur writers. Could this be the first reported case of editor’s block? The presence of blank pages in multiple domains may imply that several editors have fallen to this creative impairment. Indeed, given the volume of published academic texts, it is unlikely that just one editor would be responsible for this series of blank pages. Unfortunately, it is not a standard practice to report the name of the editor associated with each IBP and it is therefore impossible to draw a firm conclusion. We hope that this work might instigate interest from social and behavioural specialists to further investigate this intriguing possibility.

5. Alternatives

Our analysis suggests the intentionally blank pages are flawed in a number of ways. Here we suggest some alternatives, the use of which will vary depending on the desired outcome.

Where the intention is to reassure the reader that they have come to the end of the current text, some syntactically meaningless symbols at the end of said text can indicate that it was not left blank accidentally. ‘Dingbats’ (❈♥❉♦♣ etc.) have been successfully used for this purpose. We propose that the dingbats method may now be modernised through the use of ‘emojis’. Emojis may provide a novel method of conveying to the reader that the text has ended (e.g.  – finish).

Otherwise, the traditional blank page paradigm may be maintained with some alteration to the current standard phrase. “There are only eight words on this page” provides a neat solution, or the text may be more comprehensively reformulated thus:

The page on which this statement has been printed has been intentionally left devoid of substantive content, such that the present statement is the only text printed thereon.

If using typesetting software, such as LaTeX, it may also be possible to automatically state exactly how much blank space is present on a page. This would render a message such as “This Page Intentionally Left 99.855% Blank”. A proof of concept was developed (see additional resources), by calculating the BDR in an iterative manner, meaning that this could (in theory) be applied to all intentionally blank pages. This method both eliminates the usual existential questions posed by self-reference, and is satisfyingly accurate.

If the primary intention is indeed to provide the reader with a blank page, all text should be omitted. Parallel Computational Fluid Dynamics 2000 (2001) and the control page from this study provides an example that may be replicated in other contexts.

It should be noted that a number of interesting alternatives are found outside the traditional scientific literature. Andy Griffiths’ book, Just Stupid!, begins with a cartoon snail saying: “This page would be blank if I were not here telling you that this page would be blank if I were not here telling you that…” on an endless loop. Don Novello’s, The Lazlo Letters (1977), ends with several pages marked “FREE PAPER!” Iranian novelist Reza Amirkhani’s book, Man-e-oo (‘His Ego’), reportedly contains an entire chapter consisting of blank pages. However, we have been unable to verify whether the pages remain blank when translated into English from the original Persian.

6.Directions for Future Research

In light of the significance of these new findings, we suggest that this paper represents the dawning of brave new era beginning in the field of bibliometrics. In addition to their prevalence in English, we suspect that IBPs are found in other languages. Whether these are present in the scientific literature is unknown, since the scientific community largely uses English as a lingua Franca. Regardless, further investigation may reveal further insights and as such, should be examined in much more detail.

Personal communication from ScienceDirect indicates their intention to remove these pages. This would hamper future efforts to analyse IBPs. However, blankness itself may be an interesting topic of further study, and prevalence of blankness in other areas remains unclear at this juncture. Further avenues of research that may prove fruitful include the blankness of: the digital world, such as websites and tweets; the physical world, such as walls and signs; and other aspects of academic publishing, such as footnotes,4 and even entire academic articles.

7. Conclusion

We recommend the use of our blank control page for situations where a truly blank page is desired, or where a landscape orientation is required, since publishers have not allowed for their blank pages to be used in such situations. Alternatively, the blank page from Parallel Computational Fluid Dynamics 2000 (2001) provides a peer-reviewed alternative for high-quality applications. Where there is a need to maintain the functionality of the additional text, any of the options proposed in this paper are appropriate. Indeed, different options are suitable for different applications, depending particularly on the need for brevity, accuracy, and humour in each unique case.

* * *

Afterword

It has subsequently come to our attention that ScienceDirect has taken the drastic step of removing all IBPs from its search results. In response to this development, we have taken the decision make these papers publicly available to ensure that these important contributions to science are not lost to future generations of researchers.

While we are aware that this action is in violation of copyright laws, we urge ScienceDirect, and the publishers of the IBPs, not to seek legal redress.

Additional Resources

  1. The Code of Federal Regulations of the United States of America (1984), Section 47, §61.93.
  2. Here: http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/d01179sp.pdf
  3. Tweet dated 13 Oct 2014, @fxcoudert: https://twitter.com/fxcoudert/status/521675319322112000
  4. This footnote is intentionally left blank.

Co-authoring: Now with 60% more croquet!

Co-authoring papers can be an enriching and enlightening academic experience. It can also be a complete nightmare. This post is your complete guide for navigating the process.1

Step One: finding a co-author
First things first, ensure that you are authoring your paper with a living, human academic. Living human academics are more responsive than dead humans and non-human animals, albeit only marginally.

Step Two: write a paper
Easy as ABC.

Step Three: agreeing on author order
Once you have written your collaborative masterpiece, you will face the biggest challenge of the process: determining author order. If you have a borderline personality disorder, you can probably get away with taking all the credit for yourself, but for the rest of us some well-established procedures apply. A comprehensive review of all papers published between 1974-1998 which openly disclose the method used to determine author order (2 papers) reveals that there are 2 established methods for determining author order:

  1. Croquet.
  2. Proximity to tenure decisions.

Determination of author order, method #1: Croquet
The traditional method, as described by Hassell & May (1974),2 is a croquet tournament, described as follows:

The order of authorship was determined from a twenty-five-game croquet series held at Imperial College Field Station during summer 1973.

Not described in the paper are the somewhat underhand methods used by Hassell & May to ensure their victory in such tournaments:3

Croquet was played every lunch time during May’s summer visits on a pitch customised by a large population of rabbits. Visitors were invited to play though inevitably lost due to the huge home-team advantage knowledge of the pitch’s precise topography afforded. Visitors also frequently declared themselves disadvantaged by the alleged tactic of being asked complex ecological questions mid-stroke. This was a different game from the traditional English vicarage-lawn contest!

If you are not au fait with croquet,4 you can learn all about this “curious ancient pastime” from Joseph Strutt’s seminal 1801 book,5 concisely titled:

The Sports And Pastimes Of The People Of England From The Earliest Period, Including The Rural And Domestic Recreations, May Games, Mummeries, Pageants, Processions And Pompous Spectacles, Illustrated By Reproductions From Ancient Paintings In Which Are Represented Most Of The Popular Diversions

Or you can just read the Wikipedia article.6

A Curious and Ancient Pastime

A Curious and Ancient Pastime

If your university happens to have a field station, your task is made much easier. Likewise, if you live in the UK, you may find that your university already has a croquet club – Oxford, Cambridge and Nottingham seem to be leading the way. Wherever you go, make sure that you do not play next to a cricket field for health and safety reasons.

Early example of the Croquet Method in use. The scholars pictured are presumably using a croquet tournament to settle the order of authorship on their latest collaborative paper discussing postmodernism in feminist theory. Harper's Weekly 10 (September 10, 1866) p.568.

Early example of the Croquet Method in use. The scholars pictured are using a croquet tournament to settle the order of authorship on their latest collaborative paper discussing postmodernism in feminist theory.7 Harper’s Weekly 10 (September 10, 1866) p.568.

If you live do not live somewhere sufficiently civilised to have a croquet club you should consider moving. Otherwise you can fashion your own croquet set. This is very easy and you can customise your kit to represent the game of croquet played in Alice in Wonderland. To further the effect, it is a good idea to dress as Alice during the tournament.

A group of academics going 'Full Alice'.

A group of academics going ‘Full Alice’.

It is difficult to estimate the prevalence of the croquet method. However, studies show that “croquet players are on the whole wealthy people”,8 which is at odds with the remuneration generally provided to academics. At least one participant in the aforementioned study noted the presence of academics, lending some credence to the method. Just don’t take it too seriously as9

Croquet is usually stereotyped as a genteel game, less a sport than a social function, and more suited to genial conversation and unfettered flirtation than strident competition 

Determination of author order, method #2: Proximity to tenure decisions
Winning the award for academic honesty are Roderick and Gillespie (2002),10 who admit that:

Order of authorship was determined by proximity to tenure decisions.

Perhaps less sophisticated than croquet, but hey, everybody wants to be loved tenured. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this approach is substantiated by the literature. In one survey of 127 papers, 4 determined author order by proximity to tenure decisions, i.e. about 3%.11 I’d like to bet the true figure is much higher.

Step Three: remember to credit all authors and don’t spell their names wrong So you’ve found some human co-authors, written your masterpiece and completed your croquet odyssey. Now all you have to do is credit all your authors. Sounds easy, but sometimes you might have 4 or 5 authors. Or 90.12 Or 2924.13 “But I would never forget an author, and I am so careful with spelling!”, I hear you protest across the ether. I am sure that Ms. L.L. Chen and Mr. C. Hui would have said exactly the same. That is until they completely forgot about their poor third co-author, one, Z.S. Lin. In the same fashion, this bunch managed to overlook no fewer than 5 authors in their Nature paper on ‘The zebrafish reference genome sequence and its relationship to the human genome’. They also spelt a number of names wrong and mixed up their funding sources! They at least realised their error reasonably quickly. Presumably one or more of the ‘forgotten five’14 opened up their latest issue of Nature with all the urgency and anticipation of a child unwrapping presents at Christmas, ready to see their name in the leading journal of their field, a recognition of their fantastic contributions to science… only to find they were not credited. Not sure what happened then with this paper in Ecology Letters, where it took 2 years to notice that a couple of co-authors were missing.

Damming evidence of co-author amnesia.

Damming evidence of co-author amnesia.

Finally, if you are given the opportunity to transliterate author names to Chinese, make sure you don’t inadvertently write a co-author’s name as 韦小宝. Unless of course that co-author is, in fact, a demi-Emperor, son of a prostitute, with 8 wives.

Thanks to @ProfLiJin for the translation!

Thanks to @ProfLiJin for the translation!

So there you have it. Happy collaborating!

  1. Not really complete, nor a guide.
  2. Hassell, M.P. & May, R.M., ‘Aggregation of predators and insect parasites and its effect on stability’ (1974) 43 Journal of Animal Ecology 567-594.
  3. Godfray, C., ‘Hassell, M. P. & May, R. M. (1973)’ (British Ecology Society, 100 Influential Papers series no. 13, 2013) http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/100papers/Extended_Commentaries/13_Hassell.pdf.
  4. I’m a poet, and I didn’t even realise
  5. Strutt, J., The Sports And Pastimes Of The People Of England From The Earliest Period (London Methuen, London, 1801) https://archive.org/details/sportspastimesof00struuoft.
  6. For those interested in further study, the Journal of Sport History kindly provides access to some further reading, including: Sterngass, J., ‘Cheating, Gender Roles, and the Nineteenth-Century Croquet Craze’ (1998) 25(3) Journal of Sport History 398-418 (pdf); and Lewis, R. M., ‘American Croquet in the 1860s: Playing the Game and Winning’ (1991) 18(3) Journal of Sport History 365-386 (pdf).
  7. Probably.
  8. Carter, K., ‘A Survey of Croquet Players’ (Profundus Consulting, April 2007) https://www.croquet.org.uk/?d=386.
  9. Sterngass, J., ‘Cheating, Gender Roles, and the Nineteenth-Century Croquet Craze’ (1998) 25(3) Journal of Sport History 398-418 http://www.mauicroquetclub.org/history/CheatingGenderRolesAndTheNineteenthCentruyCroquetCraze.pdf.
  10. Roderick, G. K. & Gillespie, R. G., ‘Speciation and phylogeography of Hawaiian terrestrial arthropods’ (1998) Molecular Ecology 7(4) 519–531 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00309.x/abstract.
  11. Hart, R., ‘Co-authorship in the academic library literature: A survey of attitudes and behaviors’ (2000) 26(5) The Journal of Academic Librarianship 339–345 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0099133300001403.
  12.  Keith R Bradnam, Joseph N Fass, Anton Alexandrov, Paul Baranay, Michael Bechner, Inanç Birol, Sébastien Boisvert, Jarrod A Chapman, Guillaume Chapuis, Rayan Chikhi, Hamidreza Chitsaz, Wen-Chi Chou, Jacques Corbeil,Cristian Del Fabbro, T Roderick Docking, Richard Durbin, Dent Earl, Scott Emrich,Pavel Fedotov, Nuno A Fonseca, Ganeshkumar Ganapathy, Richard A Gibbs,Sante Gnerre, Élénie Godzaridis, Steve Goldstein, Matthias Haimel, Giles Hall,David Haussler, Joseph B Hiatt, Isaac Y Ho, Jason Howard, Martin Hunt, Shaun D Jackman, David B Jaffe, Erich D Jarvis, Huaiyang Jiang, Sergey Kazakov, Paul J Kersey, Jacob O Kitzman, James R Knight, Sergey Koren, Tak-Wah Lam,Dominique Lavenier, François Laviolette, Yingrui Li, Zhenyu Li, Binghang Liu, Yue Liu, Ruibang Luo, Iain MacCallum, Matthew D MacManes, Nicolas Maillet, Sergey Melnikov, Delphine Naquin, Zemin Ning, Thomas D Otto,Benedict Paten, Octávio S Paulo, Adam M Phillippy, Francisco Pina-Martins,Michael Place, Dariusz Przybylski, Xiang Qin, Carson Qu, Filipe J Ribeiro,Stephen Richards, Daniel S Rokhsar, J Graham Ruby, Simone Scalabrin,Michael C Schatz, David C Schwartz, Alexey Sergushichev, Ted Sharpe, Timothy I Shaw, Jay Shendure, Yujian Shi, Jared T Simpson, Henry Song, Fedor Tsarev, Francesco Vezzi, Riccardo Vicedomini, Bruno M Vieira, Jun Wang, Kim C Worley, Shuangye Yin, Siu-Ming Yiu, Jianying Yuan, Guojie Zhang, Hao Zhang, Shiguo Zhou and Ian F Korf, ‘Assemblathon 2: evaluating de novo methods of genome assembly in three vertebrate species’ (2013) 2(1) GigaScience http://www.gigasciencejournal.com/content/2/1/10/.
  13. Obviously not going to reproduce 24 pages of author names. But you can count them for yourself: Aad, G. et al. et al. et al al al., ‘The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider’ (2008) Journal of the Institute of Physics Publishing http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-0221/3/08/S08003/pdf/1748-0221_3_08_S08003.pdf.
  14. ‘The Forgotten Five’ also happens to be the name of a piece of One Direction fan fiction in which the “band named one direction go down in a plane crash and wind up back at their flat as ghost and realize someone buys the house they do whatever they can to get them out” (sic – the whole blurb) http://www.wattpad.com/20621837-the-forgotten-five-a-one-direction-paranormal.