Diverging coauthor opinions - publish anonymously or don't publish at all?
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
This question is a splinter of an earlier question, posted separately upon advice from commenters.
The background is:
(1) I audited a course at an institute I don't belong to. As part of the course, an essay is being written by two of us.
(2) There is a chance that this essay would be published either internally or externally (not necessarily peer-reviewed).
The problem:
My co-author and I differ (significantly) on certain areas we write about. In a sense, we represent opposite ends of the spectrum. My partner is keen to publish; I am ambivalent.
I'm bothered by questions of academic integrity, namely:
(1) Do I withdraw entirely, allowing a one-sided, uncontested opinion to be expressed? This is the easiest option.
(2) Do we submit normally, with our names and affiliations, knowing that some opinions expressed are contrary to my own views, and may negatively impact my academic work at a later stage? While uncomfortable, this does seem fair.
(3) Do I remain anonymous, with the partner being the first author? This way we can address the divergence and bring out a contrast in perspectives, without me having to worry about long-term consequences. But I don't know if it is an accepted practice. I have come across questions on anonymity here and here, but these primarily discuss single-author work.
publications ethics authorship anonymity
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
This question is a splinter of an earlier question, posted separately upon advice from commenters.
The background is:
(1) I audited a course at an institute I don't belong to. As part of the course, an essay is being written by two of us.
(2) There is a chance that this essay would be published either internally or externally (not necessarily peer-reviewed).
The problem:
My co-author and I differ (significantly) on certain areas we write about. In a sense, we represent opposite ends of the spectrum. My partner is keen to publish; I am ambivalent.
I'm bothered by questions of academic integrity, namely:
(1) Do I withdraw entirely, allowing a one-sided, uncontested opinion to be expressed? This is the easiest option.
(2) Do we submit normally, with our names and affiliations, knowing that some opinions expressed are contrary to my own views, and may negatively impact my academic work at a later stage? While uncomfortable, this does seem fair.
(3) Do I remain anonymous, with the partner being the first author? This way we can address the divergence and bring out a contrast in perspectives, without me having to worry about long-term consequences. But I don't know if it is an accepted practice. I have come across questions on anonymity here and here, but these primarily discuss single-author work.
publications ethics authorship anonymity
1
If you "audit" a course are you allowed to publish the results? Is this an "essay" or more of a "report" based on your findings and / or analysis?
– Solar Mike
Nov 30 at 10:25
There isn't a restriction, to my knowledge. (If there is, my problem is solved already :) On report vs essay, I'm not sure I understand the distinction as you intend it - but this is intended to be an analysis of existing trends/practices, and evolution of some new insights.
– user153812
Nov 30 at 10:38
Why are you concerned with publication? It isn't typical for school assignments to be published, and certainly not without approval by the authors. Submitting an assignment for a course is not the same as saying you approve it being published. Writing a paper for a course from a perspective that is not your own is not an unusual assignment.
– Bryan Krause
Dec 1 at 3:08
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
This question is a splinter of an earlier question, posted separately upon advice from commenters.
The background is:
(1) I audited a course at an institute I don't belong to. As part of the course, an essay is being written by two of us.
(2) There is a chance that this essay would be published either internally or externally (not necessarily peer-reviewed).
The problem:
My co-author and I differ (significantly) on certain areas we write about. In a sense, we represent opposite ends of the spectrum. My partner is keen to publish; I am ambivalent.
I'm bothered by questions of academic integrity, namely:
(1) Do I withdraw entirely, allowing a one-sided, uncontested opinion to be expressed? This is the easiest option.
(2) Do we submit normally, with our names and affiliations, knowing that some opinions expressed are contrary to my own views, and may negatively impact my academic work at a later stage? While uncomfortable, this does seem fair.
(3) Do I remain anonymous, with the partner being the first author? This way we can address the divergence and bring out a contrast in perspectives, without me having to worry about long-term consequences. But I don't know if it is an accepted practice. I have come across questions on anonymity here and here, but these primarily discuss single-author work.
publications ethics authorship anonymity
This question is a splinter of an earlier question, posted separately upon advice from commenters.
The background is:
(1) I audited a course at an institute I don't belong to. As part of the course, an essay is being written by two of us.
(2) There is a chance that this essay would be published either internally or externally (not necessarily peer-reviewed).
The problem:
My co-author and I differ (significantly) on certain areas we write about. In a sense, we represent opposite ends of the spectrum. My partner is keen to publish; I am ambivalent.
I'm bothered by questions of academic integrity, namely:
(1) Do I withdraw entirely, allowing a one-sided, uncontested opinion to be expressed? This is the easiest option.
(2) Do we submit normally, with our names and affiliations, knowing that some opinions expressed are contrary to my own views, and may negatively impact my academic work at a later stage? While uncomfortable, this does seem fair.
(3) Do I remain anonymous, with the partner being the first author? This way we can address the divergence and bring out a contrast in perspectives, without me having to worry about long-term consequences. But I don't know if it is an accepted practice. I have come across questions on anonymity here and here, but these primarily discuss single-author work.
publications ethics authorship anonymity
publications ethics authorship anonymity
asked Nov 30 at 10:22
user153812
5,41011038
5,41011038
1
If you "audit" a course are you allowed to publish the results? Is this an "essay" or more of a "report" based on your findings and / or analysis?
– Solar Mike
Nov 30 at 10:25
There isn't a restriction, to my knowledge. (If there is, my problem is solved already :) On report vs essay, I'm not sure I understand the distinction as you intend it - but this is intended to be an analysis of existing trends/practices, and evolution of some new insights.
– user153812
Nov 30 at 10:38
Why are you concerned with publication? It isn't typical for school assignments to be published, and certainly not without approval by the authors. Submitting an assignment for a course is not the same as saying you approve it being published. Writing a paper for a course from a perspective that is not your own is not an unusual assignment.
– Bryan Krause
Dec 1 at 3:08
add a comment |
1
If you "audit" a course are you allowed to publish the results? Is this an "essay" or more of a "report" based on your findings and / or analysis?
– Solar Mike
Nov 30 at 10:25
There isn't a restriction, to my knowledge. (If there is, my problem is solved already :) On report vs essay, I'm not sure I understand the distinction as you intend it - but this is intended to be an analysis of existing trends/practices, and evolution of some new insights.
– user153812
Nov 30 at 10:38
Why are you concerned with publication? It isn't typical for school assignments to be published, and certainly not without approval by the authors. Submitting an assignment for a course is not the same as saying you approve it being published. Writing a paper for a course from a perspective that is not your own is not an unusual assignment.
– Bryan Krause
Dec 1 at 3:08
1
1
If you "audit" a course are you allowed to publish the results? Is this an "essay" or more of a "report" based on your findings and / or analysis?
– Solar Mike
Nov 30 at 10:25
If you "audit" a course are you allowed to publish the results? Is this an "essay" or more of a "report" based on your findings and / or analysis?
– Solar Mike
Nov 30 at 10:25
There isn't a restriction, to my knowledge. (If there is, my problem is solved already :) On report vs essay, I'm not sure I understand the distinction as you intend it - but this is intended to be an analysis of existing trends/practices, and evolution of some new insights.
– user153812
Nov 30 at 10:38
There isn't a restriction, to my knowledge. (If there is, my problem is solved already :) On report vs essay, I'm not sure I understand the distinction as you intend it - but this is intended to be an analysis of existing trends/practices, and evolution of some new insights.
– user153812
Nov 30 at 10:38
Why are you concerned with publication? It isn't typical for school assignments to be published, and certainly not without approval by the authors. Submitting an assignment for a course is not the same as saying you approve it being published. Writing a paper for a course from a perspective that is not your own is not an unusual assignment.
– Bryan Krause
Dec 1 at 3:08
Why are you concerned with publication? It isn't typical for school assignments to be published, and certainly not without approval by the authors. Submitting an assignment for a course is not the same as saying you approve it being published. Writing a paper for a course from a perspective that is not your own is not an unusual assignment.
– Bryan Krause
Dec 1 at 3:08
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
15
down vote
accepted
Rather than knowing that some opinions expressed are contrary to my own views, you could present both views and clearly label them as such. For instance, you could open by explaining:
The authors opinions differ significantly and each author presents their own opinion below:
Followed by each opinion:
Author Name A: ...
Author Name B: ...
This is very interesting. Have you come across a precedent where this has been done?
– user153812
Nov 30 at 12:27
2
@user153812 Scientist refers to this as "usually the case," I've certainly seen it, but not frequently (possibly because authors reach consensus).
– user2768
Nov 30 at 13:30
I can confirm I've seen this a few times (in econ/finance), but on minor issues of interpretation of the results, rather than methodology.
– PatrickT
Nov 30 at 16:48
1
For a concrete example, see page xiii of the preface in A Course in Game Theory (Osborne and Rubinstein). It's in some sense a silly debate --- orthogonal to the main point of the text --- but the authors express differing opinions regarding the use of pronouns in the text. They separately present their own sides, then the compromise that was reached.
– kyle
Nov 30 at 18:21
2
Example (.pdf link) of a paper from parapsychology that does something similar. Rather than divide the discussion into separate sections, it uses a "here are several possible interpretations of these results" format, but the "possible interpretations" include both "author A faked their data" and "author B faked their data", so it's certainly adversarial.
– A_S00
Nov 30 at 21:16
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
You haven't specified your field of study. I think the answer may depend heavily on whether you are in humanities vs. soft sciences vs. hard sciences. I will give an answer from the "hard" end of the spectrum: I work in applied mathematics.
If I didn't agree with the contents of a paper in a substantial way, I would certainly not consent to be an author of the paper. Authorship implies a belief in the correctness of what is written. I would go with option #1.
If I disagreed with coauthors over minor, subjective points (and this happens) I would work with them to find a way of presenting things that we can both agree on. In math, this often means simply leaving out speculative remarks.
I certainly see your point, being from the materials science/engineering community myself. This particular case is from a sociology-policy sort of field, so I'm all the more ignorant about the norms. Your answer is useful regardless. Thanks!
– user153812
Nov 30 at 12:52
2
At least in math, it isn't that abnormal for coauthors to express disagreement on likelihood of a conjecture. I don't have an example off the top of my head, but I've seen a few papers with something "Open Question is A. Author 1 believes A is likely to be true. Author B thinks it is likely false." or something similar.
– JoshuaZ
Nov 30 at 17:28
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
If your coauthor is not willing to somehow present the two sides of this coin as suggested by @user2768 -- which is usually the case -- I suggest you go with option (2).
You can always go back to that point to re-discuss the matter on your own, and there's always the chance you will see things a bit differently later, especially once this conflict of interests cools down.
Your career is potentially long, you're probably still young by now and thus prone to overestimate the future influence of a single short publication. Likely not many peers will read it as keenly as you expect, and even fewer will judge you for its contents (unfortunately this is how modern academia is).
Back off now, come back to this later. Good luck!
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
After looking at your previous post, I can't help but see this a bit differently. Unless the assignment had additional parameters about coming together around a controversial idea, and or the "challenge" is to merge your individual authorships into a singular voice, it kind of sounds like your over thinking it. It's not coincidental that you were put in random pairs, with a divisive theme/assignment. It seems like your anxiety over authorship differences, is not only going to be expected, but, it's kind of the point, yeah?
Sorry if i'm misunderstanding something, I just see the assignment as an opportunity to embrace the divide and embrace your differences. As far as precedent, make a new one. You can use subtle differences or typographic changes to refer to different voices. A communicatory battle to show the divide, to persuade your case, or to come together around universal ideas, or drastically break apart for the benefit of the reader, and so on. Maybe it's written from a legal guise, 2 sided, jury/reader persuasion. Maybe it's presented as 2 friends having a casual conversation, and finding ways to unify and come together around drastically different viewpoints.
Whatever it is, it sounds like it was designed to be that way, so I would embrace that, use it, and design/format/present it, in a way that doesn't hide from the divide and adds clarity for the reader.
Interesting perspective. I don't think it is intentionally set up for confrontation, but it does work around collaboration, so there is some inevitable give and take. Your answer will remain in my mind for a while.
– user153812
Dec 3 at 12:01
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f120852%2fdiverging-coauthor-opinions-publish-anonymously-or-dont-publish-at-all%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
15
down vote
accepted
Rather than knowing that some opinions expressed are contrary to my own views, you could present both views and clearly label them as such. For instance, you could open by explaining:
The authors opinions differ significantly and each author presents their own opinion below:
Followed by each opinion:
Author Name A: ...
Author Name B: ...
This is very interesting. Have you come across a precedent where this has been done?
– user153812
Nov 30 at 12:27
2
@user153812 Scientist refers to this as "usually the case," I've certainly seen it, but not frequently (possibly because authors reach consensus).
– user2768
Nov 30 at 13:30
I can confirm I've seen this a few times (in econ/finance), but on minor issues of interpretation of the results, rather than methodology.
– PatrickT
Nov 30 at 16:48
1
For a concrete example, see page xiii of the preface in A Course in Game Theory (Osborne and Rubinstein). It's in some sense a silly debate --- orthogonal to the main point of the text --- but the authors express differing opinions regarding the use of pronouns in the text. They separately present their own sides, then the compromise that was reached.
– kyle
Nov 30 at 18:21
2
Example (.pdf link) of a paper from parapsychology that does something similar. Rather than divide the discussion into separate sections, it uses a "here are several possible interpretations of these results" format, but the "possible interpretations" include both "author A faked their data" and "author B faked their data", so it's certainly adversarial.
– A_S00
Nov 30 at 21:16
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
15
down vote
accepted
Rather than knowing that some opinions expressed are contrary to my own views, you could present both views and clearly label them as such. For instance, you could open by explaining:
The authors opinions differ significantly and each author presents their own opinion below:
Followed by each opinion:
Author Name A: ...
Author Name B: ...
This is very interesting. Have you come across a precedent where this has been done?
– user153812
Nov 30 at 12:27
2
@user153812 Scientist refers to this as "usually the case," I've certainly seen it, but not frequently (possibly because authors reach consensus).
– user2768
Nov 30 at 13:30
I can confirm I've seen this a few times (in econ/finance), but on minor issues of interpretation of the results, rather than methodology.
– PatrickT
Nov 30 at 16:48
1
For a concrete example, see page xiii of the preface in A Course in Game Theory (Osborne and Rubinstein). It's in some sense a silly debate --- orthogonal to the main point of the text --- but the authors express differing opinions regarding the use of pronouns in the text. They separately present their own sides, then the compromise that was reached.
– kyle
Nov 30 at 18:21
2
Example (.pdf link) of a paper from parapsychology that does something similar. Rather than divide the discussion into separate sections, it uses a "here are several possible interpretations of these results" format, but the "possible interpretations" include both "author A faked their data" and "author B faked their data", so it's certainly adversarial.
– A_S00
Nov 30 at 21:16
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
15
down vote
accepted
up vote
15
down vote
accepted
Rather than knowing that some opinions expressed are contrary to my own views, you could present both views and clearly label them as such. For instance, you could open by explaining:
The authors opinions differ significantly and each author presents their own opinion below:
Followed by each opinion:
Author Name A: ...
Author Name B: ...
Rather than knowing that some opinions expressed are contrary to my own views, you could present both views and clearly label them as such. For instance, you could open by explaining:
The authors opinions differ significantly and each author presents their own opinion below:
Followed by each opinion:
Author Name A: ...
Author Name B: ...
answered Nov 30 at 11:56
user2768
11k22949
11k22949
This is very interesting. Have you come across a precedent where this has been done?
– user153812
Nov 30 at 12:27
2
@user153812 Scientist refers to this as "usually the case," I've certainly seen it, but not frequently (possibly because authors reach consensus).
– user2768
Nov 30 at 13:30
I can confirm I've seen this a few times (in econ/finance), but on minor issues of interpretation of the results, rather than methodology.
– PatrickT
Nov 30 at 16:48
1
For a concrete example, see page xiii of the preface in A Course in Game Theory (Osborne and Rubinstein). It's in some sense a silly debate --- orthogonal to the main point of the text --- but the authors express differing opinions regarding the use of pronouns in the text. They separately present their own sides, then the compromise that was reached.
– kyle
Nov 30 at 18:21
2
Example (.pdf link) of a paper from parapsychology that does something similar. Rather than divide the discussion into separate sections, it uses a "here are several possible interpretations of these results" format, but the "possible interpretations" include both "author A faked their data" and "author B faked their data", so it's certainly adversarial.
– A_S00
Nov 30 at 21:16
|
show 2 more comments
This is very interesting. Have you come across a precedent where this has been done?
– user153812
Nov 30 at 12:27
2
@user153812 Scientist refers to this as "usually the case," I've certainly seen it, but not frequently (possibly because authors reach consensus).
– user2768
Nov 30 at 13:30
I can confirm I've seen this a few times (in econ/finance), but on minor issues of interpretation of the results, rather than methodology.
– PatrickT
Nov 30 at 16:48
1
For a concrete example, see page xiii of the preface in A Course in Game Theory (Osborne and Rubinstein). It's in some sense a silly debate --- orthogonal to the main point of the text --- but the authors express differing opinions regarding the use of pronouns in the text. They separately present their own sides, then the compromise that was reached.
– kyle
Nov 30 at 18:21
2
Example (.pdf link) of a paper from parapsychology that does something similar. Rather than divide the discussion into separate sections, it uses a "here are several possible interpretations of these results" format, but the "possible interpretations" include both "author A faked their data" and "author B faked their data", so it's certainly adversarial.
– A_S00
Nov 30 at 21:16
This is very interesting. Have you come across a precedent where this has been done?
– user153812
Nov 30 at 12:27
This is very interesting. Have you come across a precedent where this has been done?
– user153812
Nov 30 at 12:27
2
2
@user153812 Scientist refers to this as "usually the case," I've certainly seen it, but not frequently (possibly because authors reach consensus).
– user2768
Nov 30 at 13:30
@user153812 Scientist refers to this as "usually the case," I've certainly seen it, but not frequently (possibly because authors reach consensus).
– user2768
Nov 30 at 13:30
I can confirm I've seen this a few times (in econ/finance), but on minor issues of interpretation of the results, rather than methodology.
– PatrickT
Nov 30 at 16:48
I can confirm I've seen this a few times (in econ/finance), but on minor issues of interpretation of the results, rather than methodology.
– PatrickT
Nov 30 at 16:48
1
1
For a concrete example, see page xiii of the preface in A Course in Game Theory (Osborne and Rubinstein). It's in some sense a silly debate --- orthogonal to the main point of the text --- but the authors express differing opinions regarding the use of pronouns in the text. They separately present their own sides, then the compromise that was reached.
– kyle
Nov 30 at 18:21
For a concrete example, see page xiii of the preface in A Course in Game Theory (Osborne and Rubinstein). It's in some sense a silly debate --- orthogonal to the main point of the text --- but the authors express differing opinions regarding the use of pronouns in the text. They separately present their own sides, then the compromise that was reached.
– kyle
Nov 30 at 18:21
2
2
Example (.pdf link) of a paper from parapsychology that does something similar. Rather than divide the discussion into separate sections, it uses a "here are several possible interpretations of these results" format, but the "possible interpretations" include both "author A faked their data" and "author B faked their data", so it's certainly adversarial.
– A_S00
Nov 30 at 21:16
Example (.pdf link) of a paper from parapsychology that does something similar. Rather than divide the discussion into separate sections, it uses a "here are several possible interpretations of these results" format, but the "possible interpretations" include both "author A faked their data" and "author B faked their data", so it's certainly adversarial.
– A_S00
Nov 30 at 21:16
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
You haven't specified your field of study. I think the answer may depend heavily on whether you are in humanities vs. soft sciences vs. hard sciences. I will give an answer from the "hard" end of the spectrum: I work in applied mathematics.
If I didn't agree with the contents of a paper in a substantial way, I would certainly not consent to be an author of the paper. Authorship implies a belief in the correctness of what is written. I would go with option #1.
If I disagreed with coauthors over minor, subjective points (and this happens) I would work with them to find a way of presenting things that we can both agree on. In math, this often means simply leaving out speculative remarks.
I certainly see your point, being from the materials science/engineering community myself. This particular case is from a sociology-policy sort of field, so I'm all the more ignorant about the norms. Your answer is useful regardless. Thanks!
– user153812
Nov 30 at 12:52
2
At least in math, it isn't that abnormal for coauthors to express disagreement on likelihood of a conjecture. I don't have an example off the top of my head, but I've seen a few papers with something "Open Question is A. Author 1 believes A is likely to be true. Author B thinks it is likely false." or something similar.
– JoshuaZ
Nov 30 at 17:28
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
You haven't specified your field of study. I think the answer may depend heavily on whether you are in humanities vs. soft sciences vs. hard sciences. I will give an answer from the "hard" end of the spectrum: I work in applied mathematics.
If I didn't agree with the contents of a paper in a substantial way, I would certainly not consent to be an author of the paper. Authorship implies a belief in the correctness of what is written. I would go with option #1.
If I disagreed with coauthors over minor, subjective points (and this happens) I would work with them to find a way of presenting things that we can both agree on. In math, this often means simply leaving out speculative remarks.
I certainly see your point, being from the materials science/engineering community myself. This particular case is from a sociology-policy sort of field, so I'm all the more ignorant about the norms. Your answer is useful regardless. Thanks!
– user153812
Nov 30 at 12:52
2
At least in math, it isn't that abnormal for coauthors to express disagreement on likelihood of a conjecture. I don't have an example off the top of my head, but I've seen a few papers with something "Open Question is A. Author 1 believes A is likely to be true. Author B thinks it is likely false." or something similar.
– JoshuaZ
Nov 30 at 17:28
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
You haven't specified your field of study. I think the answer may depend heavily on whether you are in humanities vs. soft sciences vs. hard sciences. I will give an answer from the "hard" end of the spectrum: I work in applied mathematics.
If I didn't agree with the contents of a paper in a substantial way, I would certainly not consent to be an author of the paper. Authorship implies a belief in the correctness of what is written. I would go with option #1.
If I disagreed with coauthors over minor, subjective points (and this happens) I would work with them to find a way of presenting things that we can both agree on. In math, this often means simply leaving out speculative remarks.
You haven't specified your field of study. I think the answer may depend heavily on whether you are in humanities vs. soft sciences vs. hard sciences. I will give an answer from the "hard" end of the spectrum: I work in applied mathematics.
If I didn't agree with the contents of a paper in a substantial way, I would certainly not consent to be an author of the paper. Authorship implies a belief in the correctness of what is written. I would go with option #1.
If I disagreed with coauthors over minor, subjective points (and this happens) I would work with them to find a way of presenting things that we can both agree on. In math, this often means simply leaving out speculative remarks.
answered Nov 30 at 12:49
David Ketcheson
27.9k684138
27.9k684138
I certainly see your point, being from the materials science/engineering community myself. This particular case is from a sociology-policy sort of field, so I'm all the more ignorant about the norms. Your answer is useful regardless. Thanks!
– user153812
Nov 30 at 12:52
2
At least in math, it isn't that abnormal for coauthors to express disagreement on likelihood of a conjecture. I don't have an example off the top of my head, but I've seen a few papers with something "Open Question is A. Author 1 believes A is likely to be true. Author B thinks it is likely false." or something similar.
– JoshuaZ
Nov 30 at 17:28
add a comment |
I certainly see your point, being from the materials science/engineering community myself. This particular case is from a sociology-policy sort of field, so I'm all the more ignorant about the norms. Your answer is useful regardless. Thanks!
– user153812
Nov 30 at 12:52
2
At least in math, it isn't that abnormal for coauthors to express disagreement on likelihood of a conjecture. I don't have an example off the top of my head, but I've seen a few papers with something "Open Question is A. Author 1 believes A is likely to be true. Author B thinks it is likely false." or something similar.
– JoshuaZ
Nov 30 at 17:28
I certainly see your point, being from the materials science/engineering community myself. This particular case is from a sociology-policy sort of field, so I'm all the more ignorant about the norms. Your answer is useful regardless. Thanks!
– user153812
Nov 30 at 12:52
I certainly see your point, being from the materials science/engineering community myself. This particular case is from a sociology-policy sort of field, so I'm all the more ignorant about the norms. Your answer is useful regardless. Thanks!
– user153812
Nov 30 at 12:52
2
2
At least in math, it isn't that abnormal for coauthors to express disagreement on likelihood of a conjecture. I don't have an example off the top of my head, but I've seen a few papers with something "Open Question is A. Author 1 believes A is likely to be true. Author B thinks it is likely false." or something similar.
– JoshuaZ
Nov 30 at 17:28
At least in math, it isn't that abnormal for coauthors to express disagreement on likelihood of a conjecture. I don't have an example off the top of my head, but I've seen a few papers with something "Open Question is A. Author 1 believes A is likely to be true. Author B thinks it is likely false." or something similar.
– JoshuaZ
Nov 30 at 17:28
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
If your coauthor is not willing to somehow present the two sides of this coin as suggested by @user2768 -- which is usually the case -- I suggest you go with option (2).
You can always go back to that point to re-discuss the matter on your own, and there's always the chance you will see things a bit differently later, especially once this conflict of interests cools down.
Your career is potentially long, you're probably still young by now and thus prone to overestimate the future influence of a single short publication. Likely not many peers will read it as keenly as you expect, and even fewer will judge you for its contents (unfortunately this is how modern academia is).
Back off now, come back to this later. Good luck!
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
If your coauthor is not willing to somehow present the two sides of this coin as suggested by @user2768 -- which is usually the case -- I suggest you go with option (2).
You can always go back to that point to re-discuss the matter on your own, and there's always the chance you will see things a bit differently later, especially once this conflict of interests cools down.
Your career is potentially long, you're probably still young by now and thus prone to overestimate the future influence of a single short publication. Likely not many peers will read it as keenly as you expect, and even fewer will judge you for its contents (unfortunately this is how modern academia is).
Back off now, come back to this later. Good luck!
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
If your coauthor is not willing to somehow present the two sides of this coin as suggested by @user2768 -- which is usually the case -- I suggest you go with option (2).
You can always go back to that point to re-discuss the matter on your own, and there's always the chance you will see things a bit differently later, especially once this conflict of interests cools down.
Your career is potentially long, you're probably still young by now and thus prone to overestimate the future influence of a single short publication. Likely not many peers will read it as keenly as you expect, and even fewer will judge you for its contents (unfortunately this is how modern academia is).
Back off now, come back to this later. Good luck!
If your coauthor is not willing to somehow present the two sides of this coin as suggested by @user2768 -- which is usually the case -- I suggest you go with option (2).
You can always go back to that point to re-discuss the matter on your own, and there's always the chance you will see things a bit differently later, especially once this conflict of interests cools down.
Your career is potentially long, you're probably still young by now and thus prone to overestimate the future influence of a single short publication. Likely not many peers will read it as keenly as you expect, and even fewer will judge you for its contents (unfortunately this is how modern academia is).
Back off now, come back to this later. Good luck!
edited Nov 30 at 13:04
answered Nov 30 at 12:26
Scientist
7,08512557
7,08512557
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
After looking at your previous post, I can't help but see this a bit differently. Unless the assignment had additional parameters about coming together around a controversial idea, and or the "challenge" is to merge your individual authorships into a singular voice, it kind of sounds like your over thinking it. It's not coincidental that you were put in random pairs, with a divisive theme/assignment. It seems like your anxiety over authorship differences, is not only going to be expected, but, it's kind of the point, yeah?
Sorry if i'm misunderstanding something, I just see the assignment as an opportunity to embrace the divide and embrace your differences. As far as precedent, make a new one. You can use subtle differences or typographic changes to refer to different voices. A communicatory battle to show the divide, to persuade your case, or to come together around universal ideas, or drastically break apart for the benefit of the reader, and so on. Maybe it's written from a legal guise, 2 sided, jury/reader persuasion. Maybe it's presented as 2 friends having a casual conversation, and finding ways to unify and come together around drastically different viewpoints.
Whatever it is, it sounds like it was designed to be that way, so I would embrace that, use it, and design/format/present it, in a way that doesn't hide from the divide and adds clarity for the reader.
Interesting perspective. I don't think it is intentionally set up for confrontation, but it does work around collaboration, so there is some inevitable give and take. Your answer will remain in my mind for a while.
– user153812
Dec 3 at 12:01
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
After looking at your previous post, I can't help but see this a bit differently. Unless the assignment had additional parameters about coming together around a controversial idea, and or the "challenge" is to merge your individual authorships into a singular voice, it kind of sounds like your over thinking it. It's not coincidental that you were put in random pairs, with a divisive theme/assignment. It seems like your anxiety over authorship differences, is not only going to be expected, but, it's kind of the point, yeah?
Sorry if i'm misunderstanding something, I just see the assignment as an opportunity to embrace the divide and embrace your differences. As far as precedent, make a new one. You can use subtle differences or typographic changes to refer to different voices. A communicatory battle to show the divide, to persuade your case, or to come together around universal ideas, or drastically break apart for the benefit of the reader, and so on. Maybe it's written from a legal guise, 2 sided, jury/reader persuasion. Maybe it's presented as 2 friends having a casual conversation, and finding ways to unify and come together around drastically different viewpoints.
Whatever it is, it sounds like it was designed to be that way, so I would embrace that, use it, and design/format/present it, in a way that doesn't hide from the divide and adds clarity for the reader.
Interesting perspective. I don't think it is intentionally set up for confrontation, but it does work around collaboration, so there is some inevitable give and take. Your answer will remain in my mind for a while.
– user153812
Dec 3 at 12:01
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
After looking at your previous post, I can't help but see this a bit differently. Unless the assignment had additional parameters about coming together around a controversial idea, and or the "challenge" is to merge your individual authorships into a singular voice, it kind of sounds like your over thinking it. It's not coincidental that you were put in random pairs, with a divisive theme/assignment. It seems like your anxiety over authorship differences, is not only going to be expected, but, it's kind of the point, yeah?
Sorry if i'm misunderstanding something, I just see the assignment as an opportunity to embrace the divide and embrace your differences. As far as precedent, make a new one. You can use subtle differences or typographic changes to refer to different voices. A communicatory battle to show the divide, to persuade your case, or to come together around universal ideas, or drastically break apart for the benefit of the reader, and so on. Maybe it's written from a legal guise, 2 sided, jury/reader persuasion. Maybe it's presented as 2 friends having a casual conversation, and finding ways to unify and come together around drastically different viewpoints.
Whatever it is, it sounds like it was designed to be that way, so I would embrace that, use it, and design/format/present it, in a way that doesn't hide from the divide and adds clarity for the reader.
After looking at your previous post, I can't help but see this a bit differently. Unless the assignment had additional parameters about coming together around a controversial idea, and or the "challenge" is to merge your individual authorships into a singular voice, it kind of sounds like your over thinking it. It's not coincidental that you were put in random pairs, with a divisive theme/assignment. It seems like your anxiety over authorship differences, is not only going to be expected, but, it's kind of the point, yeah?
Sorry if i'm misunderstanding something, I just see the assignment as an opportunity to embrace the divide and embrace your differences. As far as precedent, make a new one. You can use subtle differences or typographic changes to refer to different voices. A communicatory battle to show the divide, to persuade your case, or to come together around universal ideas, or drastically break apart for the benefit of the reader, and so on. Maybe it's written from a legal guise, 2 sided, jury/reader persuasion. Maybe it's presented as 2 friends having a casual conversation, and finding ways to unify and come together around drastically different viewpoints.
Whatever it is, it sounds like it was designed to be that way, so I would embrace that, use it, and design/format/present it, in a way that doesn't hide from the divide and adds clarity for the reader.
answered Dec 1 at 7:40
mky__ok
111
111
Interesting perspective. I don't think it is intentionally set up for confrontation, but it does work around collaboration, so there is some inevitable give and take. Your answer will remain in my mind for a while.
– user153812
Dec 3 at 12:01
add a comment |
Interesting perspective. I don't think it is intentionally set up for confrontation, but it does work around collaboration, so there is some inevitable give and take. Your answer will remain in my mind for a while.
– user153812
Dec 3 at 12:01
Interesting perspective. I don't think it is intentionally set up for confrontation, but it does work around collaboration, so there is some inevitable give and take. Your answer will remain in my mind for a while.
– user153812
Dec 3 at 12:01
Interesting perspective. I don't think it is intentionally set up for confrontation, but it does work around collaboration, so there is some inevitable give and take. Your answer will remain in my mind for a while.
– user153812
Dec 3 at 12:01
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f120852%2fdiverging-coauthor-opinions-publish-anonymously-or-dont-publish-at-all%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
If you "audit" a course are you allowed to publish the results? Is this an "essay" or more of a "report" based on your findings and / or analysis?
– Solar Mike
Nov 30 at 10:25
There isn't a restriction, to my knowledge. (If there is, my problem is solved already :) On report vs essay, I'm not sure I understand the distinction as you intend it - but this is intended to be an analysis of existing trends/practices, and evolution of some new insights.
– user153812
Nov 30 at 10:38
Why are you concerned with publication? It isn't typical for school assignments to be published, and certainly not without approval by the authors. Submitting an assignment for a course is not the same as saying you approve it being published. Writing a paper for a course from a perspective that is not your own is not an unusual assignment.
– Bryan Krause
Dec 1 at 3:08