Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum B Factory Results

Count Iblis wrote:
"I agree with Dr. Rocket that this is good advice, except for point 4. All authors of a paper must have made significant contribution to the results in the paper."

I didn't mean to suggest a co-author would not make a significant contribution. I doubt anyone would sign onto the paper without carefully reviewing the work. And that, for JB, would be a very significant contribution.

Why will it be? I have a very good citation index. Check for yourself. I have never allowed my name on a paper if I did not make a substantial contribution to it. Sometimes I have found that my name has been added without my consent. I have always rebuked this practice in the strongest words possible.

As I have posted above, the manuscript on the mechanism for superconduction is now available on my website. So "review it carefully" and argue scientifically about it if you are able to do so.

Good job putting it out there. A very (very) quick look shows that it is more quantitative than I had worried based on your posts. I will try to give it some sort of read soon.

Thanks, I am looking forward to a serious opinion based on physics.

You could also ask

Jorge Hirsch for his opinion. I also looked at it and although it looks ok., I don't work in the field so I won't be able to notice any subtle mistakes/problems.

"4. All authors of a paper must have made significant contribution to the results in the paper.""

I like that phrase "the results in." In addition to the very few works I've had published under my own name, there are two (one formal, one informal) that I got my name on without having written anything on the paper. On the formal paper (which one best paper at a conference) I was coauthor of the program that was used to analyze the data and had many conversations with the fellow who wrote the paper; on the informal paper, I wrote the code and helped to produce the analysis that he gave to the sponsor. I wasn't actually expecting to get authorship credit, but these guys are already so widely published (PhDs in CS and Physics with more than a 100 articles between them in physics A & B, IEEE pubs, and many others) and their character is such that they didn't feel comfortable leaving my name off.

Weird thing: when I was in school, I contributed a good deal in debugging help to a number of people's thesis work. Never asked for a credit, never expected it. The thought never even occurred to me. However, one fellow - different department, eventually a good friend - was discussing a problem he had and was wishing he had somebody who could do something in assembler for him. I wrote this puny little piece of assembler - maybe 10 or 15 lines, if that - to interface to his >100K lines of fortran. He writes this full paragraph acknowledgement in his thesis. I was really floored. Such a classy thing to do. I didn't get co-authorship (that would have been stupid). But the real researchy types I've found tend to be pretty grateful for help and very gracious in acknowledging it - either in an acknowledgements section, or as coauthor depending on how significant the contribution.

Thanks for this reponse. Any model (even a new one) could eventually be found to be wrong. Thus all I require from a person is to state that with his/her knowledge as it is at present he/she could not find a scientific fault. What I have experienced is that the experts on superconduction do not come back with any statement. Before I send the paper to them I am ridiculed and even vilified; but not in a single case did anyone come back with any comments after reading the paper. I am thus greatly indebted to you and J. Arthur God. Thanks!!!

Maybe I should know, and I apologise that I do not know, who Jorge Hirsch is. I will, however, follow the lead you have posted.

Dear TheFalliblefiend,

One should always acknowledge the help of other people. Unfortunately co-authorship is in many cases misused for manipulating and misusing other people. I think I can write a thesis on it. ALL authors contributions should be great enough that each should be able to present the contents at a conference and field questions about the paper. Furthermore, you should not use co-authorship to bask in the sun of a super new idea if you did not contribute to this idea. One of my graduate students came up with a stunning good idea, and I told him that this means a solo paper by him; even if I assist.

Dear Count Iblis II

I have decided to follow up the lead that you have posted:

Dear Dr. Hirsch,

It has been suggested to me that you might be interested in my manuscript entitled: "Superconductivity: coherent "tunnelling" by a dielectric array of charge carriers". This suggestion has been made on the scientific discussion forum scienceagogo, by one of the persons who have read my manuscript; I have complained that it is being ignored by everybody who believes in the BCS model as if it is religious dogma. I will appreciate it greatly if you would be willing to e-mail me your opinion.

Sincerely yours,

Jorge is a decent fellow (or at least was, 20 years ago). However, a phrase "I have complained that it is being ignored by everybody who believes in the BCS model as if it is religious dogma." is bound to put off people.

Do yourself a favor, drop the Vatican Rag.

Thanks for the advice. I will try to heed it.