-Competitive field exists -Form of cheating is discovered which is not feasibly detectable -Cheaters outcompete noncheaters over time -Field now mostly or entirely cheaters -Someone discovers how to detect cheating "We can't come down hard on this because everyone's doing it" /

@CoughsOnWombats I was baffled at the idea that one should not be responsible for all their citations *being real*. How can THAT be the bar? The bar used to be “have read every cite and it contributed to knowledge”!!!

@McSmurray @CoughsOnWombats the issue of coauthors who speak different language and so only some of the authors can read or claim to read some of the citations seems like a legitimate one.

@Random832 @McSmurray @CoughsOnWombats Then don't write a paper with people who would risk your reputation and theirs with such trivially avoidable behavior. Also, you don't need to know another language to check that a paper exists, and AI can do a basic check. This isn't over some minor issue of interpretation

@__suds__ @Random832 @McSmurray @CoughsOnWombats You think it's wrong for an author in a collaboration to cite a source in a language another author doesn't know, to the point that willingness to do so should result in shunning by all their colleagues? You people are nuts! How can you think these are reasonable standards?!

@XplodingCabbage @__suds__ @Random832 @McSmurray I think the claim (which I'd endorse) is: -You don't need to know the language to verify that the paper exists -In endorsing the paper as a whole, you place some confidence in your coauthors; how much exactly depends on how much work you want to put in. /

@CoughsOnWombats @__suds__ @Random832 @McSmurray But being named as an author does not necessarily constitute "endorsing the paper as a whole"; that's the whole argument! For anyone subject to ethics rules banning "ghost authorship", authorship is in theory not elective at all, so how can it possibly signify endorsement?

@CoughsOnWombats @__suds__ @Random832 @McSmurray It is one thing to ensure every aspect of a paper has a publicly named person who takes responsibility for it. It's another to insist EVERY person who intellectually contributes be culpable for ALL of a paper they didn't write, don't care about, and never claimed to vouch for.

@XplodingCabbage @__suds__ @Random832 @McSmurray If people can be added as authors without their consent, that creates problems here. And elsewhere. I would full-throatedly oppose that policy, but also this is the first I'm hearing that it exists and I am surprised.

@XplodingCabbage @__suds__ @Random832 @McSmurray I'm certainly not in favor of holding people responsible for things they haven't actually done. Is that actually the thing we're talking about here?

@CoughsOnWombats @__suds__ @Random832 @McSmurray Google "ghost authorship". Some institutions and journals ban it. Others have policies requiring authors to consent to being named as authors. God only knows how the interaction is supposed to play out.

@CoughsOnWombats @__suds__ @Random832 @McSmurray Logically I'd think if your uni bans ghost authorship & a colleague wants to submit a paper to a consent-requiring journal & you qualify for co-author, you MUST "consent" to follow policy. I don't know how this typically plays in practice but what else could the policy even mean?

@XplodingCabbage @__suds__ @Random832 @McSmurray Will look this up, appreciate the pointer!

@CoughsOnWombats @__suds__ @Random832 @McSmurray Caveat: I am not an academic, & only once briefly have I worked in an authorship-qualifying-way on a (ultimately rejected) paper. I am just someone who has googled some policies (and Reddit/etc threads about authorship disputes) to try and decide what I think about this stuff.

@XplodingCabbage @__suds__ @Random832 @McSmurray I'm kinda low on sleep atm, and not at my most eloquent but wanted to reiterate how much I appreciate the pointer; I didn't have this factor in my mental model at all.

@CoughsOnWombats @__suds__ @Random832 @McSmurray v welcome