This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 14 February 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Lancet letter. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
In
academic authorship, the
lead author of an article is usually placed first in the list of authors, which gave the appearance that the lead author of the Lancet letter was
Charles Calisher
. This is actually not true. In high energy physics, mathematics, and economics, for example, all authors are typically listed alphabetically. And, worse, I would say that there are many instances where the last author writes a draft. Such as with cases where everyone listed is a professor or of relatively equal standing. The first author is often the most junior in such cases, and generally tasked with editing, collating, and spearheading the effort. I think the way this is described is pretty misleading. —
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
03:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Le chercheur désigné comme premier auteur et « auteur correspondant » (corresponding author, en anglais) – censé avoir rédigé la première version du texte, selon les règles de l’édition scientifique – est le microbiologiste Charles Calisher, professeur émérite à l’université d’Etat du Colorado. Mais, selon des correspondances obtenues par l’ONG US Right to Know (USRTK), en vertu de la loi américaine sur l’accès aux données, le texte en question a en réalité été rédigé par le zoologue Peter Daszak, qui n’apparaît que plus loin dans l’ordre des auteurs (les Anglo-Saxons parlent d’authorship). « Peter Daszak a rédigé le premier jet du texte et l’a amené jusqu’à la publication, confirme M. Calisher, dans un courriel au Monde. Les auteurs ont été listés de manière alphabétique. Peter, et non moi, est l’“auteur correspondant”. »[1]. LondonIP ( talk) 02:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
les règles de l’édition scientifique" ? Or even the norms of scientific publishing in general? We would not trust a plumbing journal to tell us what the culture is in quantum physics. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Generally speaking, such information should be supported by a reputable biomedical source, such as review articles, higher-level medical textbooks, and professional reference works.I tend to feel that the typical placement of authors wouldn't typically be considered BMI, do you agree given that context that this piece of information isn't biomedical? Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
There are certainly many instances of alphabetical authorship in Biology and Medicine.← This isn't a good argument to omit an attributed claim from Le Monde about the authorship of this letter. Despite the cited instances of alphabetical authorship, it is not at all common in biology and medicine; and not even for editorials. ScrumptiousFood ( talk) 16:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. There is no prejudice against a further RM to gauge consensus for, say, COVID-19 Lancet letter or Calisher et al. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre ( talk) 17:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Lancet letter (COVID-19) → Lancet letter – WP:CONCISE. It is my understanding that parenthetical disambiguators should not be used unless there are multiple articles with identical titles. Fine with either, but would like some discussion of it. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 03:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lancet_letter_(COVID-19)&diff=1072249668&oldid=1072221427
Shibbolethink says it should remain an "alleged" conflict of interest to maintain an NPOV. In Lancet_letter_(COVID-19)#Addendum wikipedia states that they admitted a conflict of interest. Instead of "alleged" should we say "undeclared"? 2600:8804:6600:45:6C9E:D5C7:82C2:A0E9 ( talk) 19:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
There may be differences in opinion as to what constitutes a competing interest." And then Daszak amended his statement just to describe what the EHA does. He does not describe any of this as competing interest, and leaves it up to the reader to decide that. A subtle but important difference. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 20:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
First source (the letter itself): Should we change the parameter "authors=4" to "authors=5"? That would make Daszak visible. -- Himbeerbläuling ( talk) 06:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The author with the most attention has clearly caused a conflict of interest.The question rise :How is the Science integrity of the other signers of the Lancet Letter(19-2-2020)? In the Netherlands has The LOWI (Landelijk orgaan wetenschappelijke integritei) decided (LOWI advice 2021-15) that the letter is a product of science (correspondence) and therefore the LOWI can advise about science integrity about the in the Netherlands working virologists. As a result of this , a Dutch signer declared that he was undependent for signing the letter and also declared that he , by signing the letter, did not exclude the lab leak of Sars Cov 2 (see website LOWI 2022-09) - EilertBorchert ( talk) 12:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 14 February 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Lancet letter. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
In
academic authorship, the
lead author of an article is usually placed first in the list of authors, which gave the appearance that the lead author of the Lancet letter was
Charles Calisher
. This is actually not true. In high energy physics, mathematics, and economics, for example, all authors are typically listed alphabetically. And, worse, I would say that there are many instances where the last author writes a draft. Such as with cases where everyone listed is a professor or of relatively equal standing. The first author is often the most junior in such cases, and generally tasked with editing, collating, and spearheading the effort. I think the way this is described is pretty misleading. —
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
03:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Le chercheur désigné comme premier auteur et « auteur correspondant » (corresponding author, en anglais) – censé avoir rédigé la première version du texte, selon les règles de l’édition scientifique – est le microbiologiste Charles Calisher, professeur émérite à l’université d’Etat du Colorado. Mais, selon des correspondances obtenues par l’ONG US Right to Know (USRTK), en vertu de la loi américaine sur l’accès aux données, le texte en question a en réalité été rédigé par le zoologue Peter Daszak, qui n’apparaît que plus loin dans l’ordre des auteurs (les Anglo-Saxons parlent d’authorship). « Peter Daszak a rédigé le premier jet du texte et l’a amené jusqu’à la publication, confirme M. Calisher, dans un courriel au Monde. Les auteurs ont été listés de manière alphabétique. Peter, et non moi, est l’“auteur correspondant”. »[1]. LondonIP ( talk) 02:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
les règles de l’édition scientifique" ? Or even the norms of scientific publishing in general? We would not trust a plumbing journal to tell us what the culture is in quantum physics. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 22:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Generally speaking, such information should be supported by a reputable biomedical source, such as review articles, higher-level medical textbooks, and professional reference works.I tend to feel that the typical placement of authors wouldn't typically be considered BMI, do you agree given that context that this piece of information isn't biomedical? Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
There are certainly many instances of alphabetical authorship in Biology and Medicine.← This isn't a good argument to omit an attributed claim from Le Monde about the authorship of this letter. Despite the cited instances of alphabetical authorship, it is not at all common in biology and medicine; and not even for editorials. ScrumptiousFood ( talk) 16:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. There is no prejudice against a further RM to gauge consensus for, say, COVID-19 Lancet letter or Calisher et al. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre ( talk) 17:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Lancet letter (COVID-19) → Lancet letter – WP:CONCISE. It is my understanding that parenthetical disambiguators should not be used unless there are multiple articles with identical titles. Fine with either, but would like some discussion of it. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 03:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lancet_letter_(COVID-19)&diff=1072249668&oldid=1072221427
Shibbolethink says it should remain an "alleged" conflict of interest to maintain an NPOV. In Lancet_letter_(COVID-19)#Addendum wikipedia states that they admitted a conflict of interest. Instead of "alleged" should we say "undeclared"? 2600:8804:6600:45:6C9E:D5C7:82C2:A0E9 ( talk) 19:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
There may be differences in opinion as to what constitutes a competing interest." And then Daszak amended his statement just to describe what the EHA does. He does not describe any of this as competing interest, and leaves it up to the reader to decide that. A subtle but important difference. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 20:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
First source (the letter itself): Should we change the parameter "authors=4" to "authors=5"? That would make Daszak visible. -- Himbeerbläuling ( talk) 06:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The author with the most attention has clearly caused a conflict of interest.The question rise :How is the Science integrity of the other signers of the Lancet Letter(19-2-2020)? In the Netherlands has The LOWI (Landelijk orgaan wetenschappelijke integritei) decided (LOWI advice 2021-15) that the letter is a product of science (correspondence) and therefore the LOWI can advise about science integrity about the in the Netherlands working virologists. As a result of this , a Dutch signer declared that he was undependent for signing the letter and also declared that he , by signing the letter, did not exclude the lab leak of Sars Cov 2 (see website LOWI 2022-09) - EilertBorchert ( talk) 12:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)