Diverging coauthor opinions - publish anonymously or don't publish at all?











up vote
8
down vote

favorite
1












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.










share|improve this question


















  • 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















up vote
8
down vote

favorite
1












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.










share|improve this question


















  • 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













up vote
8
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
8
down vote

favorite
1






1





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.










share|improve this question













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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










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














  • 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










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: ...







share|improve this answer





















  • 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




















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.






share|improve this answer





















  • 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


















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!






share|improve this answer






























    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.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    mky__ok is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.


















    • 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
      yesterday











    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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: ...







    share|improve this answer





















    • 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

















    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: ...







    share|improve this answer





















    • 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















    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: ...







    share|improve this answer












    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: ...








    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Nov 30 at 11:56









    user2768

    10k22644




    10k22644












    • 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






    • 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












    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.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 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















    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.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 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













    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.






    share|improve this answer












    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.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Nov 30 at 12:49









    David Ketcheson

    27.8k684138




    27.8k684138












    • 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






    • 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










    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!






    share|improve this answer



























      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!






      share|improve this answer

























        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!






        share|improve this answer














        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!







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Nov 30 at 13:04

























        answered Nov 30 at 12:26









        Scientist

        7,05512557




        7,05512557






















            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.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            mky__ok is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.


















            • 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
              yesterday















            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.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            mky__ok is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.


















            • 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
              yesterday













            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.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            mky__ok is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            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.







            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            mky__ok is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer






            New contributor




            mky__ok is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            answered Dec 1 at 7:40









            mky__ok

            111




            111




            New contributor




            mky__ok is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.





            New contributor





            mky__ok is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            mky__ok is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.












            • 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
              yesterday


















            • 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
              yesterday
















            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
            yesterday




            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
            yesterday


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

            How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

            QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater