Talk:Lancet letter (COVID-19)
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
"Lead author"
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)
- Isn't this WP:SYNTH? The Le Monde article clearly explains this part. LondonIP (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see where that phrase is used explicitly in the Le Monde piece. Could you provide a quote? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:15, 13 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)- What expertise does Le Monde have in "
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)
- What expertise does Le Monde have in "
- I don't see where that phrase is used explicitly in the Le Monde piece. Could you provide a quote? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 14 February 2022
It has been proposed in this section that Lancet letter (COVID-19) be renamed and moved to Lancet letter. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
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)
- Support this was moved because the term Lancet letter is supposedly generic but there is no other article called or even known by the name Lancet letter making (COVID-19) unnecessary.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- C-Class AfC articles
- AfC submissions by date/31 January 2022
- Accepted AfC submissions
- C-Class science articles
- Unknown-importance science articles
- C-Class virus articles
- Unknown-importance virus articles
- WikiProject Viruses articles
- C-Class COVID-19 articles
- Unknown-importance COVID-19 articles
- Wikipedia requested images of COVID-19-related topics
- WikiProject COVID-19 articles
- C-Class Academic Journal articles
- Journal articles needing infoboxes
- WikiProject Academic Journal articles
- C-Class China-related articles
- Unknown-importance China-related articles
- C-Class China-related articles of Unknown-importance
- China articles without infoboxes
- Wikipedia requested photographs in China
- WikiProject China articles
- Requested moves