co-authored dissertations?
Believe it or not, it's a thing, and not only at low-ranked places. Harvard and Princeton are allowing that.nonsense. two grads coauthor a singe diss? gtfo undergrad.
It’s usually in the form of a three paper diss with one or multiple chapters coauthored.
co-authored dissertations?
Believe it or not, it's a thing, and not only at low-ranked places. Harvard and Princeton are allowing that.
nonsense. two grads coauthor a singe diss? gtfo undergrad.It’s usually in the form of a three paper diss with one or multiple chapters coauthored.
name/link or bust
I am against coauthored dissertations, but do not agree with the hostility towards coauthoring. Work is increasingly empirically ambitious, which requires more co-authors. Sure, you can sit in your study and churn out some vague theories, but that doesn't mean those theories are true. Good luck running a large RCT on your lonesome.
Much if not most good PS research does not require large datasets. BTW, that's an empirical claim verifiable by exactly that sort of research: just consult the number of such articles in the APSR.
Maybe -- just maybe, this is a heterogenous field and what works for theorists and qualitative scholars is not the same for quantitative scholars? The beef with coauthoring is just a way for the former to feel superior to the latter. The reality is that the work is different.
I am against coauthored dissertations, but do not agree with the hostility towards coauthoring. Work is increasingly empirically ambitious, which requires more co-authors. Sure, you can sit in your study and churn out some vague theories, but that doesn't mean those theories are true. Good luck running a large RCT on your lonesome.
1. Experiments in political science are complete gar\bage. L\ame excuse for low-quality papers with an ob\scene number of coauthors.
2. It's fine to coauthor occasionally on larger projects. The problem is when you coauthor nearly everything. Even worse if those projects turn out to be other people's research agendas, and you just tagged along.
It's individually rational, yet the outcome - a field full of RAs who get tenure and become TERRIBLE reviewers because they know nothing about anything- is pathological.
In a world where top journals are guarded by gatekeepers, reviewers are random and capricious, and the field revolves around networking, co-authoring is a rational decision to reduce risk.
It's individually rational, yet the outcome - a field full of RAs who get tenure and become TERRIBLE reviewers because they know nothing about anything- is pathological.
In a world where top journals are guarded by gatekeepers, reviewers are random and capricious, and the field revolves around networking, co-authoring is a rational decision to reduce risk.
If you want to change it, improve review times and stop gatekeeping. Journal space is now a scarce good. Nobody wants to end up on the street at the age of 40 because you rejected their 'big idea'
Lots of dinosaurs on here today. These schools allow students to coauthor chapters of a dissertation, like in the three-paper type of dissertation.
A typical case is a dissertation composed of three-four papers, one of which is coauthored, usually with the advisor. What’s wrong with that? If a scholar is going to be productive they better learn to coauthor early on.
The advisor needs to advise and not coauthor with the graduate student. And the graduate students needs to demonstrate scholarly independence.
It's not people who have big ideas but are gaming the journals who are doing this, come on. You can write a book and get it published. You can co-author some and solo-author on some papers and or a book. It's allowed. No one has a problem with people who mix it up. The people who are defensive about this- ask yourself why you even want to do this when you have nothing to say. For summers off? For "status"?
It's individually rational, yet the outcome - a field full of RAs who get tenure and become TERRIBLE reviewers because they know nothing about anything- is pathological.
In a world where top journals are guarded by gatekeepers, reviewers are random and capricious, and the field revolves around networking, co-authoring is a rational decision to reduce risk.If you want to change it, improve review times and stop gatekeeping. Journal space is now a scarce good. Nobody wants to end up on the street at the age of 40 because you rejected their 'big idea'
I'll tell you, coauthoring with senior folk in one's intellectual lineage has generally hurt the candidates we've interviewed. This is mainly because we ask questions about original research ideas and execution at interviews, and often discover "there's no 'there' there."
In this market, why would I hire someone who doesn't demonstrate this originality by executing (or even just actively pursuing) solo authorship? I'll hire an individual thinker with an R&R much more readily than an a person who's third author on three articles in their diss adviser's research stream.
It's individually rational, yet the outcome - a field full of RAs who get tenure and become TERRIBLE reviewers because they know nothing about anything- is pathological.
In a world where top journals are guarded by gatekeepers, reviewers are random and capricious, and the field revolves around networking, co-authoring is a rational decision to reduce risk.If you want to change it, improve review times and stop gatekeeping. Journal space is now a scarce good. Nobody wants to end up on the street at the age of 40 because you rejected their 'big idea'
one idea: paid review process. you should get paid for reviewing papers and get some sort of review score. insecure people reject everything. they would get a bad review score.