An academic frustrated by “tedious and boring” conferences in which the same authors present multiple papers has conducted a study into the practice, concluding that “repeat authors” are a common occurrence.
Frode Eika Sandnes, a computer science professor at Oslo Metropolitan University, told Times Higher Education that he had become “increasingly irritated” by conferences dominated by scholars discussing “several papers related to the same research project back-to-back”.
“My goal was to provide empirical evidence that authors with multiple papers in one conference is common,” he said. “The results confirmed my suspicions.”
For?the paper?published in , Sandnes compiled the proceedings of 31 conferences on his field of human-computer interaction (HCI), the majority of which were held in 2023, to determine the authorship of the papers included. The median number of papers per author, he found, was five, while in one extreme case, an author had 32 papers in the same conference.
All but one of the conferences Sandnes analysed included “repeat authors”, while typically, “half of the papers in a conference included authors that were listed on more than one paper,” the paper says, meaning “repeat authors could therefore be quite noticeable to participants.” Because many papers are co-authored, Sandnes notes, repeat authors may not necessarily present each paper they are named on themselves.
Campus resource: Master the art of speaking to an audience
“In highly prestigious conferences with low acceptance rates, repeat authors could lead to a drop in morale and trust in the research system,” he adds. “Imagine a person repeatedly having their paper rejected, while at the same time seeing many papers by the same conference organisers – especially if these papers are not really any better than some of the rejected papers.”
Conference organisers, Sandnes told THE, were “over-represented” among the repeat authors in their own conferences: while 17 per cent of overall conference participants had multiple papers included in the same event, this figure rose to 53 per cent among these “gatekeepers”, he said.
While this over-representation could be a natural result of an organiser being particularly active in their field, the paper says, it could also indicate that organisers get their work “fast-tracked” into their conferences?through their “gatekeeping role”.
Sandnes also observed that most repeat authors were listed at the end of paper bylines. “In the field of HCI it is common for supervisors, project leaders and senior scholars to be the last author,” he said.
“This raises the question of their degree of contribution,” he said. “Do they deserve to be authors of a paper, or is it too easy for them to end up as authors without substantial contributions?”
To address the issue of “repeat authors” at conferences, Sandnes sets out a series of recommendations, among them the introduction of upper limits on the number of papers on which participants may appear as co-authors, as well as “explicit limitations” on the inclusion of works by conference organisers. Overall, he said, organisers should aim to include a greater diversity of scholars across a broader range of topics.
“A conference is not only a place to have papers published but it is also a social arena where people meet, exchange ideas, gain contacts, discuss and get inspired,” Sandnes said. “I think the needs of the participants should go before the publishing needs of authors.”
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
