Are we going to write a paper with 140 authors seriously!?

[MakotoMiyakoshi]

Hi all,

It would be quite inconvenient to write a single paper with 140 authors. I’m inclined to think we should divide the group into smaller working subgroups, each focusing on a specific aspect of the topic. These teams could then produce multiple papers with different emphases. Some journals might be interested in publishing such a collection as a special issue. What do you think?

Makoto

[tzvet]

Hello, my two comments :

1. Scientific collaborations already exists where there are such numbers of authors (see CERN's collaboration papers on particle physics, or for example ANTARES' publication - astroparticle physics) ; from my own experience, one gets "washed away" on the author list and contribution level ; so, personally, i am not for this type of publication ;
2. I do backup the idea of subgroups depending on one's own interest ; but this needs that we must define clearly from beginning who is interested in what -> thematics ; and i would also split the more technical (EEG analysis and effects on 1/f estimates and other estimates, e.g. ICs+1/f for me) from the scientific questions
3. I find the idea of some special issue/collection appealing, with one condition, we make preprints available first, after within collaboration reviewing. That needs to be already thought and defined now, but should be done at the publication stage (which includes preprints). (since Makoto already writes about it, it's the start :)

Tzvetomir

[MakotoMiyakoshi]

Hi Tzvet,

1. If we can secure a special issue from a journal, then there is an opportunity to write a festive, +150-author paper in the form of an opinion piece that expresses our collective interest in this topic as a part of the special issue. One idea is to design a questionnaire for ourselves to analyze why this topic matters to us, and to present the results in that paper. We psychologists are good at designing such survey studies, and this could give us valuable meta-insight into the field’s motivations. A high-level overview paper would also be an ideal place to summarize the history of 1/f phenomena across the sciences and to position EEG within that broader context. I would personally love to contribute to that historical work. This kind of qualitative project would also create good opportunities for young researchers who may not come from engineering-heavy backgrounds.

2. Yes — we need a “menu” of topics, each with a clearly identified leader. Any idea how we can come up with such a menu list?

3. I will go ahead and contact an editor at Frontiers to ask about the conditions for hosting a special issue, just as an example to start with.

[EugenMasherov]

Some statistics. In the 42 days since the project's launch, the list of collaborators has grown from 140 to 173. However, only 13 are posting, and 60% of those messages are attributed to just three members. Perhaps we should encourage others to be more courageous? Or should we wait until after the holidays, when people will renew their efforts?