On 10/29/06, Henrik Theiling <theil
...@absint.com> wrote:
> What are the reasons for the selection of the credit points method?
> And is it intended to be this way with all its consequences?
's my attempt at fairness.
> If 100 points are available per book, then there will practicably only
> be one primary author and in the presense of a primary author, there
> will be max. one co-author.
> And if three people write about 1/3 of the content each, then there
> will be no primary author (which may be ok). At maximum, there will
> be only three authors (primary or co-), which I find strange if large
> portions of the book are written by more people to equal parts.
Primary / co authorship in this case is meant as "what goes on the
cover", basically.
The reason for max-3 is simply that AFAIK that's the normal limit
practically speaking.
On digging out my Ling 1 book (Contemporary Linguistics , it seems I
was wrong on that - there are 4 coauthors listed.
On the front page, it says two are "edited by..." and two are "US
edition prepared by...". It additionally lists single individual
authors - some of whom are in those 4, some not - for each of the
chapters.
So perhaps instead it could be:
* for coauthorship: up to 4 people w/ most points, minimum 10
* for authorship of a particular chapter: ditto, percentage wise
> You could also end up with no author at all, and even quite quickly:
> namely if at least four people write the book to equal parts. (Having
> no author is not impossible: scientific conference books often only
> have an editor in the main book registration entry, since there are a
> lot of authors writing only small portions of the book).
*nod* That's what I was thinking. One can't viably list a dozen
authors on the front; it becomes just a multi-author collection
instead, which is treated differently.
> So the more people participate, the less likely major contributors
> become co-authors, even if their absolute amount of contribution does
> not change.
> All this may be intended, I am merely wondering whether the
> consequences of the system are well understood.
> I am sorry that this is kind of a destructive criticism right now,
> because I don't present an alternative system that would work 'better'
> from my point of view.
*shrug* Criticism is fine. :-)
> Further, I currently don't want to participate, so my opinion should
> be viewed as a small comment. Only my 2¢.
*nod* Maybe later eh?
- Sai
|
