A new draft…

« previous post | next post »

This is not at all the experience that I've had with multiple-authored papers — but it's funny:

And I've sometimes had analogous issues with "copy editing" — see e.g. "Spectrums", 5/24/2022…


  1. Chris Button said,

    September 18, 2023 @ 9:56 am

    I don't think the point is solely about "multi-authored" publications. In the business world, there are many other stakeholders (communications teams, legal teams, investor relations teams, PR teams, client handling teams, marketing teams, etc.) that all may well need to add their two cents despite not being the "authors".

  2. mike said,

    September 18, 2023 @ 2:55 pm

    +1 to Chris Button's comment. It can be a nightmare to try to get approval from every stakeholder, many with quite different agendas, and many of whom will have comments like "We need to be sure to mention ." Then the poor author (and by extension, the editor) is stuck in the middle trying to sort out which comments are useful, which edits are non-optional (e.g. comments from the lawyercats), etc.

  3. AntC said,

    September 18, 2023 @ 3:49 pm

    In the business world, there are many other stakeholders …

    Yeah, and if a corporation has grown by acquisition/agglomeration on the justification it brings 'efficiencies'/'economies of scale' it's usually some poor IT project that's charged with realising the 'vision'. Only nobody communicates what that means to the troops in the trenches, so that tweet's mock-up is an accurate portrayal of the resulting systems.

  4. Yuval said,

    September 19, 2023 @ 1:57 am

    I read it as edits following peer review, but on second reading it doesn't really fit.

  5. Julian said,

    September 19, 2023 @ 4:48 am

    What's a platypus? A duck put together by a committee.

  6. milu said,

    September 19, 2023 @ 6:03 pm

    you're a duck, aren't you

RSS feed for comments on this post