I knew AI could write headline and generate a shorter pieces. At Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences this year, I went to a workshop led by a philosophy student where we generated text using Alice in Wonderland as the dataset to create something new. Books have been generated, but they are quite "expensive" on resources, so not mainstream yet.
What I didn't consider was that software/AI services can generate 50 000 words per month for a monthly fee to help bloggers generate massive amounts of content to make money. People will often use blog posts to create books.
Thinking about AI ethics, if a computer wrote the book then who can claim the copyright? Should authors be asked to disclose if they used AI to produce some or all of their work? As readers would we enjoy something less because a computer wrote it? Would a new genre be built around this type of work?
UPDATE: John also made his best friend the 3rd author when he was supposed to be last. Now that I've escalate it to the editors and included John, he apologized and tried to brush it off by saying it was a mistake. The editors are waiting for all the authors to reply and confirm with the correct authoring order.
I'm extremely angry now, so sorry for the grammatical errors and typos.
I hold a master's degree and recruited 4 medical students as well as two individuals with bachelor's students to start a research project. The purpose was to mentor them since they don't have research experience.
Anyway, Tom (medical student) was the main contributor, and we all agreed him to be the 1st author. We also agreed for me to be the 2nd author and everyone had an agreement on who's 3rd and so forth.
John (medical student) was the 5th most contributor out of us 7 people. We asked John to submit the people so he would understand the process. He submitted the paper with the correct ordering of the authors. However, after for the last revision, he requested to change the authorship and made me second to the last. Then he proceeded to make him second. I'm truly disappointed to find out when the paper was published. I asked the chief of the author, and she told me that John has requested to change the order of the authorship. She suggested I approached John. I've asked him and he acted like he had no ideas. Then he started ignoring me. I'm disappointed because I should've been 2nd author due to my contribution. Also, there were 2 other people who contributed more than him. Yet, he decided to fool us.
What should I do?
Hey people,
Many folks question if Ellen and Zeus's posts are penned by the same person. Most people have a gut feeling that they are. We all can pick up various speech patterns, but few people actually know how to determine Authorship (it's not too difficult, just kinda boring) I am currently an undergrad studying with the goal of becoming a forensic pathologist. I think forensics demands a multidisciplinary approach. This is an unnecessary tangent, but I have studied forensic linguistics and have wrote a few papers on the topic. Most of my expertise in forensic linguistics involves ransom notes. (One of my favorite forensic linguisticist worked on the JonBonet Ramsey case) I am by no means an expert, but since there are so few people with experience, I think I should give it a go. However, I need more samples of Zeus' writing, and older Ellen ramblings, (and possibly a sibling). Also, if anyone with linguistics experience wants to work with me, I would love to collaborate.
Tl;DR
- I want to perform comparative Authorship Analysis on Ellen and Zeus's writings. I have some experience. (Forensic Applications)
- If anyone with linguistics experience wants to collaborate, I would be open to it.
- I need more samples of text. Zeus, Old Ellen writing
Dm or comment questions, comments and samples
TL;DR: Advisor wants to make his new first-year grad student lead on my honors student's thesis that is being submitted to a top-tier journal in our field. He has added first-years to papers nonchalantly in the past but always as later authors. Not sure what to do to maintain a positive relationship while telling him that I think adding this new grad student would be unethical.
Sorry in advance for the long post.
For some background: I'm a 6th Ph.D. candidate (R1; top 10 in my field) and am ~6 months from graduating. I am planning on staying in academia and have already secured a postdoc for next year through an NRSA that I will be completing at a different university with a different PI to broaden my experience. That said, I will have ongoing projects and collaborations in my current lab and I'm sensitive to keeping things between my advisor and me on the right path.
My advisor became the department chair in my third year. He's an awesome chair and generally is a good advisor. However, ever since he became chair, he has started to just throw his new first-year students onto papers. This has happened with four different first-year students and across at least 10 papers that I'm aware of and they are always added as later authors. Most of the time he makes them help with making/editing the reference page or edit for small grammar/formatting (after the paper is already fully written), but, in at least 2 cases, I know that the students did not do anything beyond reading the manuscript right before it was submitted. Prior to him becoming chair, there was one case in which he just threw a student on a paper after it had already gone through 2 rounds of review and had been conditionally accepted. The student was a senior honors student who was planning on applying to grad school in our field but her honors thesis findings were not novel and, after a few attempts, did not get published. Her record was OK but, given how competitive grad school is, my advisor wanted to give her a leg up. I was the lead on that paper and, as a second-year grad student, I didn't think I had the authority to say no so I didn't. She got the pub, was accepted into more than a dozen programs, and chose to stay with my advisor for graduate school.
Honestly, the first occurrence bothered me but I tried to let it go. The ongoing cases have just exacerbated my frustration. The one time I brought it up in earnest with my advisor he said (a) given the job market, they need this opportu
... keep reading on reddit ➡Over the past month I've been reading as much as I have time about the authorship of the gospel of Matthew. According to Meier (Law and History in Matthew's Gospel, pp16-8), the evangelist Matthew's alleged misunderstanding of parallelism in Zech 9:9 is supposed to speak against his being Jewish. In response, Davies and Allison (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, p28) think this conclusion too strong, and I agree with them.
Even so, it got me to thinking along the following lines: If Matthew the evangelist invented a story that Matthew the apostle would have been present to witness, then that should be (IMO) a pretty striking point against the traditional idea that the apostle and the evangelist are one and the same. Would, then, the apostle Matthew have been present for the triumphal entry? According to the evangelist, it would seem so. In 20:17-8, Jesus tells the Twelve that they would all go (presumably together) into Jerusalem. On the other hand, only two of the disciples (21:1-2) actually fetch the colt and donkey, so this obfuscates things.
Have any scholars made such an argument? I would be very interested in references.
Thanks!
Today it's relatively popular to speculate that some or all of Shakespeare's works were written by someone else. When did these theories begin, and why? Was there skepticism during his own time about possible ghostwriting or theft? Or were such ideas a later invention?
Edit for clarification: I'm not suggesting that these theories have any merit, and I don't need to see them debunked. I'm mostly interested in why these ideas came about and became relatively popular in the first place.
In Second Samuel, quite a bit of it paints King David as severely flawed. One might imagine that the founder of the Davidic dynasty might be portrayed more favorably. What is the academic consensus on the motivation for this criticism?
For example, do these court stories originate in the northern kingdom? Or was it considered culturally acceptable to describe a king negatively? Or were they primarily moral polemics which naturally transitioned to legend before being compiled by the Deuteronomistic historian?
The argument that proves the Quran is from a divine source from scientific knowledge found in the Quran is a circular argument. Let's call that argument the Scientific Miracles Argument (SMA).
What is a circular argument? When the conclusion of an argument is already contained in one of the premises, we call this argument circular. The conclusion is already assumed by the argument, so the argument does not prove the conclusion, even though it gives the false impression that it does.
So why do we say the SMA is circular? The conclusion of the SMA is that the Quran is a revelation from Allah, i.e. the author of the Quran is not Muhammad or any other mortal from the 7th century Arabia, but a divine source. Is this conclusion already present in the premises of the SMA?
If we look closer at the SMA we will notice that the argument has this progression:
- assigning God as the author to the Quran
- interpreting a passage from the Quran depending on God's omniscience
- observing that the information derived from that reading transcends what 7th century people could know
- inferring that the author therefore must be God
So why do we say interpretation is to be preceded by an assignment of author?
The difference in epistemic scope and extent of reference space between omniscient God and a 7th century man is infinitely large.
Consider the sentence "the sun has an orbit" as we have it in Quran 21:33. If we read this sentence in any other book from the antiquity or the middle ages we will be justified in assuming the author is referring to the orbit of the around the earth as per the cosmological model of the times, which had the earth at the center of the universe, with everything else, including the sun, revolving around it.
However, today we discovered that, even though the earth revolves around the sun, the solar system as a whole with the sun at its center is revolving around the center of the galaxy it belongs to with a hundred trillion other stars and their own planetary systems. So technically the sun indeed has an orbit.
Now, how should we interpret the sentence in 21:33 in the Quran? "The sun has an orbit." What is the author referring to here? What does he have in mind when he talks about the orbit of the sun? The one around the earth? Or the one around the center of the galaxy?
This question cannot be answered before we make a choice about who the author of the Quran is. If the author is Muhammad, as a forger
... keep reading on reddit ➡(edit) in one sentence: i'm trying to see if there's an art platform of any sort that practices checking the authorship before accepting a submission.
i'm helping my friend with an art-platform type project and for reference purposes was wondering if there's a marketplace/gallery of any sort that requires to provide proof that you're the artist in order to submit your work (whatever it is, a photo of the WIP, or a screenshot of a photoshop project etc.). that would help a ton if you could point in me in the right direction. Thank you!
I've always found it interesting that a piece of text can be linked to a specific author (sorry I couldn't think of any examples of this from memory). How is this done? I assume the answer to this question is not very simple, if you could link me some resources for reading, I would be very grateful.
J1 has a "works in authorship" clause as a part of a non-compete you need to sign for employment. Is this a red flag for OE? Does this mean that J1 would own the SW work I would do for J2, when it comes down to the legal aspect? Anyone else in a similar situation?
I want to clarify whether someone is allowed to write a paper on an audit you collected data for without naming you as an author? What are the rules on this?
It was my understanding that they need to at least ask for permission before they do.
TL;DR what impact do authorships have, and what do non first or second authorships mean to adcoms? Should I do a lot review for the sake of a first?
I’ve got a couple third authorships, some second…to last authorships (apparently that’s notable?¿).
Hours: 10k+ (paid and volunteer and student) PIs published with: ~4? 5?
Third authorships: 3 Bottom of the list authorships: 3 Second to last author but not corresponding author: 1
Stats are below average and I’m working on my mcat to make up for it (not here to ask for tips on stats!)
I’m here to ask if I should be more aggressive about my authorship endeavors if I’d like to apply for MSTP next year.
Thanks for reading!
I just finished my PhD in molecular biology and I am now postdoc in a lab associated to my former one but under another PI. During my PhD I spent one year working on a research project that gave little results and was published in my thesis but not in a scientific paper. My former group thought there was enough material to assemble a publication. I wasn't convinced that stuff was publication-worthy, but since I did most of the work I gave it a try by contributing to write the paper. Truth is that paper looked weak to me (low sample number due to difficulties with the collections of samples from the clinic), got rejected several times and most importantly, last time comments were addressed to method errors. Even during the project, I identified several critics point with the method (field is relatively new and change rapidly) but all of my concerns were dismissed during meetings to the point I convinced myself I was too pessimistic. While doing extra work for the last review, I recognized that there are problems with the quantification method we have used. In hindsight, I would probably cancel the entire project (many preliminary results would have support to just focus on something else) and I cannot see any other way to rescue the hypotesis if not redoing the entire work using new techniques that became almost standard in the field these last years. Some of the observations still looked robust enough to me to be included briefly into a review, but this idea was rejected. I have little to no control over this, since the paper is also the result of other people's contribution. Now it seems to me that my group is attempting to bruteforce their way to publish this work in a low impact factor journal just do get this over with. And I (the first author) am conflicted because I do not think it is worth publishing at all in this state. Because this conflict has been stated in meetings, I have been offered to rethink my position as first author or even give up entirely on authorship on that paper and I am thinking of doing so. I'd probably go with the first option, because it seems to me that withdraw authorship entirely would damage the relation between me and my former PI and because I think there is something salvageable, even if I don't fully agree with the final revision. I'd really appreciate any advice on this because I wish to have never found myself in such situation.
Wondering what the significance of poster/abstract authorship is? I’d assume it’s less important than a publication authorship, but does it matter that much to an app?
I am first author on 2 posters/presentations, first author on an abstract for one of the posters, and eleventh (11/18, loll) author on an abstract related to a volunteering EC that I didn’t present for. When I’m filling out AMCAS primary would I list each of these as it’s own thing, or should I just speak on them in my research/volunteering activities? Just wondering!
DISCLAIMER: Although debate is welcome, that's not my interest here. You're welcome to dispute or agree with my points, and I will be glad to read what you have to say. But my primary interest is in references, so I'm dearly hoping one or more of you could help me out. Thanks!
Anyway, with that out of the way, here we go...
Hey guys. I'm doing some research on Matthean authorship, and I've been consistently disappointed with the arguments against it. In particular, I never see the following three arguments being used:
1. Matthew appears only once in the narrative (9:9-13), not counting his name being listed among the Twelve in a non-narrative section (10:3). Since Matthew presumably accompanied Jesus for much of the ministry narrated in the gospel, it seems to me that we would expect him to somewhat regularly mention his involvement, had he actually written it. So for instance---and this is just one of many such examples---in 14:13-21 we have the disciples interacting with Jesus when he miraculously fed the five thousand, but we hear nothing about Matthew---supposedly an eyewitness who is writing the story for us to read. We don't hear about what he said, did, thought, etc. This might not be so strange in an isolated case, but again and again we hear about the disciples, with zero personal input from Matthew. Indeed, we get nothing at all but that one single, brief episode.
To put it another way, the gospel of Matthew gives no indication of his personal perspective, whereas we should expect that to be the case if he was narrating events that he himself was much present for. Instead we get a kind of narrative omniscience indicative of a non-eyewitness. (Compare this to Julius Caesar's Gallic War or Xenophon's Anabasis, where the authors perspectives are fairly consistently followed throughout the narratives.)
2. Even in that one narrative episode where Matthew appears (9:9-13), he gives us no personal information, where personal information is certainly expected. Here, Jesus walks up to Matthew, apparently having never met before, and calls to Matthew to follow him, which Matthew does. This is extraordinarily strange, and all but demands an explanation. Why did Matthew follow him? Didn't he worry about leaving behind his livelihood? It really strains credulity to think that Matthew wouldn't have given some kind of explanation, had he written this episode himself (whether copying from Mark or not).
3. The
... keep reading on reddit ➡This is long. Sorry for that :)
I’m a master student and student research assistant. I’m working in a lab I really like and where I also did my bachelor thesis. I’ve been working there for close to 6 years (couple hours per week) but doing interesting stuff for maybe 2-3 years.
I’m applying for master thesis and I got a reply form a PI asking me for school reports and a letter of recommendation. So I went to my Prof and asked for the letter. And now comes the part where I don’t know what to think.
He wants me to stay. He thinks I should do the master thesis in his lab and make it really good and get a publication out of it. Yesterday my lab supervisor (Postdoc) told me that I can be first author on the paper about the project I was involved in all that time since my bachelor project. If I stay and continue working on it which can then also be my master project. I’ll likely be on the paper anyway, even if I leave, just not as first author.
So I guess my choices are either to stay in my lab, be first author and graduate with a paper. I most likely won’t learn any new methods. Or I go to the other lab, where I don’t know the group, the topic and everything and just do a thesis there. This way I’d have another set of experience with probably different methods.
Thing is. I’m not good at leaving. I’m scared I’ll stay in my lab because it’s comfortable; not because of the science. This is really stressing me out because I’m afraid I’ll make a wrong choice. I also don’t know yet if I want to do a PhD after the master or enter industry.
What do you guys think? I’d appreciate any insight :)
So, I'm making the following assumptions, which maybe aren't true:
- The Samaritan Pentateuch is close but not identical to the Jewish version
- The Samaritan community split from the Jewish one no later than the end of the Babylonian Captivity (the Samaritans claim Eli caused the split, but I'm not even sure if there's evidence he existed)
- The Samaritans and Jews were hostile to each other, or at least considered the other group heretical, consistently from then on
If these facts are all accurate, though, it seems unlikely to me that the Samaritans would've adopted a document written by, say, Ezra as the core of their religion. Is there any evidence that this is what happened? How do advocates of later Torah authorship justify this?
This just adds another problem on top of the stack of issues. If their supposed god hinted the real origin of the Qur'an using verses alluding to scientific facts, then how could they demonstrate that the Qur'an came from their god centuries ago, when no such discovery was known?
By this, I mean that when Christians want a certain point within their scriptures to be accepted as true, they insist that their scriptures are YHWH's words [cf., 2 Timothy 3:16-17], and may even throw in reference to how YHWH cannot lie [cf., Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18]. For an example, the translators of the King James Version of the Bible proclaimed that the very meanest translation of the Bible contains and is YHWH's words.
But when Christians come upon passages within their scriptures that they recognize are utterly false, they advocate for the doctrine that the Christians' scriptures were written by people who were inspired by YHWH. For example, the biblical scholar Dr. Michael Heiser (himself a Christian), recognizing that the Christians' scriptures teach that the World is flat, that whole human persons reside in men's loins before they are conceived [Hebrews 7:4-10], that the hair on a woman’s head is part of her genitals that assists in drawing a man’s semen to her uterus so she can conceive, and that the brain plays no role in thought but instead the kidneys, heart, and general innards (Gen 6:5; Psa 16:7; 26:2; Jer 11:20; etc.), asserted that such claims are false and reflected the honest beliefs of the Christian Scriptures' human authors - who were nonetheless inspired by YHWH: "Christians Who Believe the Earth is Really Flat — Does It Get Any Dumber Than This?" [ https://drmsh.com/christians-who-believe-the-earth-is-really-flat-does-it-get-any-dumber-than-this/ ].
Now, these two presentations by Christians of how their scriptures were authored are not, technically speaking, contradictory, because human author writing as guided by YHWH could, in theory, have preserved accurate information from YHWH mixed in with inaccuracies. But the fact that these human authors, despite allegedly being guided by YHWH, presented false information as true suggests some very problematic things about how the Christians' scriptures were authored - and about what Christians mean when referring to YHWH's word.
-
YHWH knew about but did not care about the fact that his chosen co-authors were writing false things - which rather undermines the trust that we should have in YHWH by revealing his willingness to tolerate his co-authors inaccuracies (and perhaps lies).
-
YHWH did not know about the fact that his chosen co-authors were writing false things - which also undermines the trust that we should have in YHWH by revealing his ignorance.
Both of these scenarios ent
... keep reading on reddit ➡Hello,
I worked on a project that's a large multicenter study where I contributed some data to. They have told us that we will be listed under the group authorship title rather than by individual names. I've seen this before on pubmed, it seems like if you click the group authorship you can see the individual names.
Does this count as something I can put on my cv? Does it have the same benefit as being an author on the study?
UPDATE: John also made his best friend the 3rd author when the friend was supposed to be last. Now that I've escalate it to the editors and included John, he apologized and tried to brush it off by saying it was a mistake. The editors are waiting for all the authors to reply and confirm with the correct authoring order that I've requested.
I'm extremely angry now, so sorry for the grammatical errors and typos.
I hold a master's degree and recruited 4 medical students as well as two individuals with bachelor's students to start a research project. The purpose was to mentor them since they don't have research experience.
Anyway, Tom (medical student) was the main contributor, and we all agreed him to be the 1st author. We also agreed for me to be the 2nd author and everyone had an agreement on who's 3rd and so forth.
John (medical student) was the 5th most contributor out of us 7 people. We asked John to submit the paper so he would understand the process. He submitted the paper with the correct ordering of the authors. However, after for the last revision, he requested to change the authorship and made me second to the last. Then he proceeded to make him second. I'm truly disappointed to find out when the paper was published. I asked the chief of the author, and she told me that John has requested to change the order of the authorship. She suggested I approached John. I've asked him and he acted like he had no ideas. Then he started ignoring me. I'm disappointed because I should've been 2nd author due to my contribution. Also, there were 2 other people who contributed more than him. Yet, he decided to fool us.
What should I do?
just found out i’m getting the lead authorship of my next project :D just wanted to share that lol
(edit) in one sentence: i'm trying to see if there's an art platform of any sort that practices checking the authorship before accepting a submission.
i'm helping my friend with an art-platform type project and for reference purposes was wondering if there's a marketplace/gallery of any sort that requires to provide proof that you're the artist in order to submit your work (whatever it is, a photo of the WIP, or a screenshot of a photoshop project etc.). that would help a ton if you could point in me in the right direction. Thank you!
