PulseAugur
EN
LIVE 22:23:03

ML papers with hundreds of authors should list organizations instead of individuals

A discussion on the r/MachineLearning subreddit proposes that academic papers with an excessive number of authors, particularly in the field of machine learning, should instead list the contributing organization. The current practice of listing hundreds of authors, as seen in papers for models like Llama and Gemini, is criticized for diluting individual reputation and potentially including individuals with minimal contributions due to office politics. The suggestion is to list the organization for papers exceeding a certain author threshold, preserving the utility of author attribution for smaller, more focused works. AI

IMPACT Suggests a change in academic publishing norms that could impact how AI research is credited and perceived.

RANK_REASON Discussion on a subreddit about a proposed change to academic publishing practices.

Read on r/MachineLearning →

AI-generated summary · Google Gemini · from 1 sources. How we write summaries →

ML papers with hundreds of authors should list organizations instead of individuals

COVERAGE [1]

  1. r/MachineLearning TIER_1 English(EN) · /u/NeighborhoodFatCat ·

    ML Papers with hundreds of authors should just collapse down to the organization response instead of listing every author [D]

    <!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>I've had this feeling for a while when reading the citation pages of ML papers and had to continuously scroll down for like 2+ pages because a citation with hundreds of authors, such as the Llama herd of model paper: <a href="https://arxiv.org/ab…