BU Research Blog

Ten years ago almost to the day I arrived at BU as a Professor in Environmental & Geographical Sciences and was installed in one of the rabbit-hutch offices in Dorset House.  Great office one of the best I ever had and it will forever be linked in my mind with the Formula for the Perfect Sandcastle, the Luck Equation and the growth of Landscan Investigations which was the contaminated land consultancy I used to run out of what was, in those days, Conservation Sciences.  My first year at BU is filled with memories of having to teach a course on Meteorology & Climate Change, something I had not done before; the trauma of buying and selling a house and moving my family to Bournemouth; the birth of my youngest son; and field work that summer in Iceland, Canada and Mexico.  So, while in a reflective mood and given the big changes to the Talbot Campus this summer, what are the big difference at BU ten years on?

When I first started just after RAE-2001 my task was to drive research development, in fact my job description at the time said I had to get the Environmental & Geographical Group to the equivalent of a Grade 4 Department by the next RAE.  For those that don’t remember the old RAE currency, this was a big ask at the time but was achieved with the unit being the most improved within BU in RAE-2008.  The campus was very much as it is now except that there was an empty space where Kimmeridge House is today, the new wing of Christchurch House had yet to be built, but otherwise it was very similar in feel and character as it is today.  Perhaps that is why the summer works seem so transformational?  I played a small role in shaping the campus early on by rescuing the Russell-Cotes Geological Terrace from a heap in a council yard and bringing it to campus to form the centre piece of the front entrance.  I remain very proud of what was achieved here and still think the vision of the original museum curator to create the display in the first place and the decision by the University to support my desire to rescue it, was a fantastic commitment to our rich geological heritage.

In my time I have experience three Vice Chancellors, being appointed originally by Gillian Slater.  I enjoyed the Paul Curran era since I understood, respected and appreciated his drive to make BU a more research active institution.  Those were the days of the Releasing Research and Enterprise Potential which I remember fondly and at its height touched over 50% of staff here at BU.  Since then I have contributed to the birth of Fusion, an elegant concept which epitomises for me much of what a modern university should be about; the creation of new knowledge, its application within society through practice combining to educate the next generation of innovators and decision-makers.  Ten years on there are still challenges to face and work to be done as we continue to transform BU together; an institution and more importantly a body of staff who I am still very proud to be part of.

Deciding the order of authors on a team based paper can be challenging: who should be included and in what order?  What constitutes a contribution worthy of authorship rather than a simple acknowledgement?  Feelings can run high and sadly I have fallen out with people over such matters, which in hindsight and the passage of time was just plain stupid.  But at the end of the day does authorship order really matter?  Does a reader actually care who did what?

It is a subject covered by Sebastian Frische writing in Nature this week.  This whole question resonates with me at the moment.  In the last year I have started to publish with a new set of collaborators who introduced me to an authorship code I had never heard of before – call me a naïve geologist if you like!  My approach to authorship over the years has, with a few notable exceptions, always been based on a simple principle of inclusion if you were in the field, contributed to the debate you where an author irrespective of whether you actually pulled your weight in the analysis or write-up.  He or she who does the most work and drives a paper forward goes first and the order there after reflects the level of contribution.  A simple model based on simple principles.  Last year I was introduced to the concept of the last author however.  My new colleagues hold this position to be one of real prestige – the senior seat – and a view I now find to be widely held in some disciplines.  It is something which I have to admit has past me by despite over twenty years of research.  I always worked on the principle that to be lost in the ‘et al.’ was never a good thing!  I have adopted this new approach in recent papers, but it leaves me intrigued to know what other conventions around authorship I am not aware off?  In fact I would love to hear from my colleagues on this subject.

But to be honest to what extent does it really matter, after all an author is an author?  In the context of REF it doesn’t with the Panel Criteria and Working Methods making no mention of authorship order or contribution.  Sebastian Frische argues that it does to new academics trying to build a reputation and he draws the interesting analogy to the film industry where the credit list is vital to ones CV and the ability to get work in the future.  In fact, he goes as far as to suggest that one vehicle is for academic networks, such as ResearchGate (which is currently sweeping through my own collaborator network), or academia.edu should allow authors to express their contribution to a given paper providing the equivalent of a credit list.  I have to admit that to me this sounds like a potential for discord between authors.  But in truth does it not go against the very principle that research – with the exception of the sole scholar – is by its very nature collaborative.  In a football team all players receive a cup winner’s medal whether they scored a goal or saved a vital penalty.  All contribute to the victory and all should be recognized equally?  So in truth I am far from convinced.  What do you think?