This is something that I’ve never really thought about until probably a year ago. I would say that in most cases the people who are featured in the author section of these articles actually contributed with something for its writing. The main idea behind this picture doesn’t exactly bother me. I mean it probably should but I’ve long ago understood that this is how the world works. Too much bureaucracy and too many lobbies in action. I’ve gotten used to it, so I don’t get too bothered by it.
However, there are a few cases were it does bug me. There’s one example – which I won’t precise here – that has made me think a lot about this during the past academic year. This author I’m thinking about, I’m not questioning his value or the work that he has done, but I do doubt his involvement in quite a lot of articles and reports. His name usually appears at the end and it’s not exactly evident his participation in the whole thing, so I really question myself if he actually did something or if his name is just there because of who he is.
Do you guys know those cases when we have a minimum of words to write for an assignment and when we run out of stuff to say we basically just add unnecessary information (even though relatable to the subject in discussion) just so we can reach that minimum? I kinda feel like that is the case that I just described in the above paragraph.
Even if you just did maps for an article or manipulated photographs, you at least did something, something that is actually featured in the final article. But when your name is there just because yes, that really bugs me. I might be totally wrong about the example I gave but that’s just the feeling I get every time I read one of those articles.