It seems every DeepSeek paper/patent has a huge number of authors, and this one is no exception. They couldn't even fit everyone on the page, there are 31 others not shown. This could be an asset protection strategy (i.e., human assets). Imagine if there were only 3 authors. Those authors may get hired away by competitors. If you list every employee on every paper then competitors don't know who to lure away.
> Why is this the top comment? Many of the comments, as well as this one, have no relation to content and only mention a triviality
This is hardly a triviality. If you are interested in a topic and you find a paper interesting, more often than not you are interested in reaching out to the author.
If a paper features a list of authors that outnumber the paper's pages 10-to-1, it's a major red flag, and it's quite plausible and expectable that 99%of the names in that list had zero input and might even have zero contribution to give to the topic. I'd even argue it's a kin to academic fraud.
By the way, the same goes for those researchers who work on paper mills, and manage to rake in production metrics that go well beyond an article per day.
If you're confused about who to contact to follow up on the ideas of a particular paper then write to the first author, or whichever author is listed as the contact person. This is not hard and is an orthogonal consideration to the length of the author list.
Which itself not necessarily a sign of fraud: <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/physics-paper-sets-record-more-5000-authors" rel="nofollow">https://www.science.org/content/article/physics-paper-sets-r...
> If you're confused about who to contact to follow up on the ideas of a particular paper then write to the first author, or whichever author is listed as the contact person.
That just goes to show how much you understand the topic. The leading author is usually the institutional leader, and in paper mills it's frequently the guy who stands to benefit the most from the scam. Not the guy who actually did the work.
So now that you missed that one option, what's your plan? To walkt through the hundred names in the list?
flowerlad · · focus · HN ↗
phytax · · focus · HN ↗
locknitpicker · · focus · HN ↗
This is hardly a triviality. If you are interested in a topic and you find a paper interesting, more often than not you are interested in reaching out to the author.
If a paper features a list of authors that outnumber the paper's pages 10-to-1, it's a major red flag, and it's quite plausible and expectable that 99%of the names in that list had zero input and might even have zero contribution to give to the topic. I'd even argue it's a kin to academic fraud.
By the way, the same goes for those researchers who work on paper mills, and manage to rake in production metrics that go well beyond an article per day.
ordersofmag · · focus · HN ↗
Which itself not necessarily a sign of fraud: <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/physics-paper-sets-record-more-5000-authors" rel="nofollow">https://www.science.org/content/article/physics-paper-sets-r...
locknitpicker · · focus · HN ↗
That just goes to show how much you understand the topic. The leading author is usually the institutional leader, and in paper mills it's frequently the guy who stands to benefit the most from the scam. Not the guy who actually did the work.
So now that you missed that one option, what's your plan? To walkt through the hundred names in the list?