I think this is compatible with the possibility that he used women’s (or anyone’s) voices without giving them enough credit only when he thought he could get away with it.
Still, Dawn apparently agreed to have Singer’s name first, based on the argument that it would do more good for animals. And it might have just been true that it would do more good, because it seems plausible on the more direct near-term effects by bringing more attention to the pieces. Singer also plausibly honestly believed it, and plausibly had good intentions.
However, this could also mean reducing the rise of these other animal advocates, compared to having them as first authors, which could be worse for the movement overall in the longer run. So, he might have been wrong to believe it was best overall.
Also, it’s just misleading to put his name first when he’s only editing.
The meaning of first authorship depends on the specific cultural context and norms. In law, this would be fine; in academia, I assume not.
For newspaper articles, at least those that are like op-eds . . . I don’t assume that Senator So-and-So, a named CEO, or a similiar person who is not a professional journalist actually drafted the piece they signed. So “misleading” is too strong for me.
I would have assumed Singer wrote these pieces based on him appearing as first author, and him probably often writing his own pieces. He does write professionally.
Also, even if you have more context to avoid making this assumption, this doesn’t mean the average reader does. Maybe the average person who might engage with Dawn professionally would understand this context, though, and maybe that’s much more important for her career than what the average reader believes.
I think this is compatible with the possibility that he used women’s (or anyone’s) voices without giving them enough credit only when he thought he could get away with it.
Still, Dawn apparently agreed to have Singer’s name first, based on the argument that it would do more good for animals. And it might have just been true that it would do more good, because it seems plausible on the more direct near-term effects by bringing more attention to the pieces. Singer also plausibly honestly believed it, and plausibly had good intentions.
However, this could also mean reducing the rise of these other animal advocates, compared to having them as first authors, which could be worse for the movement overall in the longer run. So, he might have been wrong to believe it was best overall.
Also, it’s just misleading to put his name first when he’s only editing.
The meaning of first authorship depends on the specific cultural context and norms. In law, this would be fine; in academia, I assume not.
For newspaper articles, at least those that are like op-eds . . . I don’t assume that Senator So-and-So, a named CEO, or a similiar person who is not a professional journalist actually drafted the piece they signed. So “misleading” is too strong for me.
I would have assumed Singer wrote these pieces based on him appearing as first author, and him probably often writing his own pieces. He does write professionally.
Also, even if you have more context to avoid making this assumption, this doesn’t mean the average reader does. Maybe the average person who might engage with Dawn professionally would understand this context, though, and maybe that’s much more important for her career than what the average reader believes.