u/AirStrict7065

TL;DR: The archaeology PI and two textual specialists agreed to co-author the first publication of an excavated text under a written policy tying authorship and author order to contribution. Now, as publication approaches, the senior specialist is repeatedly questioning whether the director should be an author at all, despite the director’s contributions and the previously agreed upon policy.

An archaeological project director (Associate Professor at an R1) collaborates with a senior textual specialist (Professor at an elite Ivy) and a junior textual specialist (doctoral student) on the publication of newly excavated written material.

The director is an archaeologist and historian, and her contributions to the proposed publication include history of excavation, stratigraphic interpretation, archaeological analysis, chronology, historical geography, and historical interpretation. The textual specialists are responsible for transliteration, translation, and philological commentary on this, the first publication of a text.

The project also has a written authorship policy, circulated to collaborators, that bases authorship on substantive intellectual contribution, determines author order by contribution, requires article-specific MOUs, and provides procedures for nonperformance. The senior specialist acknowledged receipt of the policy at the time and indicated his acceptance of it.

Approximately a year before the current dispute, the director asked the senior textual specialist to clarify authorship and author order by preparing an MOU, which, under the policy, should be prepared by the intended first author. She told him that she hoped he would be first author and take the lead on the publication.

He agreed that the publication would have three authors, but said that he found it difficult to determine author order in advance because contributions might develop over the course of the work. The collaboration proceeded with three authors understood, and because author order was unresolved, no MOU in place.

Based upon the agreement, the project director dedicated time and funding to the restoration of the texts and to extensive photo documentation, successfully writing a grant for these.

When publication of an important text became imminent, the collaborators discussed a division of labor. As agreed, the director would write the archaeological context and stratigraphy and lead the historical interpretation. The textual specialists would prepare the transliteration, translation, and philological commentary.

However, during the same discussion, the senior text specialist questioned whether the director should be an author and suggested that her inclusion might be unusual enough to require explanation or justification to journal editors.

He invoked disciplinary custom, arguing that first publications of newly excavated texts are conventionally authored by textual specialists alone rather than co-authored with excavators. It is a humanities field with no written disciplinary scholarship or guidelines about co-authorship.

The project director countered that the publication policy in place gave author credit to all contributors who qualified for authorship, and suggested a specific archaeology journal where this would be a routine type of publication. She said that her policies were based upon best practices rather than customary practice.

The senior specialist then insisted that he and the doctoral student should be first and second author and still has not responded to renewed requests for an MOU. The senior specialist raises the question of whether the director should be an author in every email with the doctoral student copied.

1. What should the project director do?
2. Can a discipline-specific custom override contribution-based standards for authorship, particularly when the project itself has adopted a written contribution-based policy, that the authors received and agreed to?
3. How much weight should be given to the prior agreement that this would be a three-author publication, given that substantial work and project resources were subsequently committed on that understanding?

A team is excavating a northern Mesopotamian city that dates to around 1800 BCE, approximately the time of Hammurabi. They are finding evidence of ancient siege warfare. In addition to the destruction deposits, they have also discovered an archive of cuneiform texts, the first such archive ever discovered near Erbil in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

My husband and I have a recurring argument about towels, and we both are convinced the other person is wrong.

We generally reuse towels a few times, and I wash them all once a week. When I do laundry, I gather them, including the ones on hooks. My goal is to just put back the same towels that were in use once they are clean. If I don't wash them, they don't get washed. I've attempted to see if he ever would, but lost this domestic game of chicken after a month.

The thing that makes my husband mad is that I pull all the towels but do not replace the hand, bath, or kitchen towels, and there can be a window where the hooks are empty while they’re being washed. He thinks that if I remove a towel, I should always replace it immediately so there’s never a moment where someone goes to grab one and it’s not already there. But clean towels are in a linen closet right next to each bathroom and the kitchen, a few steps away.

My perspective: I’m handling this chore, and expecting me to do it according to his preferences is not reasonable. If you want it done a special way, do it yourself.

From his perspective, I’m being inconsiderate because I’m creating a situation where he might have wet hands or have just taken a shower and not have a towel immediately available.

AITA for not replacing towels immediately when I take them down to wash?