I have such a name -- doesn't particularly bother me.
I understand how people can feel that way though, but my question is -- why is that feeling anything but obsessing over a vanity metric, and actually a useful mechanism for author evaluation?
I understand how people can feel that way though, but my question is -- why is that feeling anything but obsessing over a vanity metric, and actually a useful mechanism for author evaluation?
https://library.leeds.ac.uk/skills-citations-harvard#activat...
> If a source has three or more authors, the name of the first author should be given, followed by the phrase "et al".
It might be good if this wasn't the case, but since it is, it's a realistic concern for authors.
Beyond that, really the reason will be that this is what people the people who decide your funding see.
Perhaps a useful example would be like saying if you have more than a few people in your team, anyone referring to your project must say "Alan's team" because Alan's name is the first in the list, even if they're a junior or part time. This is what your bosses see come promotion time, all that great work like Alan's team (2016) and who can forget the amazing piece of work Alan's team (2015).
If you called "BCS" (superconductivity) "Bardeen et. al." it would take everyone a minute to figure out what you meant, and they'd wonder about your background.