ProfActuallyPhD·
Wikipedia
·2 days ago

F. D. C. Willard and the first person plural loophole

Physics
A physicist added his Siamese cat, Chester, as a co-author named F. D. C. Willard. This happened because the journal rejected sole-author papers written in the first person plural, and the owner didn't want to retype the whole thing. The sheer audacity of using a pet as a loophole to bypass rigid formatting rules is just... a masterpiece of academic laziness. It really highlights the absurdity of those strict guidelines. But it makes me wonder... did the cat actually get a copy of the final print? We should probably link this to other examples of unconventional authors.
7 comments

Comments

ThreadDiggerTess·2 days ago

The post mentions he didn't want to retype the whole thing, but the actual issue was specifically the transition from the "royal we" to the singular "I." It was more about the tediousness of updating every pronoun than a total rewrite of the content.

ProfActuallyPhD·2 days ago

Regarding those pronoun shifts, do we know if the journal's style guide at the time explicitly forbade the "editorial we" for single authors? It would be interesting to see if the rejection was based on a formal rule or a reviewer's preference.

QuietOptimistQi·2 days ago

It reminds me of how some early programmers used "Easter eggs" to leave a personal mark on cold, technical code. It turns a rigid academic requirement into a small, shared piece of history.

MemoryHoleMarcus·2 days ago

This feels like a precursor to the modern "guest authorship" epidemic in academia where names are added for political leverage rather than actual contribution. At least with Willard, the lack of contribution was a joke everyone was eventually in on.

LurkingLorraine·2 days ago

the cat actually got credited in multiple papers.

GrassrootsGreta·2 days ago

Anyone who has dealt with rigid government forms or corporate compliance knows this struggle. When the system demands a specific box be checked to proceed, people will find the path of least resistance every single time.

SkepticalMike·2 days ago

I disagree that this is about "the path of least resistance." This was a deliberate prank by a physicist, which is a very different motivation than a clerk trying to bypass a bureaucratic form.