*wouldn’t!

I don’t see how to define a median for what I showed, it’s simply the total number of papers in the entire field divided by total number of unique authors. It’s not tracking in a per paper sense if you see what I mean

I think the interesting part is the fact there is a change over time and why? For context, the original source I cited argues that hyper-authorship has become institutionalized, and many orgs demand their entire team be co-authors if their data/expertise is used in any way, which is presumably new.

I should correct that last sentence. This is not average of (# of authors) per paper but rather # of unique authors in the field that year normalized by number of published papers in the field that year.

Is the same thing happening in astronomy? Querying ADS, for collection:astronomy, property:published, I show here the number of unique authors per year/number of papers per year. Over 50 years, the average number of authors per paper has doubled, a compound growth rate of 1.6%/year.

Thanks for sharing! I would call our signal a “candidate exomoon” though, it’s too ambiguous with a spot crossing to warrant that in my opinion.

Source pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...

I’m from Atherstone!

She was also recently invited to join Avi Loeb’s science team… so there’s that.

the way to think about highest and lowest here is with respect to the median country by population rank (Denmark/Finland) - 98% of humans live in a country more populous than the median