Friday, April 22, 2011
Wanted - best/funniest/strangest Acknowledgements sections from papers
I was reading a paper recently which had an awkward acknowledgements sections and I thought it might be fun to make a collection of papers with unusual such sections. So I am putting out a call here - do people know any good examples of strange or funny or exceptionally long or otherwise interesting acknowledgement sections from papers? Please post them here or on twitter/friendfeed and I will eventually post a list
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
I have a new friend in Google Scholar Updates I have written about the Updates system before and if you want more information please see... -
See Isolation and sequence-based characterization of a koala symbiont: Lonepinella koalarum Paper based on PhD thesis work of Katie Dahlha...
-
Just got this press release by email. I am sick of receiving dozens of unsolicited press releases, especially those in topics not related ...
"Sincere thanks to Enrico Bernard, Brock Fenton, Moe Gregory, and John
ReplyDeleteRatcliffe who graciously provided blood samples."
Gregory, TR. (2000). Genome 43: 895-901.
Moe being my cat.
Where's the example of the awkward acknowledgements section you read, Jonathan?
ReplyDeleteI once thanked Howard Ochman for 'pharmacological support' on a theory paper (in Nature!). He had given me a pound of excellent coffee beans.
ReplyDelete"We thank John R. Rohde and Raphael H. Valdivia for helpful comments, and R. Siffredi for constant support."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000005#ack
If you don't wee what's funny about this acknowledgement, google "Rocco Siffredi" :)
"I thank the National Science Foundation for regularly rejecting my (honest) grant applications for work on real organisms (cf. Szent-Gyorgyi, 1972), thus forcing me into theoretical work."
ReplyDeleteVan Valen (1973). A new Evolutionary Law. Evolutionary Theory 1:1-30.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow about this one by Olin Shivers:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scsh.net/docu/html/man.html
My dad tells the story of his late colleague Ken Eskins. Ken won an argument with an editor who was skeptical of a result, and in the end, Ken's article got published. In Ken's very next experiment, he proved himself wrong. The follow-up article included phrases like "Recently we reported what appeared to be..." and "In the present study we attempt to resolve that problem...."
ReplyDeleteThe best part of the article, though, is the acknowledgements section: "The authors wish to thank Edith Crowe for helpful work in establishing equilibrium conditions."
Eskins, K., McCarthy, S. A., Dybas, L. and Duysen, M. (1986), Corn chloroplast development in weak fluence rate red light and in weak fluence rate red plus far red light. Physiologia Plantarum, 67: 242–246. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.1986.tb02450.x
I acknowledged everything under the sun in my thesis (including the commodore 64).
ReplyDelete