I'm rather in favor of this particular big list question for a couple reasons:
- "Necessitate constant revision as facts change" and "My guess is someone has done a meta analysis" are actually mutually contradictory objections. Either a single, authoritative, static source can (or should) exist, or it's in constant need of changing. It can't be both.
- There's a steady drumbeat of exactly these questions, and I think there's definitively a place for a thread we can point to and say "Find your field, consult the excerpt, and ponder whether or not you think you have a problem or not". This is, as far as I can tell, our "What book should I pick up to learn C/C++..." question.
- "a list of excerpts and/or personal opinions about authorship will be of limited value." I don't think a list of excerpts from authoritative sources would be of limited value, and I'm particularly interested in knowing how that would differ from @Strongbad's proposed systematic review.
- The list has the advantage of being potentially very wide ranging in terms of fields. My concern for these types of questions is always that the answer for one field might not match another, and if we don't have anyone in X field on while the question is active, we lose that information. A persistent collection of said information would avoid that problem.
I'm not necessarily against big-list questions, as long as every answer is potentially interesting for all readers interested in the question. For instance, the C++ question mentioned above, or this question about latex editors, if you're interested in the question, then all answers are potentially interesting.
In the case of the question Compiling ethical standards for coauthorship across academic fields and regions, I believe that apart from people who are fundamentally interested in comparing different fields/regions, in general at most one or two answers are relevant to each individual reader. Hence, the voting on each answer does not necessarily reflect the quality of the answer, but more likely the relevance of the answer to the reader.
So as such, it's not particularly constructive, and I think a better place to compile such a meta analysis could be on Wikipedia, where there is no need for a voting mechanism.
CW for a list of things is tricky. (Personally I do like some big lists on SE if they are objective (e.g. list of software to do X).)
CW for a list of subjective things is very tricky. The same things holds for things that cannot be shortened to a single sentence. (While the problem is interesting, I don't feel it will work with SE system; however, I would like to see what happens rather than close it prematurely.)
"Lists of things" is a rather broad category, and there are many different kinds of list questions, I'll restrict my answer to this specific example and similar questions.
The important questions in my opinion here is whether the topic is better handled by a single CW question as proposed here, or by an individual questions for each field.
One large disadvantage is that the big CW question is unordered, the answers are sorted by score, which is pretty much meaningless in this specific case. To find the specific field you have to scroll through the entire list manually.
Another aspect is that I'm not convinced that just the statements of scientific societies are enough to actually answer such questions fully. While I think a good answer to such a question should reference such sources, it often should go above that. The official statements are rather general and might need more clarification or explanation to be really useful.
I think this subject would be better served by individual questions, with appropriate closure as duplicates if the situations and fields are similar enough to an existing question.
I don't like big list question in general. In this particular case, I like it even less. My guess is someone has done a meta analysis, and if they haven't they should, on the authorship requirements of different societies/journals. A question about where to find and how to interpret field specific authorship norms would also be useful, but I think a list of excerpts and/or personal opinions about authorship will be of limited value.
My thoughts are that these types of questions are not useful:
- They necessitate constant revision as facts change
- They are of questionable use, as few would use that question as the authoritative source
- The ease of scope creep for the question makes it difficult to manage and requires constant maintenance to keep it clean