My collaborator has asked to be only acknowledged in a paper. Should I make him a co-author?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
16
down vote
favorite
My question is about papers in mathematics.
I am writing a paper on a given topic.
Now, the paper relies heavily on a result from a different topic that I phrased, felt that it should be true, but I did not know how to prove that result.
I asked someone who works on this different topic to help me with the proof, and he has found a proof for the desired result.
I would like to thank this person and ask him if he wants to: (1) be a co-author in the paper, or (2) just be acknowledged in the paper 'The author wishes to thank Y for generously allowing him to use his proof of result R') + at the beginning of the proof of the result it will be mentioned that 'the proof is due to Y'.
This person says that he would be happy to be acknowledged and does not think that he should be a co-author (unless he can further contribute to the paper). He also mentions that he is not working on my topic and hence not enough familiar with what the paper deals with.
Which of the two options (1), (2) should be chosen?
It should be emphasized that the result I have been helped with is critical for the existence of the paper.
I really do not know which option to choose.
I wonder:
Is it ok that I will submit the paper to a journal as a unique author, and ask the editor to have the opinion of the referees on whether Y should be a co-author or not?
Thank you very much!
publications journals mathematics
edited 2 days ago
Cimbali
153210
asked Oct 4 at 2:11
user237522
18617
New contributor
user237522 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
16
down vote
favorite
My question is about papers in mathematics.
I am writing a paper on a given topic.
Now, the paper relies heavily on a result from a different topic that I phrased, felt that it should be true, but I did not know how to prove that result.
I asked someone who works on this different topic to help me with the proof, and he has found a proof for the desired result.
I would like to thank this person and ask him if he wants to: (1) be a co-author in the paper, or (2) just be acknowledged in the paper 'The author wishes to thank Y for generously allowing him to use his proof of result R') + at the beginning of the proof of the result it will be mentioned that 'the proof is due to Y'.
This person says that he would be happy to be acknowledged and does not think that he should be a co-author (unless he can further contribute to the paper). He also mentions that he is not working on my topic and hence not enough familiar with what the paper deals with.
Which of the two options (1), (2) should be chosen?
It should be emphasized that the result I have been helped with is critical for the existence of the paper.
I really do not know which option to choose.
I wonder:
Is it ok that I will submit the paper to a journal as a unique author, and ask the editor to have the opinion of the referees on whether Y should be a co-author or not?
Thank you very much!
publications journals mathematics
edited 2 days ago
Cimbali
153210
asked Oct 4 at 2:11
user237522
18617
New contributor
user237522 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
Thanks for the comment. ok, I will slightly change the title. Thanks for notifying me about the other question. However, I guess that there are differences between mathematics and other topics, aren't they? For example, in brain research people from different topics collaborate and we do not expect that one will understand what exactly the other did, but in a math paper I would expect that every author will understand what his friend did. Or perhaps I am wrong?
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:43
5
This seems completely clear to me. Honor the request of your colleague. There shouldn't be any question of it. Note that you may not even know all the reasons for their request. Just put a nice ack in the paper.
– Buffy
Oct 4 at 14:38
7
I prefer 'Alice' and 'Bob' - but I guess that's why it's a mathematics paper.
– Strawberry
Oct 4 at 14:38
15
Can I recommend not writing questions that read like predicate calculus formulas? Having a couple of named variables can be helpful but, honestly, I gave up reading your question at the point where you were asking me to remember what six different arbitrary letters mean.
– David Richerby
Oct 4 at 15:30
3
X, perhaps you could edit Q, according to the suggestions of D, who was expanding on a point made by S_2. That way any O reading your Q will be able to understand it much quicker. (Q= question, D= @DavidRicherby, S_2= @ Strawberry, O= Other user).
– HRSE
Oct 5 at 2:27
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
16
down vote
favorite
up vote
16
down vote
favorite
My question is about papers in mathematics.
I am writing a paper on a given topic.
Now, the paper relies heavily on a result from a different topic that I phrased, felt that it should be true, but I did not know how to prove that result.
I asked someone who works on this different topic to help me with the proof, and he has found a proof for the desired result.
I would like to thank this person and ask him if he wants to: (1) be a co-author in the paper, or (2) just be acknowledged in the paper 'The author wishes to thank Y for generously allowing him to use his proof of result R') + at the beginning of the proof of the result it will be mentioned that 'the proof is due to Y'.
This person says that he would be happy to be acknowledged and does not think that he should be a co-author (unless he can further contribute to the paper). He also mentions that he is not working on my topic and hence not enough familiar with what the paper deals with.
Which of the two options (1), (2) should be chosen?
It should be emphasized that the result I have been helped with is critical for the existence of the paper.
I really do not know which option to choose.
I wonder:
Is it ok that I will submit the paper to a journal as a unique author, and ask the editor to have the opinion of the referees on whether Y should be a co-author or not?
Thank you very much!
publications journals mathematics
edited 2 days ago
Cimbali
153210
asked Oct 4 at 2:11
user237522
18617
New contributor
user237522 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
My question is about papers in mathematics.
I am writing a paper on a given topic.
Now, the paper relies heavily on a result from a different topic that I phrased, felt that it should be true, but I did not know how to prove that result.
I asked someone who works on this different topic to help me with the proof, and he has found a proof for the desired result.
I would like to thank this person and ask him if he wants to: (1) be a co-author in the paper, or (2) just be acknowledged in the paper 'The author wishes to thank Y for generously allowing him to use his proof of result R') + at the beginning of the proof of the result it will be mentioned that 'the proof is due to Y'.
This person says that he would be happy to be acknowledged and does not think that he should be a co-author (unless he can further contribute to the paper). He also mentions that he is not working on my topic and hence not enough familiar with what the paper deals with.
Which of the two options (1), (2) should be chosen?
It should be emphasized that the result I have been helped with is critical for the existence of the paper.
I really do not know which option to choose.
I wonder:
Is it ok that I will submit the paper to a journal as a unique author, and ask the editor to have the opinion of the referees on whether Y should be a co-author or not?
Thank you very much!
publications journals mathematics
publications journals mathematics
edited 2 days ago
Cimbali
153210
asked Oct 4 at 2:11
user237522
18617
New contributor
user237522 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 days ago
Cimbali
153210
asked Oct 4 at 2:11
user237522
18617
New contributor
user237522 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 days ago
Cimbali
153210
edited 2 days ago
Cimbali
153210
edited 2 days ago
Cimbali
153210
153210
asked Oct 4 at 2:11
user237522
18617
New contributor
user237522 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Oct 4 at 2:11
user237522
18617
asked Oct 4 at 2:11
user237522
18617
18617
New contributor
user237522 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user237522 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user237522 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
Thanks for the comment. ok, I will slightly change the title. Thanks for notifying me about the other question. However, I guess that there are differences between mathematics and other topics, aren't they? For example, in brain research people from different topics collaborate and we do not expect that one will understand what exactly the other did, but in a math paper I would expect that every author will understand what his friend did. Or perhaps I am wrong?
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:43
5
This seems completely clear to me. Honor the request of your colleague. There shouldn't be any question of it. Note that you may not even know all the reasons for their request. Just put a nice ack in the paper.
– Buffy
Oct 4 at 14:38
7
I prefer 'Alice' and 'Bob' - but I guess that's why it's a mathematics paper.
– Strawberry
Oct 4 at 14:38
15
Can I recommend not writing questions that read like predicate calculus formulas? Having a couple of named variables can be helpful but, honestly, I gave up reading your question at the point where you were asking me to remember what six different arbitrary letters mean.
– David Richerby
Oct 4 at 15:30
3
X, perhaps you could edit Q, according to the suggestions of D, who was expanding on a point made by S_2. That way any O reading your Q will be able to understand it much quicker. (Q= question, D= @DavidRicherby, S_2= @ Strawberry, O= Other user).
– HRSE
Oct 5 at 2:27
 |Â
show 7 more comments
2
Thanks for the comment. ok, I will slightly change the title. Thanks for notifying me about the other question. However, I guess that there are differences between mathematics and other topics, aren't they? For example, in brain research people from different topics collaborate and we do not expect that one will understand what exactly the other did, but in a math paper I would expect that every author will understand what his friend did. Or perhaps I am wrong?
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:43
5
This seems completely clear to me. Honor the request of your colleague. There shouldn't be any question of it. Note that you may not even know all the reasons for their request. Just put a nice ack in the paper.
– Buffy
Oct 4 at 14:38
7
I prefer 'Alice' and 'Bob' - but I guess that's why it's a mathematics paper.
– Strawberry
Oct 4 at 14:38
15
Can I recommend not writing questions that read like predicate calculus formulas? Having a couple of named variables can be helpful but, honestly, I gave up reading your question at the point where you were asking me to remember what six different arbitrary letters mean.
– David Richerby
Oct 4 at 15:30
3
X, perhaps you could edit Q, according to the suggestions of D, who was expanding on a point made by S_2. That way any O reading your Q will be able to understand it much quicker. (Q= question, D= @DavidRicherby, S_2= @ Strawberry, O= Other user).
– HRSE
Oct 5 at 2:27
2
2
Thanks for the comment. ok, I will slightly change the title. Thanks for notifying me about the other question. However, I guess that there are differences between mathematics and other topics, aren't they? For example, in brain research people from different topics collaborate and we do not expect that one will understand what exactly the other did, but in a math paper I would expect that every author will understand what his friend did. Or perhaps I am wrong?
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:43
Thanks for the comment. ok, I will slightly change the title. Thanks for notifying me about the other question. However, I guess that there are differences between mathematics and other topics, aren't they? For example, in brain research people from different topics collaborate and we do not expect that one will understand what exactly the other did, but in a math paper I would expect that every author will understand what his friend did. Or perhaps I am wrong?
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:43
5
5
This seems completely clear to me. Honor the request of your colleague. There shouldn't be any question of it. Note that you may not even know all the reasons for their request. Just put a nice ack in the paper.
– Buffy
Oct 4 at 14:38
This seems completely clear to me. Honor the request of your colleague. There shouldn't be any question of it. Note that you may not even know all the reasons for their request. Just put a nice ack in the paper.
– Buffy
Oct 4 at 14:38
7
7
I prefer 'Alice' and 'Bob' - but I guess that's why it's a mathematics paper.
– Strawberry
Oct 4 at 14:38
I prefer 'Alice' and 'Bob' - but I guess that's why it's a mathematics paper.
– Strawberry
Oct 4 at 14:38
15
15
Can I recommend not writing questions that read like predicate calculus formulas? Having a couple of named variables can be helpful but, honestly, I gave up reading your question at the point where you were asking me to remember what six different arbitrary letters mean.
– David Richerby
Oct 4 at 15:30
Can I recommend not writing questions that read like predicate calculus formulas? Having a couple of named variables can be helpful but, honestly, I gave up reading your question at the point where you were asking me to remember what six different arbitrary letters mean.
– David Richerby
Oct 4 at 15:30
3
3
X, perhaps you could edit Q, according to the suggestions of D, who was expanding on a point made by S_2. That way any O reading your Q will be able to understand it much quicker. (Q= question, D= @DavidRicherby, S_2= @ Strawberry, O= Other user).
– HRSE
Oct 5 at 2:27
X, perhaps you could edit Q, according to the suggestions of D, who was expanding on a point made by S_2. That way any O reading your Q will be able to understand it much quicker. (Q= question, D= @DavidRicherby, S_2= @ Strawberry, O= Other user).
– HRSE
Oct 5 at 2:27
 |Â
show 7 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
62
down vote
accepted
The answer depends on how firmly Y has declined authorship. I don't think it's appropriate to ask the referees to decide on authorship.
- You cannot list Y as an author without his consent. If he has firmly refused to be an author, that is the end of it.
- If Y has simply indicated that acknowledgment is a sufficient form of credit, but left the door open to being an author then it's up to you. I have responded in this way sometimes when I felt my contribution was sufficient for authorship but I didn't want to step on anybody's toes. I try to err on the side of being generous with credit, so I would say to him
"I feel that your contribution warrants authorship. Are you willing to be listed as an author?"
If he still says no, then just acknowledge him. You can include the statement of how critical his part was in the acknowledgment.
answered Oct 4 at 7:19
David Ketcheson
26.8k681135
Thank you for your answer. I will again discuss co-authorship with him. Perhaps the decision of being a co-author or not, strongly depends on the level of the proof of result R. Since result R is in topic S, which I am not enough familiar with, I do not know what the level of the proof is. Anyway, I will leave the decision of being a co-author or not to him.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 12:12
I would consider adding "Y has declined co-authorship" in some form, depending on how the acknowledgement is worded; some may find it odd that someone who contributed enough to be considered one is merely acknowledged, not, er, an author.
– Nic Hartley
Oct 4 at 19:23
@NicHartley, thanks for your comment; I will consider what you have suggested, though I am not promising that eventually I will add that line. I guess that there are two main reasons why Y declined co-authorship: (1) Perhaps his contribution is not enough; his contribution may not be trivial for me, but trivial for researches in topic S. (2) It seems that his main area of research is not mathematics (although he seems good at it), so it is not so important for him to publish a math paper.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:35
Of course there may exist other/additional reasons: (3) He is afraid that my paper contains errors and does not like that his name will appear on such a paper. (4) He is just a very generous person.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:44
1
@NicHartley, ok, thanks for the clarification. (As I commented above, I will consider adding the line you suggested).
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:54
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
No. Indeed a co-author could have provided invaluable input with a single insight/subresult to the paper or a part of the paper. I don’t think an editor can evaluate the contribution of any co-author.
If both of you feel the contribution is enough (and novel) then your other party should be a co-author.
answered Oct 4 at 2:13
ZeroTheHero
5958
Thanks for your answer. The insight was mine, but most of the proof of that insight was his (I was too lazy to try to complete the proof myself, so asked for help, and he proved it). Anyway, I will later (after my paper will be ready) again discuss this with Y.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:25
(I did not mean that the editor will evaluate the contribution of Y; I meant that the referees will)
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:28
@user237522 from your comments this person should definitely be co-author.
– ZeroTheHero
Oct 4 at 2:29
Could you please be more specific? Which comments exactly? (I agree that I feel that he should be a co-author. It is my problem that I was too lazy to complete the proof myself).
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:34
@user237522 Actually proving a result, even if the proof is guided or dependent from someone else’s insight, is IMO sufficient to be granted co-author status, unless the proof is quite trivial (undergraduate level). If really the proof was that trivial to complete, you would likely have done this yourself irrespective of your degree of laziness.
– ZeroTheHero
Oct 4 at 2:42
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
-3
down vote
It really depends on the relationship of the two people. If its student prof the person may want his student to have the recognition. He may just be humble. It wouldn't be too disrespectful to add him as either but definitely add him as one.
answered 2 days ago
user468190
1
New contributor
user468190 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
Disagree that it wouldn't be too disrespectful to add him as either. If he has not explicitly given permission to be included as a co-author, then it would be very disrespectful to include his name on the author list (there might be reasons for it you don't know about), and you are likely in breach of journal guidelines when you submit the paper and tick the box that all co-authors agree to the submission of the paper, etc.
– hdg204
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
62
down vote
accepted
The answer depends on how firmly Y has declined authorship. I don't think it's appropriate to ask the referees to decide on authorship.
- You cannot list Y as an author without his consent. If he has firmly refused to be an author, that is the end of it.
- If Y has simply indicated that acknowledgment is a sufficient form of credit, but left the door open to being an author then it's up to you. I have responded in this way sometimes when I felt my contribution was sufficient for authorship but I didn't want to step on anybody's toes. I try to err on the side of being generous with credit, so I would say to him
"I feel that your contribution warrants authorship. Are you willing to be listed as an author?"
If he still says no, then just acknowledge him. You can include the statement of how critical his part was in the acknowledgment.
answered Oct 4 at 7:19
David Ketcheson
26.8k681135
Thank you for your answer. I will again discuss co-authorship with him. Perhaps the decision of being a co-author or not, strongly depends on the level of the proof of result R. Since result R is in topic S, which I am not enough familiar with, I do not know what the level of the proof is. Anyway, I will leave the decision of being a co-author or not to him.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 12:12
I would consider adding "Y has declined co-authorship" in some form, depending on how the acknowledgement is worded; some may find it odd that someone who contributed enough to be considered one is merely acknowledged, not, er, an author.
– Nic Hartley
Oct 4 at 19:23
@NicHartley, thanks for your comment; I will consider what you have suggested, though I am not promising that eventually I will add that line. I guess that there are two main reasons why Y declined co-authorship: (1) Perhaps his contribution is not enough; his contribution may not be trivial for me, but trivial for researches in topic S. (2) It seems that his main area of research is not mathematics (although he seems good at it), so it is not so important for him to publish a math paper.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:35
Of course there may exist other/additional reasons: (3) He is afraid that my paper contains errors and does not like that his name will appear on such a paper. (4) He is just a very generous person.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:44
1
@NicHartley, ok, thanks for the clarification. (As I commented above, I will consider adding the line you suggested).
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:54
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
62
down vote
accepted
The answer depends on how firmly Y has declined authorship. I don't think it's appropriate to ask the referees to decide on authorship.
- You cannot list Y as an author without his consent. If he has firmly refused to be an author, that is the end of it.
- If Y has simply indicated that acknowledgment is a sufficient form of credit, but left the door open to being an author then it's up to you. I have responded in this way sometimes when I felt my contribution was sufficient for authorship but I didn't want to step on anybody's toes. I try to err on the side of being generous with credit, so I would say to him
"I feel that your contribution warrants authorship. Are you willing to be listed as an author?"
If he still says no, then just acknowledge him. You can include the statement of how critical his part was in the acknowledgment.
answered Oct 4 at 7:19
David Ketcheson
26.8k681135
Thank you for your answer. I will again discuss co-authorship with him. Perhaps the decision of being a co-author or not, strongly depends on the level of the proof of result R. Since result R is in topic S, which I am not enough familiar with, I do not know what the level of the proof is. Anyway, I will leave the decision of being a co-author or not to him.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 12:12
I would consider adding "Y has declined co-authorship" in some form, depending on how the acknowledgement is worded; some may find it odd that someone who contributed enough to be considered one is merely acknowledged, not, er, an author.
– Nic Hartley
Oct 4 at 19:23
@NicHartley, thanks for your comment; I will consider what you have suggested, though I am not promising that eventually I will add that line. I guess that there are two main reasons why Y declined co-authorship: (1) Perhaps his contribution is not enough; his contribution may not be trivial for me, but trivial for researches in topic S. (2) It seems that his main area of research is not mathematics (although he seems good at it), so it is not so important for him to publish a math paper.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:35
Of course there may exist other/additional reasons: (3) He is afraid that my paper contains errors and does not like that his name will appear on such a paper. (4) He is just a very generous person.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:44
1
@NicHartley, ok, thanks for the clarification. (As I commented above, I will consider adding the line you suggested).
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:54
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
62
down vote
accepted
up vote
62
down vote
accepted
The answer depends on how firmly Y has declined authorship. I don't think it's appropriate to ask the referees to decide on authorship.
- You cannot list Y as an author without his consent. If he has firmly refused to be an author, that is the end of it.
- If Y has simply indicated that acknowledgment is a sufficient form of credit, but left the door open to being an author then it's up to you. I have responded in this way sometimes when I felt my contribution was sufficient for authorship but I didn't want to step on anybody's toes. I try to err on the side of being generous with credit, so I would say to him
"I feel that your contribution warrants authorship. Are you willing to be listed as an author?"
If he still says no, then just acknowledge him. You can include the statement of how critical his part was in the acknowledgment.
answered Oct 4 at 7:19
David Ketcheson
26.8k681135
The answer depends on how firmly Y has declined authorship. I don't think it's appropriate to ask the referees to decide on authorship.
- You cannot list Y as an author without his consent. If he has firmly refused to be an author, that is the end of it.
- If Y has simply indicated that acknowledgment is a sufficient form of credit, but left the door open to being an author then it's up to you. I have responded in this way sometimes when I felt my contribution was sufficient for authorship but I didn't want to step on anybody's toes. I try to err on the side of being generous with credit, so I would say to him
"I feel that your contribution warrants authorship. Are you willing to be listed as an author?"
If he still says no, then just acknowledge him. You can include the statement of how critical his part was in the acknowledgment.
answered Oct 4 at 7:19
David Ketcheson
26.8k681135
answered Oct 4 at 7:19
David Ketcheson
26.8k681135
answered Oct 4 at 7:19
David Ketcheson
26.8k681135
answered Oct 4 at 7:19
David Ketcheson
26.8k681135
26.8k681135
Thank you for your answer. I will again discuss co-authorship with him. Perhaps the decision of being a co-author or not, strongly depends on the level of the proof of result R. Since result R is in topic S, which I am not enough familiar with, I do not know what the level of the proof is. Anyway, I will leave the decision of being a co-author or not to him.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 12:12
I would consider adding "Y has declined co-authorship" in some form, depending on how the acknowledgement is worded; some may find it odd that someone who contributed enough to be considered one is merely acknowledged, not, er, an author.
– Nic Hartley
Oct 4 at 19:23
@NicHartley, thanks for your comment; I will consider what you have suggested, though I am not promising that eventually I will add that line. I guess that there are two main reasons why Y declined co-authorship: (1) Perhaps his contribution is not enough; his contribution may not be trivial for me, but trivial for researches in topic S. (2) It seems that his main area of research is not mathematics (although he seems good at it), so it is not so important for him to publish a math paper.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:35
Of course there may exist other/additional reasons: (3) He is afraid that my paper contains errors and does not like that his name will appear on such a paper. (4) He is just a very generous person.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:44
1
@NicHartley, ok, thanks for the clarification. (As I commented above, I will consider adding the line you suggested).
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:54
 |Â
show 1 more comment
Thank you for your answer. I will again discuss co-authorship with him. Perhaps the decision of being a co-author or not, strongly depends on the level of the proof of result R. Since result R is in topic S, which I am not enough familiar with, I do not know what the level of the proof is. Anyway, I will leave the decision of being a co-author or not to him.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 12:12
I would consider adding "Y has declined co-authorship" in some form, depending on how the acknowledgement is worded; some may find it odd that someone who contributed enough to be considered one is merely acknowledged, not, er, an author.
– Nic Hartley
Oct 4 at 19:23
@NicHartley, thanks for your comment; I will consider what you have suggested, though I am not promising that eventually I will add that line. I guess that there are two main reasons why Y declined co-authorship: (1) Perhaps his contribution is not enough; his contribution may not be trivial for me, but trivial for researches in topic S. (2) It seems that his main area of research is not mathematics (although he seems good at it), so it is not so important for him to publish a math paper.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:35
Of course there may exist other/additional reasons: (3) He is afraid that my paper contains errors and does not like that his name will appear on such a paper. (4) He is just a very generous person.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:44
1
@NicHartley, ok, thanks for the clarification. (As I commented above, I will consider adding the line you suggested).
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:54
Thank you for your answer. I will again discuss co-authorship with him. Perhaps the decision of being a co-author or not, strongly depends on the level of the proof of result R. Since result R is in topic S, which I am not enough familiar with, I do not know what the level of the proof is. Anyway, I will leave the decision of being a co-author or not to him.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 12:12
Thank you for your answer. I will again discuss co-authorship with him. Perhaps the decision of being a co-author or not, strongly depends on the level of the proof of result R. Since result R is in topic S, which I am not enough familiar with, I do not know what the level of the proof is. Anyway, I will leave the decision of being a co-author or not to him.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 12:12
I would consider adding "Y has declined co-authorship" in some form, depending on how the acknowledgement is worded; some may find it odd that someone who contributed enough to be considered one is merely acknowledged, not, er, an author.
– Nic Hartley
Oct 4 at 19:23
I would consider adding "Y has declined co-authorship" in some form, depending on how the acknowledgement is worded; some may find it odd that someone who contributed enough to be considered one is merely acknowledged, not, er, an author.
– Nic Hartley
Oct 4 at 19:23
@NicHartley, thanks for your comment; I will consider what you have suggested, though I am not promising that eventually I will add that line. I guess that there are two main reasons why Y declined co-authorship: (1) Perhaps his contribution is not enough; his contribution may not be trivial for me, but trivial for researches in topic S. (2) It seems that his main area of research is not mathematics (although he seems good at it), so it is not so important for him to publish a math paper.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:35
@NicHartley, thanks for your comment; I will consider what you have suggested, though I am not promising that eventually I will add that line. I guess that there are two main reasons why Y declined co-authorship: (1) Perhaps his contribution is not enough; his contribution may not be trivial for me, but trivial for researches in topic S. (2) It seems that his main area of research is not mathematics (although he seems good at it), so it is not so important for him to publish a math paper.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:35
Of course there may exist other/additional reasons: (3) He is afraid that my paper contains errors and does not like that his name will appear on such a paper. (4) He is just a very generous person.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:44
Of course there may exist other/additional reasons: (3) He is afraid that my paper contains errors and does not like that his name will appear on such a paper. (4) He is just a very generous person.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:44
1
1
@NicHartley, ok, thanks for the clarification. (As I commented above, I will consider adding the line you suggested).
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:54
@NicHartley, ok, thanks for the clarification. (As I commented above, I will consider adding the line you suggested).
– user237522
Oct 4 at 20:54
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
No. Indeed a co-author could have provided invaluable input with a single insight/subresult to the paper or a part of the paper. I don’t think an editor can evaluate the contribution of any co-author.
If both of you feel the contribution is enough (and novel) then your other party should be a co-author.
answered Oct 4 at 2:13
ZeroTheHero
5958
Thanks for your answer. The insight was mine, but most of the proof of that insight was his (I was too lazy to try to complete the proof myself, so asked for help, and he proved it). Anyway, I will later (after my paper will be ready) again discuss this with Y.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:25
(I did not mean that the editor will evaluate the contribution of Y; I meant that the referees will)
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:28
@user237522 from your comments this person should definitely be co-author.
– ZeroTheHero
Oct 4 at 2:29
Could you please be more specific? Which comments exactly? (I agree that I feel that he should be a co-author. It is my problem that I was too lazy to complete the proof myself).
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:34
@user237522 Actually proving a result, even if the proof is guided or dependent from someone else’s insight, is IMO sufficient to be granted co-author status, unless the proof is quite trivial (undergraduate level). If really the proof was that trivial to complete, you would likely have done this yourself irrespective of your degree of laziness.
– ZeroTheHero
Oct 4 at 2:42
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
No. Indeed a co-author could have provided invaluable input with a single insight/subresult to the paper or a part of the paper. I don’t think an editor can evaluate the contribution of any co-author.
If both of you feel the contribution is enough (and novel) then your other party should be a co-author.
answered Oct 4 at 2:13
ZeroTheHero
5958
Thanks for your answer. The insight was mine, but most of the proof of that insight was his (I was too lazy to try to complete the proof myself, so asked for help, and he proved it). Anyway, I will later (after my paper will be ready) again discuss this with Y.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:25
(I did not mean that the editor will evaluate the contribution of Y; I meant that the referees will)
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:28
@user237522 from your comments this person should definitely be co-author.
– ZeroTheHero
Oct 4 at 2:29
Could you please be more specific? Which comments exactly? (I agree that I feel that he should be a co-author. It is my problem that I was too lazy to complete the proof myself).
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:34
@user237522 Actually proving a result, even if the proof is guided or dependent from someone else’s insight, is IMO sufficient to be granted co-author status, unless the proof is quite trivial (undergraduate level). If really the proof was that trivial to complete, you would likely have done this yourself irrespective of your degree of laziness.
– ZeroTheHero
Oct 4 at 2:42
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
No. Indeed a co-author could have provided invaluable input with a single insight/subresult to the paper or a part of the paper. I don’t think an editor can evaluate the contribution of any co-author.
If both of you feel the contribution is enough (and novel) then your other party should be a co-author.
answered Oct 4 at 2:13
ZeroTheHero
5958
No. Indeed a co-author could have provided invaluable input with a single insight/subresult to the paper or a part of the paper. I don’t think an editor can evaluate the contribution of any co-author.
If both of you feel the contribution is enough (and novel) then your other party should be a co-author.
answered Oct 4 at 2:13
ZeroTheHero
5958
edited Oct 4 at 13:54
answered Oct 4 at 2:13
ZeroTheHero
5958
answered Oct 4 at 2:13
ZeroTheHero
5958
answered Oct 4 at 2:13
ZeroTheHero
5958
5958
Thanks for your answer. The insight was mine, but most of the proof of that insight was his (I was too lazy to try to complete the proof myself, so asked for help, and he proved it). Anyway, I will later (after my paper will be ready) again discuss this with Y.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:25
(I did not mean that the editor will evaluate the contribution of Y; I meant that the referees will)
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:28
@user237522 from your comments this person should definitely be co-author.
– ZeroTheHero
Oct 4 at 2:29
Could you please be more specific? Which comments exactly? (I agree that I feel that he should be a co-author. It is my problem that I was too lazy to complete the proof myself).
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:34
@user237522 Actually proving a result, even if the proof is guided or dependent from someone else’s insight, is IMO sufficient to be granted co-author status, unless the proof is quite trivial (undergraduate level). If really the proof was that trivial to complete, you would likely have done this yourself irrespective of your degree of laziness.
– ZeroTheHero
Oct 4 at 2:42
 |Â
show 7 more comments
Thanks for your answer. The insight was mine, but most of the proof of that insight was his (I was too lazy to try to complete the proof myself, so asked for help, and he proved it). Anyway, I will later (after my paper will be ready) again discuss this with Y.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:25
(I did not mean that the editor will evaluate the contribution of Y; I meant that the referees will)
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:28
@user237522 from your comments this person should definitely be co-author.
– ZeroTheHero
Oct 4 at 2:29
Could you please be more specific? Which comments exactly? (I agree that I feel that he should be a co-author. It is my problem that I was too lazy to complete the proof myself).
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:34
@user237522 Actually proving a result, even if the proof is guided or dependent from someone else’s insight, is IMO sufficient to be granted co-author status, unless the proof is quite trivial (undergraduate level). If really the proof was that trivial to complete, you would likely have done this yourself irrespective of your degree of laziness.
– ZeroTheHero
Oct 4 at 2:42
Thanks for your answer. The insight was mine, but most of the proof of that insight was his (I was too lazy to try to complete the proof myself, so asked for help, and he proved it). Anyway, I will later (after my paper will be ready) again discuss this with Y.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:25
Thanks for your answer. The insight was mine, but most of the proof of that insight was his (I was too lazy to try to complete the proof myself, so asked for help, and he proved it). Anyway, I will later (after my paper will be ready) again discuss this with Y.
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:25
(I did not mean that the editor will evaluate the contribution of Y; I meant that the referees will)
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:28
(I did not mean that the editor will evaluate the contribution of Y; I meant that the referees will)
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:28
@user237522 from your comments this person should definitely be co-author.
– ZeroTheHero
Oct 4 at 2:29
@user237522 from your comments this person should definitely be co-author.
– ZeroTheHero
Oct 4 at 2:29
Could you please be more specific? Which comments exactly? (I agree that I feel that he should be a co-author. It is my problem that I was too lazy to complete the proof myself).
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:34
Could you please be more specific? Which comments exactly? (I agree that I feel that he should be a co-author. It is my problem that I was too lazy to complete the proof myself).
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:34
@user237522 Actually proving a result, even if the proof is guided or dependent from someone else’s insight, is IMO sufficient to be granted co-author status, unless the proof is quite trivial (undergraduate level). If really the proof was that trivial to complete, you would likely have done this yourself irrespective of your degree of laziness.
– ZeroTheHero
Oct 4 at 2:42
@user237522 Actually proving a result, even if the proof is guided or dependent from someone else’s insight, is IMO sufficient to be granted co-author status, unless the proof is quite trivial (undergraduate level). If really the proof was that trivial to complete, you would likely have done this yourself irrespective of your degree of laziness.
– ZeroTheHero
Oct 4 at 2:42
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
-3
down vote
It really depends on the relationship of the two people. If its student prof the person may want his student to have the recognition. He may just be humble. It wouldn't be too disrespectful to add him as either but definitely add him as one.
answered 2 days ago
user468190
1
New contributor
user468190 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
Disagree that it wouldn't be too disrespectful to add him as either. If he has not explicitly given permission to be included as a co-author, then it would be very disrespectful to include his name on the author list (there might be reasons for it you don't know about), and you are likely in breach of journal guidelines when you submit the paper and tick the box that all co-authors agree to the submission of the paper, etc.
– hdg204
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-3
down vote
It really depends on the relationship of the two people. If its student prof the person may want his student to have the recognition. He may just be humble. It wouldn't be too disrespectful to add him as either but definitely add him as one.
answered 2 days ago
user468190
1
New contributor
user468190 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
Disagree that it wouldn't be too disrespectful to add him as either. If he has not explicitly given permission to be included as a co-author, then it would be very disrespectful to include his name on the author list (there might be reasons for it you don't know about), and you are likely in breach of journal guidelines when you submit the paper and tick the box that all co-authors agree to the submission of the paper, etc.
– hdg204
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-3
down vote
up vote
-3
down vote
It really depends on the relationship of the two people. If its student prof the person may want his student to have the recognition. He may just be humble. It wouldn't be too disrespectful to add him as either but definitely add him as one.
answered 2 days ago
user468190
1
New contributor
user468190 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It really depends on the relationship of the two people. If its student prof the person may want his student to have the recognition. He may just be humble. It wouldn't be too disrespectful to add him as either but definitely add him as one.
answered 2 days ago
user468190
1
New contributor
user468190 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 days ago
user468190
1
New contributor
user468190 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 days ago
user468190
1
answered 2 days ago
user468190
1
1
New contributor
user468190 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user468190 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user468190 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
Disagree that it wouldn't be too disrespectful to add him as either. If he has not explicitly given permission to be included as a co-author, then it would be very disrespectful to include his name on the author list (there might be reasons for it you don't know about), and you are likely in breach of journal guidelines when you submit the paper and tick the box that all co-authors agree to the submission of the paper, etc.
– hdg204
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
3
Disagree that it wouldn't be too disrespectful to add him as either. If he has not explicitly given permission to be included as a co-author, then it would be very disrespectful to include his name on the author list (there might be reasons for it you don't know about), and you are likely in breach of journal guidelines when you submit the paper and tick the box that all co-authors agree to the submission of the paper, etc.
– hdg204
2 days ago
3
3
Disagree that it wouldn't be too disrespectful to add him as either. If he has not explicitly given permission to be included as a co-author, then it would be very disrespectful to include his name on the author list (there might be reasons for it you don't know about), and you are likely in breach of journal guidelines when you submit the paper and tick the box that all co-authors agree to the submission of the paper, etc.
– hdg204
2 days ago
Disagree that it wouldn't be too disrespectful to add him as either. If he has not explicitly given permission to be included as a co-author, then it would be very disrespectful to include his name on the author list (there might be reasons for it you don't know about), and you are likely in breach of journal guidelines when you submit the paper and tick the box that all co-authors agree to the submission of the paper, etc.
– hdg204
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
user237522 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user237522 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user237522 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user237522 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f117889%2fmy-collaborator-has-asked-to-be-only-acknowledged-in-a-paper-should-i-make-him%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
2
Thanks for the comment. ok, I will slightly change the title. Thanks for notifying me about the other question. However, I guess that there are differences between mathematics and other topics, aren't they? For example, in brain research people from different topics collaborate and we do not expect that one will understand what exactly the other did, but in a math paper I would expect that every author will understand what his friend did. Or perhaps I am wrong?
– user237522
Oct 4 at 2:43
5
This seems completely clear to me. Honor the request of your colleague. There shouldn't be any question of it. Note that you may not even know all the reasons for their request. Just put a nice ack in the paper.
– Buffy
Oct 4 at 14:38
7
I prefer 'Alice' and 'Bob' - but I guess that's why it's a mathematics paper.
– Strawberry
Oct 4 at 14:38
15
Can I recommend not writing questions that read like predicate calculus formulas? Having a couple of named variables can be helpful but, honestly, I gave up reading your question at the point where you were asking me to remember what six different arbitrary letters mean.
– David Richerby
Oct 4 at 15:30
3
X, perhaps you could edit Q, according to the suggestions of D, who was expanding on a point made by S_2. That way any O reading your Q will be able to understand it much quicker. (Q= question, D= @DavidRicherby, S_2= @ Strawberry, O= Other user).
– HRSE
Oct 5 at 2:27