Timeline for Math paper authors' order
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
46 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 2, 2019 at 4:25 | review | Close votes | |||
| Feb 3, 2019 at 11:05 | |||||
| Dec 1, 2017 at 4:10 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 1, 2017 at 10:09 | |||||
| Sep 28, 2016 at 13:28 | history | edited | Gerry Myerson |
edited tags
|
|
| Sep 28, 2016 at 10:49 | answer | added | user21230 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 10, 2014 at 10:33 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by S. Carnahan♦ | ||
| Sep 16, 2010 at 22:08 | comment | added | Apurva | @Barbara, (sadly), obtaining funding for a lab is considered valid criteria for claiming authorship according to the American Medical Association. See my comment below regarding their authorship form requirements. | |
| Sep 8, 2010 at 15:51 | answer | added | Colin Reid | timeline score: 29 | |
| Sep 5, 2010 at 21:19 | comment | added | sleepless in beantown | For the nonacademics here, let me point out that a "PT committee" is a Promotion-Tenure committee which reviews hired professors' academic progress and decides whether to grant tenure and advance them up the academic ladder. That's why it's surprising to hear of a student being on such a committee. | |
| Sep 2, 2010 at 23:24 | answer | added | Apurva | timeline score: 4 | |
| Aug 26, 2010 at 8:49 | comment | added | Barbara | For books there is often pressure by editors to put the most famous author first. And yes, it has to be explained to scientists in other fields. Also, mathematicians don't sign a paper unless they worked on it (as opposed to, say, getting funding for the lab). | |
| Aug 26, 2010 at 8:03 | comment | added | Matthieu Romagny | Kevin, I know that Frans Oort himself claims the authors of the Tate-Oort paper should be written in that order. | |
| Aug 26, 2010 at 4:22 | answer | added | Nate Eldredge | timeline score: 30 | |
| Aug 26, 2010 at 1:16 | answer | added | sleepless in beantown | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 23, 2010 at 23:22 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | I note Birkhoff and Mac Lane, A Survey Of Modern Algebra, and Mac Lane and Birkhoff, Algebra. I guess if there had been a third author, they would have needed to write 6 books. | |
| Aug 23, 2010 at 18:27 | comment | added | Sean Tilson | It was indeed valuable. Apparently, there is always the option at my institution for a graduate student to be present on such a committee. That year we had two people up in front of the committee and no professors on the committee, so the deans office gave the department the option. It was very disheartening, they also wanted to know who did how much of each paper since the authorship is alphabetical. It seemed a bit anti-intellectual. | |
| Aug 23, 2010 at 16:52 | comment | added | Thierry Zell | @Sean: you served on a PT committee as a student??? Wow! I never realized there were institutions where this happened... Still, it must have been a valuable experience for you at least. | |
| Aug 23, 2010 at 16:49 | comment | added | Thierry Zell | It is the norm, but not an absolute rule, and one would do well to heed exceptions to that rule, as anyone who may have insisted on changing the "natural" order of names may feel strongly about this and have the clout to back these feelings up (let's just say I've heard stories...) | |
| Aug 23, 2010 at 16:15 | answer | added | Micah Milinovich | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 18, 2010 at 3:46 | answer | added | Pierre-Yves Gaillard | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 23, 2010 at 15:29 | history | edited | Charles Stewart |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 20, 2010 at 14:24 | comment | added | Mark Meckes | @D. Savitt: On the other hand, in math we do have "conference proceedings" which are usually refereed and don't necessarily correspond to any talks at the actual conference. It may be important for mathematicians to point out that these are refereed, stand-alone papers since in some other fields conference papers may or may not be refereed, or may be essentially extended abstracts for a journal article to come. | |
| Apr 3, 2010 at 22:01 | history | edited | Pete L. Clark | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 1 characters in body
|
| Apr 3, 2010 at 19:42 | answer | added | GMRA | timeline score: 9 | |
| Apr 3, 2010 at 18:29 | answer | added | Alexander Woo | timeline score: 21 | |
| Apr 2, 2010 at 12:44 | answer | added | Douglas S. Stones | timeline score: 4 | |
| Apr 2, 2010 at 5:45 | comment | added | D. Savitt | @Sean: interesting. At my university our tenure files include a cover sheet that explain the various norms in mathematics that might be surprising to committee members in other fields. One is the convention that authors are listed in alphabetical order; another is that we have no tradition of refereed conference papers or book chapters. | |
| Apr 2, 2010 at 2:12 | comment | added | Sean Tilson | I once served on a PT committee for the liberal arts and sciences college where they did not believe that this was the standard. Since i was only a student they waited until the chair came in. They even asked how one would know who did the majority of the work? which is odd since in chemistry despite the ordering the person most involved is near the end most of the time. | |
| Apr 2, 2010 at 1:41 | comment | added | Gerald Edgar | @Dave: Perron-Frobenius is not a joint paper. Perron proved the first version, then later Frobenius proved a generalization. | |
| Apr 2, 2010 at 1:24 | answer | added | KConrad | timeline score: 24 | |
| Apr 1, 2010 at 23:31 | answer | added | Leah Wrenn Berman | timeline score: 57 | |
| Apr 1, 2010 at 17:19 | comment | added | Dave Penneys | Temperley-Lieb is a pretty famous counterexample. And why is Perron-Frobenius not Frobenius-Perron? | |
| Apr 1, 2010 at 16:50 | answer | added | Douglas Zare | timeline score: 17 | |
| Apr 1, 2010 at 5:58 | answer | added | Dylan Thurston | timeline score: 63 | |
| Apr 1, 2010 at 4:48 | comment | added | abcdxyz | This really surprises me, I always thought that the main author name will be put first. I was taught by biologists. :D | |
| Mar 31, 2010 at 23:28 | comment | added | LSpice | I've always found it interesting that Benson–Grove (1st edition) became Grove–Benson (2nd edition). At a far more elementary level, I've always been interested in the dedication to some late edition (the 8th?) of Boyce–DiPrima's differential equations book, which (from rough memory) is by Boyce, and reads “To my wife, who provided an enormous amount of help. In a very real sense, this was a joint project.” I seem to remember that this apparent puzzling neglect of the second author actually stems from the fact that he is deceased, and that his name remains on the book for historical reasons. | |
| Mar 31, 2010 at 21:54 | answer | added | user4977 | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 31, 2010 at 21:22 | history | edited | Reid Barton | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
edited title
|
| Mar 31, 2010 at 21:07 | answer | added | Igor Pak | timeline score: 27 | |
| Mar 31, 2010 at 20:36 | answer | added | Ben Fairbairn | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 31, 2010 at 19:58 | answer | added | John Stillwell | timeline score: 9 | |
| Mar 31, 2010 at 19:49 | answer | added | Leonid Petrov | timeline score: 29 | |
| Mar 31, 2010 at 19:43 | history | edited | lemega | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
edited body
|
| Mar 31, 2010 at 19:35 | comment | added | Kevin Buzzard | It's the norm in mathematics. There are very few exceptions. I think the Oort-Tate paper is Tate-Oort? But everyone refers to it as Oort-Tate. Similarly the Faltings-Chai book: I refer to it as Chai-Faltings but others don't. | |
| Mar 31, 2010 at 19:34 | answer | added | Ryan Williams | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 31, 2010 at 19:30 | comment | added | Steve Huntsman | Physicists once decided to add an author in order to take this practice to an extreme. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpher%E2%80%93Bethe%E2%80%93Gamow_paper | |
| Mar 31, 2010 at 19:18 | history | asked | lemega | CC BY-SA 2.5 |