Timeline for Math paper authors' order
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10, 2014 at 10:33 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by S. Carnahan♦ | ||
| May 18, 2010 at 12:38 | comment | added | Gerald Edgar | There was a paper written by some statisticians here at Ohio State. I solved a mathematical problem for them, this was reported in an appendix. However, when the journal referee reports came it, the journal said I should be added as an author. So I was ... And that's why the names are not alphabetical: Rao, C. Radhakrishna; Srivastava, R. C.; Talwalker, Sheela; Edgar, Gerald A. Characterization of probability distributions based on a generalized Rao--Rubin condition. Sankhyā Ser. A 42 (1980), no. 3-4, 161--169. | |
| Apr 3, 2010 at 21:14 | comment | added | user4977 | I agree that this is, in some instances, a good way to incorporate author A's contribution and make sure that author A gets credit. But could it cause problems if author A thinks his/her contribution is too significant to be banished to an appendix? I mean, if author A was not a particularly agreeable person and thought the paper would be rubbish without his/her "crucial" proof, author A might fight with the other authors for a full co-authorship. I have no idea if this situation really happens. Perhaps this is why Hardy and Littlewood had their fourth axiom... | |
| Apr 3, 2010 at 20:33 | comment | added | GMRA | Absolutely, I mean here that author A found a proof of a lemma that the others were stuck on or something like that. | |
| Apr 3, 2010 at 20:10 | comment | added | Michael Lugo | This is a reasonable strategy, but only in the case when the contribution of author A can be easily separated from the rest of the paper. | |
| Apr 3, 2010 at 19:42 | history | answered | GMRA | CC BY-SA 2.5 |