Timeline for Dealing with unwanted co-authorship requests
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
122 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 17, 2017 at 3:01 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 17, 2017 at 13:49 | |||||
| Dec 12, 2017 at 0:59 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak |
added (publishing) tag - if you think it does not fit, feel free to revert my tag-edit
|
|
| Dec 11, 2017 at 4:48 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 11, 2017 at 10:00 | |||||
| S Dec 5, 2017 at 20:39 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| S Dec 5, 2017 at 20:39 | history | unlocked | CommunityBot | ||
| S Nov 28, 2017 at 22:03 | history | bounty ended | user0100661 | ||
| S Nov 28, 2017 at 22:03 | history | notice removed | user0100661 | ||
| S Nov 28, 2017 at 19:56 | history | notice added | Kim Morrison | Comments only | |
| S Nov 28, 2017 at 19:56 | history | locked | Kim Morrison | ||
| Nov 28, 2017 at 19:55 | comment | added | Kim Morrison | I think this conversation has run it's course. Let's stop the discussion in the comments, now. | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 17:43 | comment | added | user0100661 | @GerhardPaseman: I accept your criticism and promise to never ask another question on this forum. Nevertheless, the whole process has been extremely helpful. | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 17:36 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | I consider this an abuse of the forum, partly for withholding information, partly for soliciting opinion, partly for instilling discussion of the wrong nature (this forum is not meant for politics), but mostly for continued editing. There was a better way to handle this, and you ignored it. | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 17:19 | answer | added | Wlodek Kuperberg | timeline score: 14 | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 17:11 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 533 characters in body
|
| Nov 27, 2017 at 22:48 | comment | added | user0100661 | @AndréHenriques: In addition, I have never actually seen myself how bad this problem is, so there is a chance that I will have to confront Alice in the future. | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 22:43 | comment | added | user0100661 | @AndréHenriques: It may come to that, but first I try to give good advice and let Bobby handle this herself and try to resolve it amicably. The discussion here has given me a good perspective of the variety of attitudes that people have, and why one should to be careful. | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 22:34 | comment | added | André Henriques | Note that, even though this might be directly harmful to Bobby, there is some argument to be made in favour of confronting Alice: calling bullies out can prevent them from repeating their bullying in the future... (I'm just reading the subtext of "Alice is a powerful person in the field known for aggressive backing of her PhD students "). | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 22:28 | comment | added | user0100661 | @AndréHenriques: I'm not afraid of Alice. I do not want to cause any problems to Bobby later on, but I can assure you that I am doing my best to handle the situation indirectly. | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 22:23 | comment | added | André Henriques | Concerning the added piece of information: "I am Bobby's PhD advisor. I can not interfere directly because Alice is a powerful person in the field". If even you, user0100661, are afraid of Alice, then I would say that Bobby has no chance. When facing bullies, people should stand up and help each other. It is an advisor's duty to protect a student against a bully. | |
| S Nov 27, 2017 at 22:01 | history | bounty started | user0100661 | ||
| S Nov 27, 2017 at 22:01 | history | notice added | user0100661 | Draw attention | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 19:56 | history | reopened |
David Handelman paul garrett Timothy Chow Pietro Majer Suvrit |
||
| Nov 27, 2017 at 14:55 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | I guess I don't see that as a great justification, but I can see that B might be in a bit of a bind, particularly if A is the type who might do B harm if she doesn't get her way. (But again, I can't shake the feeling that there could be more to the story.) Just cements the feeling that MO isn't the right place for this -- it's not really mathematician-specific in the first place. OTOH there's Academia, and there's also an SE site about dealing with workplace environments which merit consideration. I wish you good luck. | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 14:47 | comment | added | user0100661 | @ToddTrimble: Fair enough. I thought the meaning was clear from the context, but clarification is needed. By the way, Igor Rivin's comment was added later to give an idea why including Alice as a coauthor is somewhat justified. | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 14:38 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | No, what you wrote is that A insisted that C be listed as co-author; that's not the part I was referring to. I was referring to the part where you wrote, "Bobby had no problem with Alice joining her as a coauthor for the reasons mentioned by Igor Rivin below (I include you as a coauthor, you write me a good recommendation)." Listen, all we have to go on is what you wrote, and all I'm saying is that based on that, it wasn't clear to me that B's actions were totally above board. Maybe they are, but the description left me confused. | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 14:27 | comment | added | user0100661 | @ToddTrimble: Please read carefully what I wrote. A insisted. B did not mind given the situation. Of course B should have been the sole author. | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 14:27 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Just one more thing: there are flags calling for the OP not to make any more essentially trivial edits. Each edit bumps the question to the top of the Active page, thus pushing other questions off the front page that are also crying out for attention. | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 14:22 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | FWIW, I don't think it's been emphasized enough that according to the information in the post, B (who I guess we're supposed to sympathize with) doesn't seem to be morally impeccable here either. Igor Rivin mentioned the quid pro quo aspect (you can be a co-author if you write me a good recommendation), which to me seems fishy. In fact, A may feel B is using her, and that she fully deserves to be a co-author without conditions, and so may be feeling, "well, if we're going to play that game, then..." I think this question is a poor fit for MO, and you won't get a better answer than Joel's. | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 14:15 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 233 characters in body
|
| Nov 27, 2017 at 13:47 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Nov 27, 2017 at 11:49 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | The question is (currently) on hold because five respected users have voted to put it on hold. There are currently four votes to reopen – five are needed. | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 10:48 | comment | added | user0100661 | @YemonChoi: I have edited following people's suggestions and never changed the gist of the question. Why is it disingenuous? And why is the question still on hold? | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 10:46 | comment | added | user0100661 | @ToddTrimble: It was just a joke. | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 10:45 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Nov 27, 2017 at 3:11 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I am finding the repeated editing of this question really quite wearisome, verging on disingenuous. | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 2:45 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | I have problems with this question not only because ethical situations are largely off-topic, but because as others have said, we really do lack full information. And I urge removal of this "[don't put the future]" before [on hold] -- it's a meta-commentary on the community reaction which logically doesn't belong to the question, and smacks of guilt-tripping. | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 0:18 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body; edited title
|
| Nov 26, 2017 at 21:58 | comment | added | user0100661 | @NoahSnyder: This is a very good point that most people forget. C has a say, but in the example I am talking about, C is neither as innocent nor as noble as you. | |
| Nov 26, 2017 at 17:49 | comment | added | Noah Snyder | I was in a pretty similar situation as a graduate student where I really don't think anyone was behaving badly, so I don't think it's obvious that someone is behaving badly here. Fortunately I was C and was social aware enough to see that A was unhappy, and so I just worked on other things instead and stayed off the project. So I know how to give advice here for C but not for A. | |
| Nov 26, 2017 at 16:09 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 84 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Nov 25, 2017 at 19:05 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 10 characters in body
|
| Nov 25, 2017 at 10:58 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 11 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Nov 25, 2017 at 0:23 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2101 characters in body
|
| Nov 24, 2017 at 16:26 | comment | added | James Smith | @user0100661 it appears that someone already has (none other than jdh now that i glance up)... | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 15:02 | vote | accept | user0100661 | ||
| Nov 24, 2017 at 15:02 | vote | accept | user0100661 | ||
| Nov 24, 2017 at 15:02 | |||||
| Nov 24, 2017 at 14:21 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1526 characters in body
|
| Nov 24, 2017 at 13:28 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Nov 24, 2017 at 15:58 | |||||
| Nov 24, 2017 at 13:13 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 204 characters in body
|
| Nov 24, 2017 at 12:23 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @AndréHenriques Email me if you wish to discuss this further. One thing I have learned in my not-so-illustrious career is that many things concerning (mathematical) academia are not as clear-cut, nor as black-and-white, as actual mathematics. One thing I learned at school is also the difference between primary and secondary sources. | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 11:02 | comment | added | user0100661 | @JoelDavidHamkins: Thank you for the suggestion. I changed the title. | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 10:45 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Nov 24, 2017 at 10:41 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Nov 24, 2017 at 6:27 | history | closed |
Gerhard Paseman Amritanshu Prasad R W abx R. van Dobben de Bruyn |
Opinion-based | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 4:38 | comment | added | roy smith | Although there are several excellent responses, overall I find this discussion tends to be depressing and divisive, and so I agree with those who ask to put it elsewhere. | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 3:30 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 24, 2017 at 6:32 | |||||
| Nov 24, 2017 at 3:20 | answer | added | Brendan McKay | timeline score: 19 | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 3:08 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Could you kindly change the title? I suggest something like: What to do about unwelcome requests for co-authorship? | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 2:55 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 36 | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 2:54 | history | reopened |
John Pardon André Henriques Stefan Kohl♦ Stanley Yao Xiao Joel David Hamkins |
||
| Nov 24, 2017 at 2:13 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | @user0100661: This is the wrong forum for this question. If it gets reopened, I will vote to reclose it. Not for the reason that I am part of the "old mathematician network" (I am outside academics), but for the reason that MathOverflow is for resolving mathematical issues, not political ones. (There are also opinion and discussion related problems with the question.) However you may feel, this is not an appropriate (for this forum) sequel to the question you cite. Better asked in workplace.se or academia.se. Gerhard "Takes His Votes Extremely Seriously" Paseman, 2017.11.23. | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 1:10 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 66 characters in body
|
| Nov 24, 2017 at 1:04 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Nov 24, 2017 at 0:23 | comment | added | André Henriques | @Yemon Choi: I think that the reason why so many people feel defensive and uneasy discussing this topic is because it is taboo. | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 0:14 | comment | added | user0100661 | @YemonChoi: Yes. I rephrased the question. | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 0:13 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Nov 24, 2017 at 0:07 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Can you please clarify a point which was raised above. If the junior mathematician wrote up the result, what does it mean to say "The senior mathematician also signed the paper"? Does this mean "the junior mathematician agreed to let the senior mathematician be listed as a coauthor"? | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 0:04 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | Thanks, I understand now. Well, all I can say is that the post you refer to is from some years ago, perhaps when academia.SE was in its infancy? I am not a fan of the older question in any case, for much the same reasons that I mention above | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 0:02 | comment | added | user0100661 | @YemonChoi: This post is a sequel to "Collaboration or acknowledgment?". The question I asked is not that far from the topic of that post. Why is my question off topic while "Collaboration or acknowledgment?" is not off topic? | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 23:58 | comment | added | user0100661 | @YemonChoi: What is the difference between this and "Collaboration or acknowledgment?"? | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 23:57 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | My final comment for now: the latest edit says: "I do not agree that it is not useful to discuss these issues in a public forum." But this is one of my points. MathOverflow is not a place for discussing the issues of academic mathematicians in a public forum. I don't think it should be a place for soliciting opinions or `bringing things to people's attention' | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 23:43 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 206 characters in body
|
| Nov 23, 2017 at 23:16 | comment | added | user0100661 | @AndréHenriques: I updated the question. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 23:15 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 320 characters in body
|
| Nov 23, 2017 at 23:13 | comment | added | André Henriques | @user010061: I think that the words "unfairly diluted" perfectly capture the essence of the question. I suggest rewording the question to include those words. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 23:04 | comment | added | user0100661 | @StefanKohl: Yes, this is correct. Bob had no problem with Alice joining him as a coauthor for the reasons mentioned by Igor Rivin. Thus, rather than stealing credit, the credit was unfairly diluted by including Charlie who had not contributed. Igor Rivin also mentioned that this is not a new phenomenon, which I am surprised to hear. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 22:53 | comment | added | Stefan Kohl♦ | The question basically suggests that Alice has stolen credit for Bob's result. -- Is this reading basically correct? If yes, then I think Bob has all the right to approach Alice and complain. If the paper has not yet been published, he may reasonably claim the right to publish the result for himself, acknowledging that the question is by Alice. If the paper has already been published, then things get really awkward, since the issue is then no longer an issue between the three colleagues, but a public issue. A public issue, which Bob has all the right to discuss in public. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 22:36 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | @user0100661 I should say that a lot of these things are cultural. In applied mathematics, the advisor is (almost) always a coauthor on papers constituting a student's PhD thesis, in pure mathematics, almost never. Since I come from the latter world, I believe that this is a better practice, but I am aware that applied mathematicians might consider me insane. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 22:34 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | @user0100661 "A senior mathematician suggests". Why do you say yes? There are a number of possible reasons. 1. S/he had something to do with the paper. In that case, S/he should be a coauthor (unfortunately, in mathematics there is no mechanism to order the authors). 2. S/he had nothing to do with the paper. In which case, you are under no obligation to include him/her as a coauthor. However, you might have decided that there is a quid pro quo (I include you as a coauthor, you write me a good recommendation). In that case, you can weigh the positives and negatives, and don't need us to help. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 22:31 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | @YonatanHarpaz Thank you. That was exactly the source of my own confusion (what does "sign" mean? How can one insist on being coathor if one had nothing to do with the paper to begin with?) By the way, people insisting that their students be coathors on papers they did not have much to do with is not a new phenomenon by any means. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 22:21 | comment | added | Yonatan Harpaz | Since the question says the Alice signed the paper I'm assuming it means Alice actually wrote some of it. Writing is not a negligible part and often requires solving hidden details that were not apparent "on the board". If this is the case, then Alice is a legitimate coauthor to begin with, and if she feels that Charlie played a significant part she can suggest to add him, and will have equal say in the matter either way. So here is my advice to Bob: next time, if you want to sign a paper alone, write it alone from beginning to end. Then it will be only you who decides who to put in \author. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 22:11 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 33 characters in body
|
| Nov 23, 2017 at 22:11 | comment | added | user0100661 | @YCor: I updated the question. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 22:09 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 62 characters in body
|
| Nov 23, 2017 at 22:04 | comment | added | André Henriques | @Yemon Choi. I'm think that we agree: "if this is what happened, it is out of order". But we're not being asked to judge whether this happened or not. The fact that this is what happened is the premise of the question. The question is: what to do then? Now, I'm afraid that there is not good answer to that question. But the fact that there is no good answer doesn't mean that it was bad question to ask. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 22:03 | comment | added | Mare | I think the question is interesting and it would be good to move it to academia and let it open. My opinion is that it is ok to be a coauthor if one poses the problem/has the idea and also worked on it to provide good evidence that the problem might have a positive solution. Just posing the problem as a sheer guess is not enough in my opinion usually. In case the Phdstudent also worked on the problem and provided some evidence,it is ok to include him I think. It also depends of course on how big the problem and the solution are.Ifyou wrote a300 page solutionyou probably deserve topublish alone | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 21:56 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 55 characters in body
|
| Nov 23, 2017 at 21:50 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 55 characters in body
|
| Nov 23, 2017 at 21:45 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @user0100661 thanks for the revision. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 21:42 | comment | added | user0100661 | @YemonChoi: I tried to make it clear that it is out of order and I did not ask anyone to be a judge. I asked how to better handle such a situation. One good advice was to be generous. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 21:41 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @AndréHenriques I mean, why don't I post MO questions saying: is it acceptable for people to have introductions to their papers which are verging on plagiarizing expository passages in papers I have written? Answer: if I wanted to open that can of worms, I would post it on a blog or G+ or whatever. Or maybe even see if "tea" is still open these days. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 21:38 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @AndréHenriques Let me blunter, then. If this is what happened, it is out of order. I see no point having an MO question which is there just to solicit responses like that, especially when I quite honestly do not know the background context. Just because someone tells me "this is what the situation is", that does not prove to me "that is what the situation is". I have seen many other things spun as "X, which is obviously wrong" when actually what happened is "Y, which has some features in common with X but has a completely opposing emphasis" | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 21:38 | comment | added | user0100661 | @JoelDavidHamkins: As I wrote, the senior mathematician and his PhD student did not have any partial results. When you requested to add one of your students, at least your own contribution was clear. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 21:34 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Part of the information that we lack is what the contribution of the PhD student was. I have had research collaborations where I requested to add one of my students as co-authors, because that student and I had extensive joint work on the problem, even though there would be no way for the third author to know about this directly. (But also: I would never "sign my name" as co-author; the co-authorship issue would be discussed openly and with the goal of reaching broad agreement.) | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 21:32 | comment | added | André Henriques | I am shocked to see how many people try to protect the status quo, and say things like "we don't have enough information, so we can't judge". Yes, there's enough information! And yes, it's wrong for a senior mathematician to push for a PhD student of his to be coauthor of a paper of someone else! It's wrong, and it's unacceptable. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 21:32 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 124 characters in body
|
| Nov 23, 2017 at 21:30 | comment | added | user0100661 | @YemonChoi: It is impossible to present the actual evidence but the question makes sense without evidence. It seems that it is easier for people to justify the situation that take it at face value. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 21:29 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | To clarify my comment above, I did not intend necessarily to defend the professor's action in this case, since you haven't provided sufficient information to judge. Although I find question-asking to be often sufficient for co-authorship, I also believe that this decision on this should rest largely with the other author: the theorem-proving author should invite the question-asker to co-authorship. As described in the question, with the senior person adding his name, it seems off to me. But we need to know more. Let me add that I am put off by the moralizing tone of the question. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 21:25 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Nov 23, 2017 at 23:22 | |||||
| Nov 23, 2017 at 21:23 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I would like to disagree with the comment made in the edited version of the question. Just because I have voted to close this question, you should not infer anything about my views on the ethics of the situation that you have described but for which I do not have any sight of the actual evidence. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 21:09 | history | edited | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 124 characters in body
|
| Nov 23, 2017 at 21:08 | comment | added | user0100661 | @YiftachBarnea: I cannot go into details but that is not the case. It was the type of problem where you have to find the answer to solve the problem and where the question itself was not invented by the senior mathematician. Your advice is very good though. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 20:50 | comment | added | Yiftach Barnea | From your description it is completely possible that the senior mathematician reached the final formulation of the question with the help of the PhD students. In that case, the student certainly deserves credit. Generally, my advice is that it is always better to err in the direction of generosity. Otherwise, people would not like to work with you. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 20:39 | history | closed |
Andrés E. Caicedo Alexandre Eremenko Wojowu Yemon Choi Qiaochu Yuan |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 20:22 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I'm voting to close this question because it is about academic practice, and because it seems likely to degenerate into discussion based on only partial information | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 19:25 | comment | added | user0100661 | @James Smith: Can you please suggest a better title? | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 19:25 | comment | added | user0100661 | @Christian Remling: Public forum might be the right place because some people do not even see this behaviour as unethical. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 19:23 | comment | added | user0100661 | @Igor Rivin: A senior mathematician suggests they write the paper together and, by the way, he would like to include his PhD student as a coauthor. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 19:19 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | I agree with @JoelDavidHamkins. But it confuses me how someone can put himself on a paper as a coauthor. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 18:43 | comment | added | James Smith | At least tone down the title. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 17:19 | comment | added | Christian Remling | "Is there a way for the young mathematician to manage such a situation without creating conflict?" For starters, I don't think it's helpful at all to discuss matters on a public forum, where the dramatis personae might stop by and recognize themselves. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 16:11 | comment | added | user0100661 | Francesco, the advisor talked to the PhD student but neither of them had specific ideas about how to approach the problem. The solution came entirely from the young mathematician. By coauthor I mean one of the authors. Is it ethical to include a PhD student on the paper who had not contributed anything and when the young mathematician is himself a recent PhD? | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 15:29 | comment | added | Francesco Polizzi | Did the senior mathematician help the student, even without having partial results? Did they talk together, did they share ideas? It is impossible to give an answer with so limited information. Furthermore, the name order in a mathematical paper is purely alphabetical, ther is no "first" and "second" author. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 14:59 | comment | added | Jose Brox | How do you include someone as a "coauthor"? As far as I know, all authors of a mathematical paper are considered equal. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 14:34 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 23, 2017 at 20:44 | |||||
| Nov 23, 2017 at 14:30 | comment | added | user0100661 | What about including a PhD student as a coauthor? | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 14:28 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | The junior/senior issue here is a confounding element, but in my opinion, asking a good question is often a good enough reason to be co-author. I have several papers, where someone asked me a question (sometimes on MathOverflow), which I answered, and I asked them to join as co-author. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 14:20 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | Doesn't matter. You can always tag it appropriately there. See this for an example. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 14:18 | comment | added | user0100661 | Collaboration or acknowledgment was on mathoverflow. Different disciplines might have different standards and this example is math specific. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 14:15 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | It seems academia is a more appropriate venue for this question. | |
| Nov 23, 2017 at 14:14 | review | First posts | |||
| Nov 23, 2017 at 14:26 | |||||
| Nov 23, 2017 at 14:12 | history | asked | user0100661 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |