Timeline for Dealing with unwanted co-authorship requests
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 12, 2017 at 0:51 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed typo
|
| Nov 28, 2017 at 22:03 | history | bounty ended | user0100661 | ||
| Nov 25, 2017 at 15:53 | comment | added | CatO Minor | I agree with the relaxed attitude on principle, but there is the problem that if a junior person and a senior person collaborate, then the contribution of the junior person is sometimes questioned by hostile members of hiring committees. Also, it sounds like Alice is promoting her own student and exploiting Bobby in a shameless way. | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 21:59 | comment | added | fedja | @JoelDavidHamkins Neither do I :-) | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 15:21 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | @fedja I don't think we disagree. | |
| 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 11:15 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | @André, Bobby is a she: "a young mathematician (Bobby) who proceeded to solve it on her own...." | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 10:41 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Nov 24, 2017 at 9:58 | comment | added | André Henriques | This is an excellent answer! I have one more thought to add in favour of solving things by amicable discussion: even though Bobby is less senior, he is not as helpless as it might initially seem, and Alice has a strong incentive to find a good and fair compromise. Indeed, if the situation were to sour, and if it were to become public knowledge that Alice had acted in ways that are not correct, then that would be a big thing for Alice... because let's not forget that reputation is an extremely important thing for all mathematicians. | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 5:33 | comment | added | fedja | Apparently they have already discussed the matter (perhaps, without C) and it is exactly the result of that discussion that created the current situation. You gave an excellent overview of the general attitude towards co-authorship and I share it in many respects. I'm just trying to say that this special situation is exactly when particulars may outweigh generalities. The way I see it (to put it bluntly) is that A finds C hopeless and desperately wants to create an opportunity for her to defend (I've seen such cases). Maybe I'm wrong but if not, it puts things in somewhat different light. | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 4:05 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | You don't like the answer that the authors should discuss the matter? Co-authorship is a matter on which all authors must agree, and if C really made no contribution, then C should not be co-author. This would of course be the central issue to be discussed. In any case, as I mentioned, the latter part of my answer which you quote was not intended to be about the specific situation of the OP, but about co-authorship more generally. | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 3:50 | comment | added | fedja | "In summary, pursue collaborations; be generous about co-authorship; be relaxed about co-authorship;" Yeah, but *with people of some noticeable strength or, at least, with people you like personally". As far as I understand the question, it is all about "Why should B dilute her credit to give C a free ride to the PhD defense?". I have no answer to that. | |
| Nov 24, 2017 at 3:19 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Nov 24, 2017 at 3:09 | history | edited | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 59 characters in body
|
| Nov 24, 2017 at 2:55 | history | answered | Joel David Hamkins | CC BY-SA 3.0 |