Timeline for Appendices to papers authored by others
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 19, 2022 at 14:15 | comment | added | Gerald Edgar | A famous case is where Janos Bolyai's work on non-euclidean geometry was published as an appendix to a textbook by his father. | |
| Nov 4, 2020 at 14:45 | comment | added | Hollis Williams | I can't remember the exact story but I believe Margulis once wrote an appendix to some paper to elaborate on some of it for a particular audience, the editors then got in contact with him and advised him to publish as a separate paper in its own right. | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 14:05 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 5, 2019 at 15:56 | |||||
| Dec 1, 2017 at 4:10 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 1, 2017 at 10:09 | |||||
| Jul 20, 2011 at 9:02 | comment | added | JRN | Note to readers: the "unknown(google)" that Pasha refers to has changed his/her name to "quid". | |
| May 28, 2011 at 5:41 | history | edited | Pasha Zusmanovich | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 characters in body
|
| May 28, 2011 at 5:34 | history | edited | Pasha Zusmanovich | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 20 characters in body; added 39 characters in body
|
| May 27, 2011 at 23:36 | answer | added | fedja | timeline score: 13 | |
| May 27, 2011 at 19:19 | answer | added | Felipe Voloch | timeline score: 16 | |
| May 27, 2011 at 18:24 | comment | added | user9072 | Pasha Zusmanovich, yes I saw point 3, in fact I even gave a partial answer to it. The only thing that surpised me is that you argue that the question why appendices are written at all, is somehow irrelevant to the question why appendices are written by other authors. As IMO there are some common reasons; of course not all reasons apply to both situations. And yes while author-credit plays some role, I think this is not the only issue, and if it is an issue then in a subtle way. | |
| May 27, 2011 at 17:46 | comment | added | Pasha Zusmanovich | @unknown(google): About rationale, you are right to a certain degree. What you treat as an answer by Thierry Zell -- the format of corresponding MR and Zbl entries -- is familiar to me (though it is is not so unambiguous), and appears to me as one of the secondary (though important) points. But again, that's probably my fault: I see a broad (and somewhat interesting) issue here and apparently failed to communicate it properly. But, in any case, if you look at my 3-points question, it's hard to infer, whatever the misunderstandings may be, that I wanted to know "just this", isn't it? | |
| May 27, 2011 at 14:58 | comment | added | user9072 | Regarding the 2nd edit: well, but if you are interested in the rational for an appendix with additional property OA, then you might have to consider the rational for an appendix in general, no? As at least some of them are also applicable to the 'other author' situation. Regarding the bib-difficulties, I'd say Thierry Zell answered your question; and you can also check in Math. Reviews and Zentralblatt how this is handled (namely as T.Z. said). So, if you just wanted to know this, it starts to be unclear what was unclear (or why you didn't simply look it up). | |
| May 27, 2011 at 14:49 | history | edited | Pasha Zusmanovich | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| May 27, 2011 at 14:44 | history | edited | Pasha Zusmanovich | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 571 characters in body; deleted 3 characters in body
|
| May 27, 2011 at 14:22 | comment | added | user9072 | Regarding Paul Monsky's question: no Math Reviews does not do this. Indeed, it even ignores co-authored appendices. That is if A and B co-wrote an appendix it does not follow that they have collaboration distance one. Moreover, app. aren't considered as pubs, in the sense that if one clicks in the author profile on 'view pubs' one does not get the appendices of that person. However, one gets them with 'view author/related pubs' which is the default one gets when displaying items relate to an author; in part. when clicking on an author's name. (Tested with 'Katz, Nickolas M.'.) | |
| May 27, 2011 at 14:06 | comment | added | paul Monsky | A further question along these lines--does Math Reviews consider such papers co-authored in its calculation of Erdos numbers? | |
| May 27, 2011 at 14:05 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Pasha Zusmanovich | ||
| May 27, 2011 at 12:44 | answer | added | Gordon Royle | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 27, 2011 at 12:44 | answer | added | user9072 | timeline score: 8 | |
| May 27, 2011 at 12:36 | answer | added | Thierry Zell | timeline score: -4 | |
| May 27, 2011 at 11:31 | comment | added | paul Monsky | One possible answer to (1) . I've sometimes been the author of an appendix when I didn't understand the techniques of the paper well enough to feel comfortable in claiming to be a co-author. | |
| May 27, 2011 at 10:17 | history | edited | Pasha Zusmanovich | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 780 characters in body
|
| May 27, 2011 at 9:55 | answer | added | Alain Valette | timeline score: 6 | |
| May 27, 2011 at 8:26 | answer | added | DamienC | timeline score: 13 | |
| May 27, 2011 at 8:17 | history | edited | Pasha Zusmanovich | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 characters in body
|
| May 27, 2011 at 8:00 | history | asked | Pasha Zusmanovich | CC BY-SA 3.0 |