I learned recently that in mathematics, the authorship order is virtually always alphabetical. I have recently collaborated on a paper where I did the vast majority of the work (everything but the problem statement and getting some references from the co-author to read, basically). What would be the proper way to establish the level of contributions of each author in the paper?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
-
$\begingroup$ There exist well-known articles where the authors are not sorted alphabetically (like the two by Hopkins and Gross). But it is rare enough that it leaves many a reader more confused (or skeptical) than illuminated. $\endgroup$– Lennart MeierCommented Sep 28, 2016 at 8:10
-
$\begingroup$ As Emanuele Tron said below, in mathematics one would expect all authors of a paper to contribute substantial ideas, not just the problem statement and some reading suggestions. The latter warrants a grateful mention in the acknowledgements, rather than coauthorship. Of course, depending on your relationship with the other person, this decision may not be down to you. And the other person might not even see their contribution in the same way as you do. $\endgroup$– Alex B.Commented Sep 28, 2016 at 8:11
-
7$\begingroup$ I am baffled by the closure of this question. The OP is asking how to do X. Andreas Blass has given clear examples from personal experience of how one can do X. The fact that our social conventions are strongly opposed to doing X is not the issue here. $\endgroup$– Lazzaro CampeottiCommented Sep 28, 2016 at 11:04
-
$\begingroup$ What is the purpose of "establishing level of contribution"? $\endgroup$– Alexandre EremenkoCommented Sep 29, 2016 at 22:41
-
$\begingroup$ I am concerned that not doing so is a breach of ethics. $\endgroup$– LentesCommented Sep 30, 2016 at 2:01
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
Two of my published papers contain information about which of the authors did what. In neither case did editors or referees object. Of course, if you want to include such information in your paper, all the authors had better agree about exactly what to say.
-
$\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer; could you be a little more specific as to how you included the information? Did you put it as part of an acknowledgements section at the end/beginning of the paper? Or how else? $\endgroup$– LentesCommented Sep 28, 2016 at 6:06
-
4$\begingroup$ In one paper, this information was near the end of the introductory section. In the other, the contributions of the different authors ended up being different sections of the paper. So each author's contribution was noted at the beginning of his/her section(s). $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 28, 2016 at 6:11
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
Mathematical etiquette says you should not have anything in the paper that indicates who did what. You can tell your close friends, but that's about it.
-
5$\begingroup$ That seems like a rather strong statement. Is it really a universal mathematical etiquette, or just your personal flavor of doing things? I can see why the alphabetical ordering has positives. But in cases where the contribution of the co-authors is not comparable (and where all co-authors agree this is the case), it seems not only appropriate, but even an ethically correct thing, to somehow point out who did what. My question is mainly about how to do it. $\endgroup$– LentesCommented Sep 28, 2016 at 5:48
-
5$\begingroup$ Either the contribution is comparable, and she will get listed as co-author, or it is not, in which case a mention in the acknowledgements section will be sufficient. The standards of the mathematical community usually set the bar higher for authorship, so that each author has to make an essential contribution, and also in an ethical sense-there is no co-authorship for the analogues of "cleaning the test tubes" or "securing the funding". For a more official source, see ams.org/profession/leaders/culture/… $\endgroup$– user41593Commented Sep 28, 2016 at 7:13
-
1$\begingroup$ I am very surprised about the statement "In the 2009-2013 data, the majority of joint papers (almost 60%) list authors alphabetically [...]" in the ams statement. I wonder what data set they used because this suggests that it is more like 50-50, which is contrary to my experience. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 28, 2016 at 8:06
-
2$\begingroup$ @LennartMeier The further towards the applied end of the spectrum (and crossing over into various areas of engineering), the more likely it is that author order is not alphabetical. And adding to this it is my impression that the number of papers written per person increases as one moves in that same direction. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 28, 2016 at 8:21
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
6
Ordering the authors alphabetically is the convention. The reason for introducing this convention is precisely to pre-empt any attempt to say whose contribution is more valuable. You want to violate this convention.
(Some Hollywood movies list the actors names in the order of appearance, rather than by their star value.)
Even if you are able to do that, defying convention has some consequences. Potential future collaborators may have second thoughts about collaborating with you.
I know a person who got his Ph.D. at a very young age and wanted that to be known to the world. He accomplished this in the dedication page, "To my parents for their wonderful support all these 22 years"! You can guess what others think of him now.
One (hard) way of accomplishing your aim without offending any one is to publish many more papers of profound nature than that collaborator. (There is a theorem called Peter-Weyl theorem)
-
1$\begingroup$ If he wanted to come across as obnoxious, he should have thanked for their continuous 22 years of support since he was born to eliminate other possibilities (e.g., the parents may have adopted him). $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 28, 2016 at 13:36
-
2$\begingroup$ As far as I'm aware, the reason for the convention about alphabetical order is not so much to pre-empt attempts to say who did what but rather to pre-empt disputes about the order of authors. With the convention in place, we don't have to publicize the relative size of the authors' contributions, and usually we don't, but I don't take the convention to mean that there's anything wrong with publicizing such information in other ways. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 28, 2016 at 15:17
-
$\begingroup$ Consider a single author paper. In a typical sentence like "In this paper we show that ..." how many would replace "we" by "I". Though nothing wrong in using "I" (technically "We" is wrong in a single author paper) how many would do that? This goes beyond mathematics. Any community has some conventions and unwritten rules for their interactions. Any defiance will be regarded as bad behaviour. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 28, 2016 at 15:24
-
1$\begingroup$ It is not correct to say I want to violate this convention. I am not saying I want to change author order. There will be no dispute between the co-author and I regarding the level of contribution. I am simply asking of ways to accurately represent the level of contribution in the paper. You are not answering my question at all. $\endgroup$– LentesCommented Sep 29, 2016 at 3:00
-
1$\begingroup$ I agree that by not changing the order you are following the convention in letter. But description of individual works will not be so spirit. As others have said, in case of the other person's contribution is much less, make it a single author paper and acknowledge that person's contribution (e.g., "for proving Lemma 1.3. ..") $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 29, 2016 at 3:22