Mixing
Can an author refer to work they did jointly using the first person?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I wrote a paper with a collaborator. The collaborator wrote a followup paper where they referred to their work in that paper in the first person, i.e. "in a previous paper, I presented the idea that...". To be clear, that particular idea really was their idea, not mine.
Is this acceptable, or should they have instead said "we presented the idea that..."? Does it differ between different fields, such as computer science, mathematics, physics, and economics?
citations
edited Aug 8 at 17:01
corey979
2,73731528
asked Aug 8 at 5:59
Programmer2134
1,14311018
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I wrote a paper with a collaborator. The collaborator wrote a followup paper where they referred to their work in that paper in the first person, i.e. "in a previous paper, I presented the idea that...". To be clear, that particular idea really was their idea, not mine.
Is this acceptable, or should they have instead said "we presented the idea that..."? Does it differ between different fields, such as computer science, mathematics, physics, and economics?
citations
edited Aug 8 at 17:01
corey979
2,73731528
asked Aug 8 at 5:59
Programmer2134
1,14311018
2
What would you gain from this?
– Azor Ahai
Aug 8 at 6:04
I've proposed an edit that removes a lot of awkward forced 2nd person phrasing, which (I think) preserves your meaning while removing over half of the words.
– knzhou
Aug 8 at 16:08
3
If you're in a bad situation, nobody wants to read "what would you hypothetically think if you were in this situation where you...". Just say "I'm in this situation".
– knzhou
Aug 8 at 16:08
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I wrote a paper with a collaborator. The collaborator wrote a followup paper where they referred to their work in that paper in the first person, i.e. "in a previous paper, I presented the idea that...". To be clear, that particular idea really was their idea, not mine.
Is this acceptable, or should they have instead said "we presented the idea that..."? Does it differ between different fields, such as computer science, mathematics, physics, and economics?
citations
edited Aug 8 at 17:01
corey979
2,73731528
asked Aug 8 at 5:59
Programmer2134
1,14311018
I wrote a paper with a collaborator. The collaborator wrote a followup paper where they referred to their work in that paper in the first person, i.e. "in a previous paper, I presented the idea that...". To be clear, that particular idea really was their idea, not mine.
Is this acceptable, or should they have instead said "we presented the idea that..."? Does it differ between different fields, such as computer science, mathematics, physics, and economics?
citations
edited Aug 8 at 17:01
corey979
2,73731528
asked Aug 8 at 5:59
Programmer2134
1,14311018
edited Aug 8 at 17:01
corey979
2,73731528
edited Aug 8 at 17:01
corey979
2,73731528
edited Aug 8 at 17:01
corey979
2,73731528
2,73731528
asked Aug 8 at 5:59
Programmer2134
1,14311018
asked Aug 8 at 5:59
Programmer2134
1,14311018
asked Aug 8 at 5:59
Programmer2134
1,14311018
1,14311018
2
What would you gain from this?
– Azor Ahai
Aug 8 at 6:04
I've proposed an edit that removes a lot of awkward forced 2nd person phrasing, which (I think) preserves your meaning while removing over half of the words.
– knzhou
Aug 8 at 16:08
3
If you're in a bad situation, nobody wants to read "what would you hypothetically think if you were in this situation where you...". Just say "I'm in this situation".
– knzhou
Aug 8 at 16:08
add a comment |Â
2
What would you gain from this?
– Azor Ahai
Aug 8 at 6:04
I've proposed an edit that removes a lot of awkward forced 2nd person phrasing, which (I think) preserves your meaning while removing over half of the words.
– knzhou
Aug 8 at 16:08
3
If you're in a bad situation, nobody wants to read "what would you hypothetically think if you were in this situation where you...". Just say "I'm in this situation".
– knzhou
Aug 8 at 16:08
2
2
What would you gain from this?
– Azor Ahai
Aug 8 at 6:04
What would you gain from this?
– Azor Ahai
Aug 8 at 6:04
I've proposed an edit that removes a lot of awkward forced 2nd person phrasing, which (I think) preserves your meaning while removing over half of the words.
– knzhou
Aug 8 at 16:08
I've proposed an edit that removes a lot of awkward forced 2nd person phrasing, which (I think) preserves your meaning while removing over half of the words.
– knzhou
Aug 8 at 16:08
3
3
If you're in a bad situation, nobody wants to read "what would you hypothetically think if you were in this situation where you...". Just say "I'm in this situation".
– knzhou
Aug 8 at 16:08
If you're in a bad situation, nobody wants to read "what would you hypothetically think if you were in this situation where you...". Just say "I'm in this situation".
– knzhou
Aug 8 at 16:08
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
In maths you never use the first person singular anyway, so they question as stated does not apply. Also, all work in a paper (in pure maths at least) is understood to be the work of all authors. In fact, it is common to refer to the other paper in the third person, even when the authors are the same.
In short: no, this is not acceptable.
answered Aug 8 at 6:10
Jessica B
14.2k23661
2
Having said that, in the interest of maintaining the collaboration, it might not be a good idea to argue with your coauthor over this.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 6:12
This answer relates to math. I am wondering how it is in the other disciplines
– Programmer2134
Aug 8 at 10:19
Very rarely, I have read math papers where one section is the work of one of the authors, and the rest is the work of both authors. But it's uncommon enough to stand out.
– user37208
Aug 8 at 16:46
1
I've seen some solo-author math papers where the authors do use "I", particularly when discussing their own past (solo) work or their own opinions. It's more a matter of personal writing style than anything; it's less common but I don't think anybody seriously objects to it. But I agree that references to joint work should definitely use "we".
– Nate Eldredge
Aug 8 at 17:33
@NateEldredge I'm surprised that got past the referee. I tend to use I in the acknowledgements section, since that really is just me, but that doesn't always get allowed.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 20:45
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
The I and we is less of a problem in my field. In my field (sociology) double blind review is standard. A reference "we (2018) shows" identifies the authors, so it cannot be part of the review copy. In principle, you could have a review copy that says "A and B (2018) show", and the final copy replace it with "we (2018) show", but that is rarely done. It is usually left as "A and B (2018) show". Now your colleague cannot say "A (2018) shows" as that does not correctly refer to the entry in the bibliography, so it will always be "A and B (2018) show".
This is a non-intentional side-effect of this tradition, but I think a good one. I would consider all co-authors responsible for the entire paper.
answered Aug 8 at 7:13
Maarten Buis
20.1k24565
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
In physics
- Most often the paper and its authors are not mentioned. The results are stated followed by a citation.
- Occasionally the authors are mentioned in the third person "Lastname et al." where Lastname is usually the first author of the paper.
- "We" or "I" would be rare but I don't see why anyone would care if they were used.
As a final note, papers with only two authors are not so common. I have never published one myself.
answered Aug 8 at 11:03
Anonymous Physicist
17.6k63473
Whereas papers with more than two authors are not so common in my field.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 15:01
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
In maths you never use the first person singular anyway, so they question as stated does not apply. Also, all work in a paper (in pure maths at least) is understood to be the work of all authors. In fact, it is common to refer to the other paper in the third person, even when the authors are the same.
In short: no, this is not acceptable.
answered Aug 8 at 6:10
Jessica B
14.2k23661
2
Having said that, in the interest of maintaining the collaboration, it might not be a good idea to argue with your coauthor over this.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 6:12
This answer relates to math. I am wondering how it is in the other disciplines
– Programmer2134
Aug 8 at 10:19
Very rarely, I have read math papers where one section is the work of one of the authors, and the rest is the work of both authors. But it's uncommon enough to stand out.
– user37208
Aug 8 at 16:46
1
I've seen some solo-author math papers where the authors do use "I", particularly when discussing their own past (solo) work or their own opinions. It's more a matter of personal writing style than anything; it's less common but I don't think anybody seriously objects to it. But I agree that references to joint work should definitely use "we".
– Nate Eldredge
Aug 8 at 17:33
@NateEldredge I'm surprised that got past the referee. I tend to use I in the acknowledgements section, since that really is just me, but that doesn't always get allowed.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 20:45
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
8
down vote
In maths you never use the first person singular anyway, so they question as stated does not apply. Also, all work in a paper (in pure maths at least) is understood to be the work of all authors. In fact, it is common to refer to the other paper in the third person, even when the authors are the same.
In short: no, this is not acceptable.
answered Aug 8 at 6:10
Jessica B
14.2k23661
2
Having said that, in the interest of maintaining the collaboration, it might not be a good idea to argue with your coauthor over this.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 6:12
This answer relates to math. I am wondering how it is in the other disciplines
– Programmer2134
Aug 8 at 10:19
Very rarely, I have read math papers where one section is the work of one of the authors, and the rest is the work of both authors. But it's uncommon enough to stand out.
– user37208
Aug 8 at 16:46
1
I've seen some solo-author math papers where the authors do use "I", particularly when discussing their own past (solo) work or their own opinions. It's more a matter of personal writing style than anything; it's less common but I don't think anybody seriously objects to it. But I agree that references to joint work should definitely use "we".
– Nate Eldredge
Aug 8 at 17:33
@NateEldredge I'm surprised that got past the referee. I tend to use I in the acknowledgements section, since that really is just me, but that doesn't always get allowed.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 20:45
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
In maths you never use the first person singular anyway, so they question as stated does not apply. Also, all work in a paper (in pure maths at least) is understood to be the work of all authors. In fact, it is common to refer to the other paper in the third person, even when the authors are the same.
In short: no, this is not acceptable.
answered Aug 8 at 6:10
Jessica B
14.2k23661
In maths you never use the first person singular anyway, so they question as stated does not apply. Also, all work in a paper (in pure maths at least) is understood to be the work of all authors. In fact, it is common to refer to the other paper in the third person, even when the authors are the same.
In short: no, this is not acceptable.
answered Aug 8 at 6:10
Jessica B
14.2k23661
answered Aug 8 at 6:10
Jessica B
14.2k23661
answered Aug 8 at 6:10
Jessica B
14.2k23661
answered Aug 8 at 6:10
Jessica B
14.2k23661
14.2k23661
2
Having said that, in the interest of maintaining the collaboration, it might not be a good idea to argue with your coauthor over this.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 6:12
This answer relates to math. I am wondering how it is in the other disciplines
– Programmer2134
Aug 8 at 10:19
Very rarely, I have read math papers where one section is the work of one of the authors, and the rest is the work of both authors. But it's uncommon enough to stand out.
– user37208
Aug 8 at 16:46
1
I've seen some solo-author math papers where the authors do use "I", particularly when discussing their own past (solo) work or their own opinions. It's more a matter of personal writing style than anything; it's less common but I don't think anybody seriously objects to it. But I agree that references to joint work should definitely use "we".
– Nate Eldredge
Aug 8 at 17:33
@NateEldredge I'm surprised that got past the referee. I tend to use I in the acknowledgements section, since that really is just me, but that doesn't always get allowed.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 20:45
 |Â
show 2 more comments
2
Having said that, in the interest of maintaining the collaboration, it might not be a good idea to argue with your coauthor over this.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 6:12
This answer relates to math. I am wondering how it is in the other disciplines
– Programmer2134
Aug 8 at 10:19
Very rarely, I have read math papers where one section is the work of one of the authors, and the rest is the work of both authors. But it's uncommon enough to stand out.
– user37208
Aug 8 at 16:46
1
I've seen some solo-author math papers where the authors do use "I", particularly when discussing their own past (solo) work or their own opinions. It's more a matter of personal writing style than anything; it's less common but I don't think anybody seriously objects to it. But I agree that references to joint work should definitely use "we".
– Nate Eldredge
Aug 8 at 17:33
@NateEldredge I'm surprised that got past the referee. I tend to use I in the acknowledgements section, since that really is just me, but that doesn't always get allowed.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 20:45
2
2
Having said that, in the interest of maintaining the collaboration, it might not be a good idea to argue with your coauthor over this.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 6:12
Having said that, in the interest of maintaining the collaboration, it might not be a good idea to argue with your coauthor over this.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 6:12
This answer relates to math. I am wondering how it is in the other disciplines
– Programmer2134
Aug 8 at 10:19
This answer relates to math. I am wondering how it is in the other disciplines
– Programmer2134
Aug 8 at 10:19
Very rarely, I have read math papers where one section is the work of one of the authors, and the rest is the work of both authors. But it's uncommon enough to stand out.
– user37208
Aug 8 at 16:46
Very rarely, I have read math papers where one section is the work of one of the authors, and the rest is the work of both authors. But it's uncommon enough to stand out.
– user37208
Aug 8 at 16:46
1
1
I've seen some solo-author math papers where the authors do use "I", particularly when discussing their own past (solo) work or their own opinions. It's more a matter of personal writing style than anything; it's less common but I don't think anybody seriously objects to it. But I agree that references to joint work should definitely use "we".
– Nate Eldredge
Aug 8 at 17:33
I've seen some solo-author math papers where the authors do use "I", particularly when discussing their own past (solo) work or their own opinions. It's more a matter of personal writing style than anything; it's less common but I don't think anybody seriously objects to it. But I agree that references to joint work should definitely use "we".
– Nate Eldredge
Aug 8 at 17:33
@NateEldredge I'm surprised that got past the referee. I tend to use I in the acknowledgements section, since that really is just me, but that doesn't always get allowed.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 20:45
@NateEldredge I'm surprised that got past the referee. I tend to use I in the acknowledgements section, since that really is just me, but that doesn't always get allowed.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 20:45
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
The I and we is less of a problem in my field. In my field (sociology) double blind review is standard. A reference "we (2018) shows" identifies the authors, so it cannot be part of the review copy. In principle, you could have a review copy that says "A and B (2018) show", and the final copy replace it with "we (2018) show", but that is rarely done. It is usually left as "A and B (2018) show". Now your colleague cannot say "A (2018) shows" as that does not correctly refer to the entry in the bibliography, so it will always be "A and B (2018) show".
This is a non-intentional side-effect of this tradition, but I think a good one. I would consider all co-authors responsible for the entire paper.
answered Aug 8 at 7:13
Maarten Buis
20.1k24565
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
The I and we is less of a problem in my field. In my field (sociology) double blind review is standard. A reference "we (2018) shows" identifies the authors, so it cannot be part of the review copy. In principle, you could have a review copy that says "A and B (2018) show", and the final copy replace it with "we (2018) show", but that is rarely done. It is usually left as "A and B (2018) show". Now your colleague cannot say "A (2018) shows" as that does not correctly refer to the entry in the bibliography, so it will always be "A and B (2018) show".
This is a non-intentional side-effect of this tradition, but I think a good one. I would consider all co-authors responsible for the entire paper.
answered Aug 8 at 7:13
Maarten Buis
20.1k24565
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
The I and we is less of a problem in my field. In my field (sociology) double blind review is standard. A reference "we (2018) shows" identifies the authors, so it cannot be part of the review copy. In principle, you could have a review copy that says "A and B (2018) show", and the final copy replace it with "we (2018) show", but that is rarely done. It is usually left as "A and B (2018) show". Now your colleague cannot say "A (2018) shows" as that does not correctly refer to the entry in the bibliography, so it will always be "A and B (2018) show".
This is a non-intentional side-effect of this tradition, but I think a good one. I would consider all co-authors responsible for the entire paper.
answered Aug 8 at 7:13
Maarten Buis
20.1k24565
The I and we is less of a problem in my field. In my field (sociology) double blind review is standard. A reference "we (2018) shows" identifies the authors, so it cannot be part of the review copy. In principle, you could have a review copy that says "A and B (2018) show", and the final copy replace it with "we (2018) show", but that is rarely done. It is usually left as "A and B (2018) show". Now your colleague cannot say "A (2018) shows" as that does not correctly refer to the entry in the bibliography, so it will always be "A and B (2018) show".
This is a non-intentional side-effect of this tradition, but I think a good one. I would consider all co-authors responsible for the entire paper.
answered Aug 8 at 7:13
Maarten Buis
20.1k24565
edited Aug 8 at 10:45
answered Aug 8 at 7:13
Maarten Buis
20.1k24565
answered Aug 8 at 7:13
Maarten Buis
20.1k24565
answered Aug 8 at 7:13
Maarten Buis
20.1k24565
20.1k24565
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
In physics
- Most often the paper and its authors are not mentioned. The results are stated followed by a citation.
- Occasionally the authors are mentioned in the third person "Lastname et al." where Lastname is usually the first author of the paper.
- "We" or "I" would be rare but I don't see why anyone would care if they were used.
As a final note, papers with only two authors are not so common. I have never published one myself.
answered Aug 8 at 11:03
Anonymous Physicist
17.6k63473
Whereas papers with more than two authors are not so common in my field.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 15:01
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
In physics
- Most often the paper and its authors are not mentioned. The results are stated followed by a citation.
- Occasionally the authors are mentioned in the third person "Lastname et al." where Lastname is usually the first author of the paper.
- "We" or "I" would be rare but I don't see why anyone would care if they were used.
As a final note, papers with only two authors are not so common. I have never published one myself.
answered Aug 8 at 11:03
Anonymous Physicist
17.6k63473
Whereas papers with more than two authors are not so common in my field.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 15:01
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
In physics
- Most often the paper and its authors are not mentioned. The results are stated followed by a citation.
- Occasionally the authors are mentioned in the third person "Lastname et al." where Lastname is usually the first author of the paper.
- "We" or "I" would be rare but I don't see why anyone would care if they were used.
As a final note, papers with only two authors are not so common. I have never published one myself.
answered Aug 8 at 11:03
Anonymous Physicist
17.6k63473
In physics
- Most often the paper and its authors are not mentioned. The results are stated followed by a citation.
- Occasionally the authors are mentioned in the third person "Lastname et al." where Lastname is usually the first author of the paper.
- "We" or "I" would be rare but I don't see why anyone would care if they were used.
As a final note, papers with only two authors are not so common. I have never published one myself.
answered Aug 8 at 11:03
Anonymous Physicist
17.6k63473
answered Aug 8 at 11:03
Anonymous Physicist
17.6k63473
answered Aug 8 at 11:03
Anonymous Physicist
17.6k63473
answered Aug 8 at 11:03
Anonymous Physicist
17.6k63473
17.6k63473
Whereas papers with more than two authors are not so common in my field.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 15:01
add a comment |Â
Whereas papers with more than two authors are not so common in my field.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 15:01
Whereas papers with more than two authors are not so common in my field.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 15:01
Whereas papers with more than two authors are not so common in my field.
– Jessica B
Aug 8 at 15:01
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f114958%2fcan-an-author-refer-to-work-they-did-jointly-using-the-first-person%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
2
What would you gain from this?
– Azor Ahai
Aug 8 at 6:04
I've proposed an edit that removes a lot of awkward forced 2nd person phrasing, which (I think) preserves your meaning while removing over half of the words.
– knzhou
Aug 8 at 16:08
3
If you're in a bad situation, nobody wants to read "what would you hypothetically think if you were in this situation where you...". Just say "I'm in this situation".
– knzhou
Aug 8 at 16:08