Mixing
My collaborator has asked to be only acknowledged in a paper. Should I make him a co-author?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
My question is about papers in mathematics.
Assume that X works on topic T and writes a paper P.
Now, paper P seems to rely heavily on result R (in topic S) that X phrased, felt that it should be true, but did not know how to prove that result.
X asks Y (that works on topic S) to help him with the proof of result R, and Y finds a proof for result R.
X thanks Y and asks him if he wants to: (1) be a co-author in paper P, or (2) just be acknowledged in paper P (= 'The author wishes to thank Y for generously allowing him to use his proof of result R') + at the beginning of the proof of result R it will be mentioned that 'the proof is due to Y'.
Y says that he would be happy to be acknowledged and do not think that he should be a co-author (unless he can further contribute to paper P). Y also mentions that he is not working on topic T and hence not enough familiar with what paper P deals with.
Which of the two options (1), (2) should be chosen?
It should be emphasized that result R is critical for the existence of paper P.
I am X and I really do not know which option to choose.
I wonder:
Is it ok that X will submit to a journal paper P as a unique author, and ask the editor to have the opinion of the referees whether Y should be a co-author or not?
Thank you very much!
publications journals
edited 31 mins ago
David Ketcheson
26.5k679134
asked 5 hours ago
user237522
1084
New contributor
user237522 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
My question is about papers in mathematics.
Assume that X works on topic T and writes a paper P.
Now, paper P seems to rely heavily on result R (in topic S) that X phrased, felt that it should be true, but did not know how to prove that result.
X asks Y (that works on topic S) to help him with the proof of result R, and Y finds a proof for result R.
X thanks Y and asks him if he wants to: (1) be a co-author in paper P, or (2) just be acknowledged in paper P (= 'The author wishes to thank Y for generously allowing him to use his proof of result R') + at the beginning of the proof of result R it will be mentioned that 'the proof is due to Y'.
Y says that he would be happy to be acknowledged and do not think that he should be a co-author (unless he can further contribute to paper P). Y also mentions that he is not working on topic T and hence not enough familiar with what paper P deals with.
Which of the two options (1), (2) should be chosen?
It should be emphasized that result R is critical for the existence of paper P.
I am X and I really do not know which option to choose.
I wonder:
Is it ok that X will submit to a journal paper P as a unique author, and ask the editor to have the opinion of the referees whether Y should be a co-author or not?
Thank you very much!
publications journals
edited 31 mins ago
David Ketcheson
26.5k679134
asked 5 hours ago
user237522
1084
New contributor
user237522 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Since the question in the title seems different from the one in your post, could you clarify what you're after? If it's the question in the title, I think this is a duplicate of Should all authors on a paper be comfortable explaining every aspect of the paper?. (That question is probably helpful either way, so I recommend reading it.)
– Anyon
5 hours ago
Thanks for the comment. ok, I will slightly change the title. Thanks for notifying me about the other question. However, I guess that there are differences between mathematics and other topics, aren't they? For example, in brain research people from different topics collaborate and we do not expect that one will understand what exactly the other did, but in a math paper I would expect that every author will understand what his friend did. Or perhaps I am wrong?
– user237522
5 hours ago
1
It might not have been clear from the link, but note that both that question and at least one answer to it (Dan Romik's) were written by people in math.
– Anyon
4 hours ago
Thank you for the clarification. I will read again the above mentioned question and its answers.
– user237522
4 hours ago
@Anyon I think this question is different since the collaborator has indicated a preference for acknowledgment. I edited the title to highlight this.
– David Ketcheson
32 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
My question is about papers in mathematics.
Assume that X works on topic T and writes a paper P.
Now, paper P seems to rely heavily on result R (in topic S) that X phrased, felt that it should be true, but did not know how to prove that result.
X asks Y (that works on topic S) to help him with the proof of result R, and Y finds a proof for result R.
X thanks Y and asks him if he wants to: (1) be a co-author in paper P, or (2) just be acknowledged in paper P (= 'The author wishes to thank Y for generously allowing him to use his proof of result R') + at the beginning of the proof of result R it will be mentioned that 'the proof is due to Y'.
Y says that he would be happy to be acknowledged and do not think that he should be a co-author (unless he can further contribute to paper P). Y also mentions that he is not working on topic T and hence not enough familiar with what paper P deals with.
Which of the two options (1), (2) should be chosen?
It should be emphasized that result R is critical for the existence of paper P.
I am X and I really do not know which option to choose.
I wonder:
Is it ok that X will submit to a journal paper P as a unique author, and ask the editor to have the opinion of the referees whether Y should be a co-author or not?
Thank you very much!
publications journals
edited 31 mins ago
David Ketcheson
26.5k679134
asked 5 hours ago
user237522
1084
New contributor
user237522 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
My question is about papers in mathematics.
Assume that X works on topic T and writes a paper P.
Now, paper P seems to rely heavily on result R (in topic S) that X phrased, felt that it should be true, but did not know how to prove that result.
X asks Y (that works on topic S) to help him with the proof of result R, and Y finds a proof for result R.
X thanks Y and asks him if he wants to: (1) be a co-author in paper P, or (2) just be acknowledged in paper P (= 'The author wishes to thank Y for generously allowing him to use his proof of result R') + at the beginning of the proof of result R it will be mentioned that 'the proof is due to Y'.
Y says that he would be happy to be acknowledged and do not think that he should be a co-author (unless he can further contribute to paper P). Y also mentions that he is not working on topic T and hence not enough familiar with what paper P deals with.
Which of the two options (1), (2) should be chosen?
It should be emphasized that result R is critical for the existence of paper P.
I am X and I really do not know which option to choose.
I wonder:
Is it ok that X will submit to a journal paper P as a unique author, and ask the editor to have the opinion of the referees whether Y should be a co-author or not?
Thank you very much!
publications journals
publications journals
edited 31 mins ago
David Ketcheson
26.5k679134
asked 5 hours ago
user237522
1084
New contributor
user237522 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 31 mins ago
David Ketcheson
26.5k679134
asked 5 hours ago
user237522
1084
New contributor
user237522 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 31 mins ago
David Ketcheson
26.5k679134
edited 31 mins ago
David Ketcheson
26.5k679134
edited 31 mins ago
David Ketcheson
26.5k679134
26.5k679134
asked 5 hours ago
user237522
1084
New contributor
user237522 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
user237522
1084
asked 5 hours ago
user237522
1084
1084
New contributor
user237522 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user237522 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user237522 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Since the question in the title seems different from the one in your post, could you clarify what you're after? If it's the question in the title, I think this is a duplicate of Should all authors on a paper be comfortable explaining every aspect of the paper?. (That question is probably helpful either way, so I recommend reading it.)
– Anyon
5 hours ago
Thanks for the comment. ok, I will slightly change the title. Thanks for notifying me about the other question. However, I guess that there are differences between mathematics and other topics, aren't they? For example, in brain research people from different topics collaborate and we do not expect that one will understand what exactly the other did, but in a math paper I would expect that every author will understand what his friend did. Or perhaps I am wrong?
– user237522
5 hours ago
1
It might not have been clear from the link, but note that both that question and at least one answer to it (Dan Romik's) were written by people in math.
– Anyon
4 hours ago
Thank you for the clarification. I will read again the above mentioned question and its answers.
– user237522
4 hours ago
@Anyon I think this question is different since the collaborator has indicated a preference for acknowledgment. I edited the title to highlight this.
– David Ketcheson
32 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Since the question in the title seems different from the one in your post, could you clarify what you're after? If it's the question in the title, I think this is a duplicate of Should all authors on a paper be comfortable explaining every aspect of the paper?. (That question is probably helpful either way, so I recommend reading it.)
– Anyon
5 hours ago
Thanks for the comment. ok, I will slightly change the title. Thanks for notifying me about the other question. However, I guess that there are differences between mathematics and other topics, aren't they? For example, in brain research people from different topics collaborate and we do not expect that one will understand what exactly the other did, but in a math paper I would expect that every author will understand what his friend did. Or perhaps I am wrong?
– user237522
5 hours ago
1
It might not have been clear from the link, but note that both that question and at least one answer to it (Dan Romik's) were written by people in math.
– Anyon
4 hours ago
Thank you for the clarification. I will read again the above mentioned question and its answers.
– user237522
4 hours ago
@Anyon I think this question is different since the collaborator has indicated a preference for acknowledgment. I edited the title to highlight this.
– David Ketcheson
32 mins ago
Since the question in the title seems different from the one in your post, could you clarify what you're after? If it's the question in the title, I think this is a duplicate of Should all authors on a paper be comfortable explaining every aspect of the paper?. (That question is probably helpful either way, so I recommend reading it.)
– Anyon
5 hours ago
Since the question in the title seems different from the one in your post, could you clarify what you're after? If it's the question in the title, I think this is a duplicate of Should all authors on a paper be comfortable explaining every aspect of the paper?. (That question is probably helpful either way, so I recommend reading it.)
– Anyon
5 hours ago
Thanks for the comment. ok, I will slightly change the title. Thanks for notifying me about the other question. However, I guess that there are differences between mathematics and other topics, aren't they? For example, in brain research people from different topics collaborate and we do not expect that one will understand what exactly the other did, but in a math paper I would expect that every author will understand what his friend did. Or perhaps I am wrong?
– user237522
5 hours ago
Thanks for the comment. ok, I will slightly change the title. Thanks for notifying me about the other question. However, I guess that there are differences between mathematics and other topics, aren't they? For example, in brain research people from different topics collaborate and we do not expect that one will understand what exactly the other did, but in a math paper I would expect that every author will understand what his friend did. Or perhaps I am wrong?
– user237522
5 hours ago
1
1
It might not have been clear from the link, but note that both that question and at least one answer to it (Dan Romik's) were written by people in math.
– Anyon
4 hours ago
It might not have been clear from the link, but note that both that question and at least one answer to it (Dan Romik's) were written by people in math.
– Anyon
4 hours ago
Thank you for the clarification. I will read again the above mentioned question and its answers.
– user237522
4 hours ago
Thank you for the clarification. I will read again the above mentioned question and its answers.
– user237522
4 hours ago
@Anyon I think this question is different since the collaborator has indicated a preference for acknowledgment. I edited the title to highlight this.
– David Ketcheson
32 mins ago
@Anyon I think this question is different since the collaborator has indicated a preference for acknowledgment. I edited the title to highlight this.
– David Ketcheson
32 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
No. Indeed a co-author could have provided invaluable input with a single insight/subresult to the paper or a part of the paper. I don’t think an editor can evaluate the contribution of any co-author.
If you feel the contribution is enough (and novel) then your other party should be a co-author.
answered 5 hours ago
ZeroTheHero
5067
Thanks for your answer. The insight was mine, but most of the proof of that insight was his (I was too lazy to try to complete the proof myself, so asked for help, and he proved it). Anyway, I will later (after my paper will be ready) again discuss this with Y.
– user237522
5 hours ago
(I did not mean that the editor will evaluate the contribution of Y; I meant that the referees will)
– user237522
5 hours ago
@user237522 from your comments this person should definitely be co-author.
– ZeroTheHero
5 hours ago
Could you please be more specific? Which comments exactly? (I agree that I feel that he should be a co-author. It is my problem that I was too lazy to complete the proof myself).
– user237522
5 hours ago
@user237522 Actually proving a result, even if the proof is guided or dependent from someone else’s insight, is IMO sufficient to be granted co-author status, unless the proof is quite trivial (undergraduate level). If really the proof was that trivial to complete, you would likely have done this yourself irrespective of your degree of laziness.
– ZeroTheHero
5 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
3
down vote
The answer depends on how firmly Y has declined authorship. I don't think it's appropriate to ask the referees to decide on authorship.
- You cannot list Y as an author without his consent. If he has firmly refused to be an author, that is the end of it.
- If Y has simply indicated that acknowledgment is a sufficient form of credit, but left the door open to being an author then it's up to you. I have responded in this way sometimes when I felt my contribution was sufficient for authorship but I didn't want to step on anybody's toes. I try to err on the side of being generous with credit, so I would say to him
"I feel that your contribution warrants authorship. Are you willing to be listed as an author?"
If he still says no, then just acknowledge him. You can include the statement of how critical his part was in the acknowledgment.
answered 34 mins ago
David Ketcheson
26.5k679134
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
No. Indeed a co-author could have provided invaluable input with a single insight/subresult to the paper or a part of the paper. I don’t think an editor can evaluate the contribution of any co-author.
If you feel the contribution is enough (and novel) then your other party should be a co-author.
answered 5 hours ago
ZeroTheHero
5067
Thanks for your answer. The insight was mine, but most of the proof of that insight was his (I was too lazy to try to complete the proof myself, so asked for help, and he proved it). Anyway, I will later (after my paper will be ready) again discuss this with Y.
– user237522
5 hours ago
(I did not mean that the editor will evaluate the contribution of Y; I meant that the referees will)
– user237522
5 hours ago
@user237522 from your comments this person should definitely be co-author.
– ZeroTheHero
5 hours ago
Could you please be more specific? Which comments exactly? (I agree that I feel that he should be a co-author. It is my problem that I was too lazy to complete the proof myself).
– user237522
5 hours ago
@user237522 Actually proving a result, even if the proof is guided or dependent from someone else’s insight, is IMO sufficient to be granted co-author status, unless the proof is quite trivial (undergraduate level). If really the proof was that trivial to complete, you would likely have done this yourself irrespective of your degree of laziness.
– ZeroTheHero
5 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
No. Indeed a co-author could have provided invaluable input with a single insight/subresult to the paper or a part of the paper. I don’t think an editor can evaluate the contribution of any co-author.
If you feel the contribution is enough (and novel) then your other party should be a co-author.
answered 5 hours ago
ZeroTheHero
5067
Thanks for your answer. The insight was mine, but most of the proof of that insight was his (I was too lazy to try to complete the proof myself, so asked for help, and he proved it). Anyway, I will later (after my paper will be ready) again discuss this with Y.
– user237522
5 hours ago
(I did not mean that the editor will evaluate the contribution of Y; I meant that the referees will)
– user237522
5 hours ago
@user237522 from your comments this person should definitely be co-author.
– ZeroTheHero
5 hours ago
Could you please be more specific? Which comments exactly? (I agree that I feel that he should be a co-author. It is my problem that I was too lazy to complete the proof myself).
– user237522
5 hours ago
@user237522 Actually proving a result, even if the proof is guided or dependent from someone else’s insight, is IMO sufficient to be granted co-author status, unless the proof is quite trivial (undergraduate level). If really the proof was that trivial to complete, you would likely have done this yourself irrespective of your degree of laziness.
– ZeroTheHero
5 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
No. Indeed a co-author could have provided invaluable input with a single insight/subresult to the paper or a part of the paper. I don’t think an editor can evaluate the contribution of any co-author.
If you feel the contribution is enough (and novel) then your other party should be a co-author.
answered 5 hours ago
ZeroTheHero
5067
No. Indeed a co-author could have provided invaluable input with a single insight/subresult to the paper or a part of the paper. I don’t think an editor can evaluate the contribution of any co-author.
If you feel the contribution is enough (and novel) then your other party should be a co-author.
answered 5 hours ago
ZeroTheHero
5067
answered 5 hours ago
ZeroTheHero
5067
answered 5 hours ago
ZeroTheHero
5067
answered 5 hours ago
ZeroTheHero
5067
5067
Thanks for your answer. The insight was mine, but most of the proof of that insight was his (I was too lazy to try to complete the proof myself, so asked for help, and he proved it). Anyway, I will later (after my paper will be ready) again discuss this with Y.
– user237522
5 hours ago
(I did not mean that the editor will evaluate the contribution of Y; I meant that the referees will)
– user237522
5 hours ago
@user237522 from your comments this person should definitely be co-author.
– ZeroTheHero
5 hours ago
Could you please be more specific? Which comments exactly? (I agree that I feel that he should be a co-author. It is my problem that I was too lazy to complete the proof myself).
– user237522
5 hours ago
@user237522 Actually proving a result, even if the proof is guided or dependent from someone else’s insight, is IMO sufficient to be granted co-author status, unless the proof is quite trivial (undergraduate level). If really the proof was that trivial to complete, you would likely have done this yourself irrespective of your degree of laziness.
– ZeroTheHero
5 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
Thanks for your answer. The insight was mine, but most of the proof of that insight was his (I was too lazy to try to complete the proof myself, so asked for help, and he proved it). Anyway, I will later (after my paper will be ready) again discuss this with Y.
– user237522
5 hours ago
(I did not mean that the editor will evaluate the contribution of Y; I meant that the referees will)
– user237522
5 hours ago
@user237522 from your comments this person should definitely be co-author.
– ZeroTheHero
5 hours ago
Could you please be more specific? Which comments exactly? (I agree that I feel that he should be a co-author. It is my problem that I was too lazy to complete the proof myself).
– user237522
5 hours ago
@user237522 Actually proving a result, even if the proof is guided or dependent from someone else’s insight, is IMO sufficient to be granted co-author status, unless the proof is quite trivial (undergraduate level). If really the proof was that trivial to complete, you would likely have done this yourself irrespective of your degree of laziness.
– ZeroTheHero
5 hours ago
Thanks for your answer. The insight was mine, but most of the proof of that insight was his (I was too lazy to try to complete the proof myself, so asked for help, and he proved it). Anyway, I will later (after my paper will be ready) again discuss this with Y.
– user237522
5 hours ago
Thanks for your answer. The insight was mine, but most of the proof of that insight was his (I was too lazy to try to complete the proof myself, so asked for help, and he proved it). Anyway, I will later (after my paper will be ready) again discuss this with Y.
– user237522
5 hours ago
(I did not mean that the editor will evaluate the contribution of Y; I meant that the referees will)
– user237522
5 hours ago
(I did not mean that the editor will evaluate the contribution of Y; I meant that the referees will)
– user237522
5 hours ago
@user237522 from your comments this person should definitely be co-author.
– ZeroTheHero
5 hours ago
@user237522 from your comments this person should definitely be co-author.
– ZeroTheHero
5 hours ago
Could you please be more specific? Which comments exactly? (I agree that I feel that he should be a co-author. It is my problem that I was too lazy to complete the proof myself).
– user237522
5 hours ago
Could you please be more specific? Which comments exactly? (I agree that I feel that he should be a co-author. It is my problem that I was too lazy to complete the proof myself).
– user237522
5 hours ago
@user237522 Actually proving a result, even if the proof is guided or dependent from someone else’s insight, is IMO sufficient to be granted co-author status, unless the proof is quite trivial (undergraduate level). If really the proof was that trivial to complete, you would likely have done this yourself irrespective of your degree of laziness.
– ZeroTheHero
5 hours ago
@user237522 Actually proving a result, even if the proof is guided or dependent from someone else’s insight, is IMO sufficient to be granted co-author status, unless the proof is quite trivial (undergraduate level). If really the proof was that trivial to complete, you would likely have done this yourself irrespective of your degree of laziness.
– ZeroTheHero
5 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
3
down vote
The answer depends on how firmly Y has declined authorship. I don't think it's appropriate to ask the referees to decide on authorship.
- You cannot list Y as an author without his consent. If he has firmly refused to be an author, that is the end of it.
- If Y has simply indicated that acknowledgment is a sufficient form of credit, but left the door open to being an author then it's up to you. I have responded in this way sometimes when I felt my contribution was sufficient for authorship but I didn't want to step on anybody's toes. I try to err on the side of being generous with credit, so I would say to him
"I feel that your contribution warrants authorship. Are you willing to be listed as an author?"
If he still says no, then just acknowledge him. You can include the statement of how critical his part was in the acknowledgment.
answered 34 mins ago
David Ketcheson
26.5k679134
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
The answer depends on how firmly Y has declined authorship. I don't think it's appropriate to ask the referees to decide on authorship.
- You cannot list Y as an author without his consent. If he has firmly refused to be an author, that is the end of it.
- If Y has simply indicated that acknowledgment is a sufficient form of credit, but left the door open to being an author then it's up to you. I have responded in this way sometimes when I felt my contribution was sufficient for authorship but I didn't want to step on anybody's toes. I try to err on the side of being generous with credit, so I would say to him
"I feel that your contribution warrants authorship. Are you willing to be listed as an author?"
If he still says no, then just acknowledge him. You can include the statement of how critical his part was in the acknowledgment.
answered 34 mins ago
David Ketcheson
26.5k679134
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
The answer depends on how firmly Y has declined authorship. I don't think it's appropriate to ask the referees to decide on authorship.
- You cannot list Y as an author without his consent. If he has firmly refused to be an author, that is the end of it.
- If Y has simply indicated that acknowledgment is a sufficient form of credit, but left the door open to being an author then it's up to you. I have responded in this way sometimes when I felt my contribution was sufficient for authorship but I didn't want to step on anybody's toes. I try to err on the side of being generous with credit, so I would say to him
"I feel that your contribution warrants authorship. Are you willing to be listed as an author?"
If he still says no, then just acknowledge him. You can include the statement of how critical his part was in the acknowledgment.
answered 34 mins ago
David Ketcheson
26.5k679134
The answer depends on how firmly Y has declined authorship. I don't think it's appropriate to ask the referees to decide on authorship.
- You cannot list Y as an author without his consent. If he has firmly refused to be an author, that is the end of it.
- If Y has simply indicated that acknowledgment is a sufficient form of credit, but left the door open to being an author then it's up to you. I have responded in this way sometimes when I felt my contribution was sufficient for authorship but I didn't want to step on anybody's toes. I try to err on the side of being generous with credit, so I would say to him
"I feel that your contribution warrants authorship. Are you willing to be listed as an author?"
If he still says no, then just acknowledge him. You can include the statement of how critical his part was in the acknowledgment.
answered 34 mins ago
David Ketcheson
26.5k679134
answered 34 mins ago
David Ketcheson
26.5k679134
answered 34 mins ago
David Ketcheson
26.5k679134
answered 34 mins ago
David Ketcheson
26.5k679134
26.5k679134
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
user237522 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user237522 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user237522 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user237522 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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%2f117889%2fmy-collaborator-has-asked-to-be-only-acknowledged-in-a-paper-should-i-make-him%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
Since the question in the title seems different from the one in your post, could you clarify what you're after? If it's the question in the title, I think this is a duplicate of Should all authors on a paper be comfortable explaining every aspect of the paper?. (That question is probably helpful either way, so I recommend reading it.)
– Anyon
5 hours ago
Thanks for the comment. ok, I will slightly change the title. Thanks for notifying me about the other question. However, I guess that there are differences between mathematics and other topics, aren't they? For example, in brain research people from different topics collaborate and we do not expect that one will understand what exactly the other did, but in a math paper I would expect that every author will understand what his friend did. Or perhaps I am wrong?
– user237522
5 hours ago
1
It might not have been clear from the link, but note that both that question and at least one answer to it (Dan Romik's) were written by people in math.
– Anyon
4 hours ago
Thank you for the clarification. I will read again the above mentioned question and its answers.
– user237522
4 hours ago
@Anyon I think this question is different since the collaborator has indicated a preference for acknowledgment. I edited the title to highlight this.
– David Ketcheson
32 mins ago