Mixing
Order of authors in a paper
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I have worked on few research labs and performed research as a master's student with PhD students and faced similar issues.
It has been papers that I have contributed most of the work for that paper, including producing results, and writing. Yet the PhD student wants to put my name second due to seniority.
When I first got involved I understood that the order of the paper authors is important in showing the amount of contribution. It feels extremely demotivating to know someone else is getting credit for the very hard work I done and makes me want to stop being involved in research.
Questions:
- What is the best practice to decide the author order for CS/AI/ML related conferences?
- When everyone has contributed equally and ordering by name, is it the first name or last name you order by?
- When the order of the authors doesn't match the level of contribution, what is a good way to bring it up and to who?
publications supervision
asked 4 hours ago
user99355
383
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I have worked on few research labs and performed research as a master's student with PhD students and faced similar issues.
It has been papers that I have contributed most of the work for that paper, including producing results, and writing. Yet the PhD student wants to put my name second due to seniority.
When I first got involved I understood that the order of the paper authors is important in showing the amount of contribution. It feels extremely demotivating to know someone else is getting credit for the very hard work I done and makes me want to stop being involved in research.
Questions:
- What is the best practice to decide the author order for CS/AI/ML related conferences?
- When everyone has contributed equally and ordering by name, is it the first name or last name you order by?
- When the order of the authors doesn't match the level of contribution, what is a good way to bring it up and to who?
publications supervision
asked 4 hours ago
user99355
383
2
What else has the PhD student done? If she designed the experiment (do you have "experiments" in CS? I have no idea) and mentored you throughout the process of "producing results" I could see why she would expect to be first author. It does sound like a mismatch, and I'm not saying she's right but your description of who did what is kinda vague
– Azor Ahai
4 hours ago
Most of the times, they provide initial research direction, which many times changes after reformulating the hypothesis and going based off results. Other times they provide the data that will be used, and making sense of them is the purpose of the paper. Just to list few examples, it's not a specific event but rather multiple ones I am trying to describe.
– user99355
3 hours ago
Do you write the bulk of the paper? Sometimes the actual code/statistical analysis of the data is only one section of a paper. But if you write, say, intro, related work, experiment and results section, then the paper is mostly your work.
– Pam
21 mins ago
@Pam Yes for my case I have written the bulk of the paper.
– user99355
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I have worked on few research labs and performed research as a master's student with PhD students and faced similar issues.
It has been papers that I have contributed most of the work for that paper, including producing results, and writing. Yet the PhD student wants to put my name second due to seniority.
When I first got involved I understood that the order of the paper authors is important in showing the amount of contribution. It feels extremely demotivating to know someone else is getting credit for the very hard work I done and makes me want to stop being involved in research.
Questions:
- What is the best practice to decide the author order for CS/AI/ML related conferences?
- When everyone has contributed equally and ordering by name, is it the first name or last name you order by?
- When the order of the authors doesn't match the level of contribution, what is a good way to bring it up and to who?
publications supervision
asked 4 hours ago
user99355
383
I have worked on few research labs and performed research as a master's student with PhD students and faced similar issues.
It has been papers that I have contributed most of the work for that paper, including producing results, and writing. Yet the PhD student wants to put my name second due to seniority.
When I first got involved I understood that the order of the paper authors is important in showing the amount of contribution. It feels extremely demotivating to know someone else is getting credit for the very hard work I done and makes me want to stop being involved in research.
Questions:
- What is the best practice to decide the author order for CS/AI/ML related conferences?
- When everyone has contributed equally and ordering by name, is it the first name or last name you order by?
- When the order of the authors doesn't match the level of contribution, what is a good way to bring it up and to who?
publications supervision
publications supervision
asked 4 hours ago
user99355
383
asked 4 hours ago
user99355
383
asked 4 hours ago
user99355
383
asked 4 hours ago
user99355
383
asked 4 hours ago
user99355
383
383
2
What else has the PhD student done? If she designed the experiment (do you have "experiments" in CS? I have no idea) and mentored you throughout the process of "producing results" I could see why she would expect to be first author. It does sound like a mismatch, and I'm not saying she's right but your description of who did what is kinda vague
– Azor Ahai
4 hours ago
Most of the times, they provide initial research direction, which many times changes after reformulating the hypothesis and going based off results. Other times they provide the data that will be used, and making sense of them is the purpose of the paper. Just to list few examples, it's not a specific event but rather multiple ones I am trying to describe.
– user99355
3 hours ago
Do you write the bulk of the paper? Sometimes the actual code/statistical analysis of the data is only one section of a paper. But if you write, say, intro, related work, experiment and results section, then the paper is mostly your work.
– Pam
21 mins ago
@Pam Yes for my case I have written the bulk of the paper.
– user99355
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2
What else has the PhD student done? If she designed the experiment (do you have "experiments" in CS? I have no idea) and mentored you throughout the process of "producing results" I could see why she would expect to be first author. It does sound like a mismatch, and I'm not saying she's right but your description of who did what is kinda vague
– Azor Ahai
4 hours ago
Most of the times, they provide initial research direction, which many times changes after reformulating the hypothesis and going based off results. Other times they provide the data that will be used, and making sense of them is the purpose of the paper. Just to list few examples, it's not a specific event but rather multiple ones I am trying to describe.
– user99355
3 hours ago
Do you write the bulk of the paper? Sometimes the actual code/statistical analysis of the data is only one section of a paper. But if you write, say, intro, related work, experiment and results section, then the paper is mostly your work.
– Pam
21 mins ago
@Pam Yes for my case I have written the bulk of the paper.
– user99355
3 mins ago
2
2
What else has the PhD student done? If she designed the experiment (do you have "experiments" in CS? I have no idea) and mentored you throughout the process of "producing results" I could see why she would expect to be first author. It does sound like a mismatch, and I'm not saying she's right but your description of who did what is kinda vague
– Azor Ahai
4 hours ago
What else has the PhD student done? If she designed the experiment (do you have "experiments" in CS? I have no idea) and mentored you throughout the process of "producing results" I could see why she would expect to be first author. It does sound like a mismatch, and I'm not saying she's right but your description of who did what is kinda vague
– Azor Ahai
4 hours ago
Most of the times, they provide initial research direction, which many times changes after reformulating the hypothesis and going based off results. Other times they provide the data that will be used, and making sense of them is the purpose of the paper. Just to list few examples, it's not a specific event but rather multiple ones I am trying to describe.
– user99355
3 hours ago
Most of the times, they provide initial research direction, which many times changes after reformulating the hypothesis and going based off results. Other times they provide the data that will be used, and making sense of them is the purpose of the paper. Just to list few examples, it's not a specific event but rather multiple ones I am trying to describe.
– user99355
3 hours ago
Do you write the bulk of the paper? Sometimes the actual code/statistical analysis of the data is only one section of a paper. But if you write, say, intro, related work, experiment and results section, then the paper is mostly your work.
– Pam
21 mins ago
Do you write the bulk of the paper? Sometimes the actual code/statistical analysis of the data is only one section of a paper. But if you write, say, intro, related work, experiment and results section, then the paper is mostly your work.
– Pam
21 mins ago
@Pam Yes for my case I have written the bulk of the paper.
– user99355
3 mins ago
@Pam Yes for my case I have written the bulk of the paper.
– user99355
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Rule #1: Always try to pin these types of things down before performing the work.
Rule #2: Understand that academia (graduate school) is run on an implicit pecking order:
Departmental pressures and requirements > Advisor > PhD Student > Master's Student
This makes complying to Rule #1 very difficult in practice. Every early career researcher runs into the issue you have described in some form. (Not that this makes such practices right). People higher than you in the pecking order will use administrative leverage to get what they want.
Advisor: "I am the first author on this paper." (And if you disagree, you'll have to find a new advisor and lose a year's worth of work).
Department: "Give Professor Smith what she wants or we will not sign off on your degree."
PhD Student: "Collect this data for me. (And then try to convince someone that you actually did the work and not me)."
The order of attribution should be based on the order of contribution in most CS-based fields. Equal contributions are noted by alphabetical order of the authors' surnames, sometimes with a footnote indicating equal contribution.
I would bring the issue up first with the PhD student directly. I would then speak with his/her advisor. The advisor is essentially the court of last resort. An advisor also will be able to help with the navigation of what actually constitutes authorship for each party. At the very least, your own advisor should (hopefully) be able to help you obtain credit for your work in the form of a chapter in your thesis or something.
Going forward, I would be firm in establishing what the authorship expectations will be on any work you do. You will at times be forced to balance fairness in authorship and expediency in obtaining your degree.
I will note that I take the pecking order things into account when I interview applicants for a job. I care much less about author order and much more about what the person actually did for the paper. Thus, if the OP applied to a job with me, I would likely give his research the same weight whether he was first or second author. I fully understand that superiors sometimes take advantage of their underlings.
answered 4 hours ago
Vladhagen
5,95312347
Good advice for rule #1, but when I have brought up such a thing in the past in the initial conversation of cooperation the response is "Let's first have a paper and then decide", "Producing a paper is such a difficult process, we don't know if we will accomplish" and so on.
– user99355
3 hours ago
@user99355. Hence Rule #2. Rule #1 is MUCH harder said than done. If someone higher in the pecking order wants to take advantage of you, they likely will. It is then that you have to balance "fairness" and finishing your degree.
– Vladhagen
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Best practice depends on the particular (sub-)field. Look at how it is in yours. Also, rules are flexible.
In mine, the ACM guidelines are usually the norm: alphabetical family name ascending lexicographic order, regardless of authors' individual contributions.
In any case, you may explicitly state contribution in a footnote.
Other comments stress clearly enough the importance of making things clear ahead of writing. I would just add that your own contributions will speak for themselves regardless of the order in which you appear as an author (as long as you do!).
answered 2 hours ago
Ú .
111
New contributor
Ú . 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
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Rule #1: Always try to pin these types of things down before performing the work.
Rule #2: Understand that academia (graduate school) is run on an implicit pecking order:
Departmental pressures and requirements > Advisor > PhD Student > Master's Student
This makes complying to Rule #1 very difficult in practice. Every early career researcher runs into the issue you have described in some form. (Not that this makes such practices right). People higher than you in the pecking order will use administrative leverage to get what they want.
Advisor: "I am the first author on this paper." (And if you disagree, you'll have to find a new advisor and lose a year's worth of work).
Department: "Give Professor Smith what she wants or we will not sign off on your degree."
PhD Student: "Collect this data for me. (And then try to convince someone that you actually did the work and not me)."
The order of attribution should be based on the order of contribution in most CS-based fields. Equal contributions are noted by alphabetical order of the authors' surnames, sometimes with a footnote indicating equal contribution.
I would bring the issue up first with the PhD student directly. I would then speak with his/her advisor. The advisor is essentially the court of last resort. An advisor also will be able to help with the navigation of what actually constitutes authorship for each party. At the very least, your own advisor should (hopefully) be able to help you obtain credit for your work in the form of a chapter in your thesis or something.
Going forward, I would be firm in establishing what the authorship expectations will be on any work you do. You will at times be forced to balance fairness in authorship and expediency in obtaining your degree.
I will note that I take the pecking order things into account when I interview applicants for a job. I care much less about author order and much more about what the person actually did for the paper. Thus, if the OP applied to a job with me, I would likely give his research the same weight whether he was first or second author. I fully understand that superiors sometimes take advantage of their underlings.
answered 4 hours ago
Vladhagen
5,95312347
Good advice for rule #1, but when I have brought up such a thing in the past in the initial conversation of cooperation the response is "Let's first have a paper and then decide", "Producing a paper is such a difficult process, we don't know if we will accomplish" and so on.
– user99355
3 hours ago
@user99355. Hence Rule #2. Rule #1 is MUCH harder said than done. If someone higher in the pecking order wants to take advantage of you, they likely will. It is then that you have to balance "fairness" and finishing your degree.
– Vladhagen
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Rule #1: Always try to pin these types of things down before performing the work.
Rule #2: Understand that academia (graduate school) is run on an implicit pecking order:
Departmental pressures and requirements > Advisor > PhD Student > Master's Student
This makes complying to Rule #1 very difficult in practice. Every early career researcher runs into the issue you have described in some form. (Not that this makes such practices right). People higher than you in the pecking order will use administrative leverage to get what they want.
Advisor: "I am the first author on this paper." (And if you disagree, you'll have to find a new advisor and lose a year's worth of work).
Department: "Give Professor Smith what she wants or we will not sign off on your degree."
PhD Student: "Collect this data for me. (And then try to convince someone that you actually did the work and not me)."
The order of attribution should be based on the order of contribution in most CS-based fields. Equal contributions are noted by alphabetical order of the authors' surnames, sometimes with a footnote indicating equal contribution.
I would bring the issue up first with the PhD student directly. I would then speak with his/her advisor. The advisor is essentially the court of last resort. An advisor also will be able to help with the navigation of what actually constitutes authorship for each party. At the very least, your own advisor should (hopefully) be able to help you obtain credit for your work in the form of a chapter in your thesis or something.
Going forward, I would be firm in establishing what the authorship expectations will be on any work you do. You will at times be forced to balance fairness in authorship and expediency in obtaining your degree.
I will note that I take the pecking order things into account when I interview applicants for a job. I care much less about author order and much more about what the person actually did for the paper. Thus, if the OP applied to a job with me, I would likely give his research the same weight whether he was first or second author. I fully understand that superiors sometimes take advantage of their underlings.
answered 4 hours ago
Vladhagen
5,95312347
Good advice for rule #1, but when I have brought up such a thing in the past in the initial conversation of cooperation the response is "Let's first have a paper and then decide", "Producing a paper is such a difficult process, we don't know if we will accomplish" and so on.
– user99355
3 hours ago
@user99355. Hence Rule #2. Rule #1 is MUCH harder said than done. If someone higher in the pecking order wants to take advantage of you, they likely will. It is then that you have to balance "fairness" and finishing your degree.
– Vladhagen
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Rule #1: Always try to pin these types of things down before performing the work.
Rule #2: Understand that academia (graduate school) is run on an implicit pecking order:
Departmental pressures and requirements > Advisor > PhD Student > Master's Student
This makes complying to Rule #1 very difficult in practice. Every early career researcher runs into the issue you have described in some form. (Not that this makes such practices right). People higher than you in the pecking order will use administrative leverage to get what they want.
Advisor: "I am the first author on this paper." (And if you disagree, you'll have to find a new advisor and lose a year's worth of work).
Department: "Give Professor Smith what she wants or we will not sign off on your degree."
PhD Student: "Collect this data for me. (And then try to convince someone that you actually did the work and not me)."
The order of attribution should be based on the order of contribution in most CS-based fields. Equal contributions are noted by alphabetical order of the authors' surnames, sometimes with a footnote indicating equal contribution.
I would bring the issue up first with the PhD student directly. I would then speak with his/her advisor. The advisor is essentially the court of last resort. An advisor also will be able to help with the navigation of what actually constitutes authorship for each party. At the very least, your own advisor should (hopefully) be able to help you obtain credit for your work in the form of a chapter in your thesis or something.
Going forward, I would be firm in establishing what the authorship expectations will be on any work you do. You will at times be forced to balance fairness in authorship and expediency in obtaining your degree.
I will note that I take the pecking order things into account when I interview applicants for a job. I care much less about author order and much more about what the person actually did for the paper. Thus, if the OP applied to a job with me, I would likely give his research the same weight whether he was first or second author. I fully understand that superiors sometimes take advantage of their underlings.
answered 4 hours ago
Vladhagen
5,95312347
Rule #1: Always try to pin these types of things down before performing the work.
Rule #2: Understand that academia (graduate school) is run on an implicit pecking order:
Departmental pressures and requirements > Advisor > PhD Student > Master's Student
This makes complying to Rule #1 very difficult in practice. Every early career researcher runs into the issue you have described in some form. (Not that this makes such practices right). People higher than you in the pecking order will use administrative leverage to get what they want.
Advisor: "I am the first author on this paper." (And if you disagree, you'll have to find a new advisor and lose a year's worth of work).
Department: "Give Professor Smith what she wants or we will not sign off on your degree."
PhD Student: "Collect this data for me. (And then try to convince someone that you actually did the work and not me)."
The order of attribution should be based on the order of contribution in most CS-based fields. Equal contributions are noted by alphabetical order of the authors' surnames, sometimes with a footnote indicating equal contribution.
I would bring the issue up first with the PhD student directly. I would then speak with his/her advisor. The advisor is essentially the court of last resort. An advisor also will be able to help with the navigation of what actually constitutes authorship for each party. At the very least, your own advisor should (hopefully) be able to help you obtain credit for your work in the form of a chapter in your thesis or something.
Going forward, I would be firm in establishing what the authorship expectations will be on any work you do. You will at times be forced to balance fairness in authorship and expediency in obtaining your degree.
I will note that I take the pecking order things into account when I interview applicants for a job. I care much less about author order and much more about what the person actually did for the paper. Thus, if the OP applied to a job with me, I would likely give his research the same weight whether he was first or second author. I fully understand that superiors sometimes take advantage of their underlings.
answered 4 hours ago
Vladhagen
5,95312347
edited 3 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
Vladhagen
5,95312347
answered 4 hours ago
Vladhagen
5,95312347
answered 4 hours ago
Vladhagen
5,95312347
5,95312347
Good advice for rule #1, but when I have brought up such a thing in the past in the initial conversation of cooperation the response is "Let's first have a paper and then decide", "Producing a paper is such a difficult process, we don't know if we will accomplish" and so on.
– user99355
3 hours ago
@user99355. Hence Rule #2. Rule #1 is MUCH harder said than done. If someone higher in the pecking order wants to take advantage of you, they likely will. It is then that you have to balance "fairness" and finishing your degree.
– Vladhagen
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Good advice for rule #1, but when I have brought up such a thing in the past in the initial conversation of cooperation the response is "Let's first have a paper and then decide", "Producing a paper is such a difficult process, we don't know if we will accomplish" and so on.
– user99355
3 hours ago
@user99355. Hence Rule #2. Rule #1 is MUCH harder said than done. If someone higher in the pecking order wants to take advantage of you, they likely will. It is then that you have to balance "fairness" and finishing your degree.
– Vladhagen
3 hours ago
Good advice for rule #1, but when I have brought up such a thing in the past in the initial conversation of cooperation the response is "Let's first have a paper and then decide", "Producing a paper is such a difficult process, we don't know if we will accomplish" and so on.
– user99355
3 hours ago
Good advice for rule #1, but when I have brought up such a thing in the past in the initial conversation of cooperation the response is "Let's first have a paper and then decide", "Producing a paper is such a difficult process, we don't know if we will accomplish" and so on.
– user99355
3 hours ago
@user99355. Hence Rule #2. Rule #1 is MUCH harder said than done. If someone higher in the pecking order wants to take advantage of you, they likely will. It is then that you have to balance "fairness" and finishing your degree.
– Vladhagen
3 hours ago
@user99355. Hence Rule #2. Rule #1 is MUCH harder said than done. If someone higher in the pecking order wants to take advantage of you, they likely will. It is then that you have to balance "fairness" and finishing your degree.
– Vladhagen
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Best practice depends on the particular (sub-)field. Look at how it is in yours. Also, rules are flexible.
In mine, the ACM guidelines are usually the norm: alphabetical family name ascending lexicographic order, regardless of authors' individual contributions.
In any case, you may explicitly state contribution in a footnote.
Other comments stress clearly enough the importance of making things clear ahead of writing. I would just add that your own contributions will speak for themselves regardless of the order in which you appear as an author (as long as you do!).
answered 2 hours ago
Ú .
111
New contributor
Ú . 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
Best practice depends on the particular (sub-)field. Look at how it is in yours. Also, rules are flexible.
In mine, the ACM guidelines are usually the norm: alphabetical family name ascending lexicographic order, regardless of authors' individual contributions.
In any case, you may explicitly state contribution in a footnote.
Other comments stress clearly enough the importance of making things clear ahead of writing. I would just add that your own contributions will speak for themselves regardless of the order in which you appear as an author (as long as you do!).
answered 2 hours ago
Ú .
111
New contributor
Ú . 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
up vote
1
down vote
Best practice depends on the particular (sub-)field. Look at how it is in yours. Also, rules are flexible.
In mine, the ACM guidelines are usually the norm: alphabetical family name ascending lexicographic order, regardless of authors' individual contributions.
In any case, you may explicitly state contribution in a footnote.
Other comments stress clearly enough the importance of making things clear ahead of writing. I would just add that your own contributions will speak for themselves regardless of the order in which you appear as an author (as long as you do!).
answered 2 hours ago
Ú .
111
New contributor
Ú . is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Best practice depends on the particular (sub-)field. Look at how it is in yours. Also, rules are flexible.
In mine, the ACM guidelines are usually the norm: alphabetical family name ascending lexicographic order, regardless of authors' individual contributions.
In any case, you may explicitly state contribution in a footnote.
Other comments stress clearly enough the importance of making things clear ahead of writing. I would just add that your own contributions will speak for themselves regardless of the order in which you appear as an author (as long as you do!).
answered 2 hours ago
Ú .
111
New contributor
Ú . is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 hours ago
Ú .
111
New contributor
Ú . is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 hours ago
Ú .
111
answered 2 hours ago
Ú .
111
111
New contributor
Ú . is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Ú . is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Ú . 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
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%2f119201%2forder-of-authors-in-a-paper%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 else has the PhD student done? If she designed the experiment (do you have "experiments" in CS? I have no idea) and mentored you throughout the process of "producing results" I could see why she would expect to be first author. It does sound like a mismatch, and I'm not saying she's right but your description of who did what is kinda vague
– Azor Ahai
4 hours ago
Most of the times, they provide initial research direction, which many times changes after reformulating the hypothesis and going based off results. Other times they provide the data that will be used, and making sense of them is the purpose of the paper. Just to list few examples, it's not a specific event but rather multiple ones I am trying to describe.
– user99355
3 hours ago
Do you write the bulk of the paper? Sometimes the actual code/statistical analysis of the data is only one section of a paper. But if you write, say, intro, related work, experiment and results section, then the paper is mostly your work.
– Pam
21 mins ago
@Pam Yes for my case I have written the bulk of the paper.
– user99355
3 mins ago