3 added 29 characters in body
source | link

I am assuming that you are mostly concerned about getting full credit for this paper on the job market. I would offer three solutions.

First, if you have a supervisor who is sympathetic to your point (and who agrees to this strategy), you can make them the “bad guy.” Then you can say that your supervisor said that you cannot add any additional authors at this time. You might even be able to say that you have been advised that proofreading needs to be handled as an acknowledgmenta note in the Acknowledgment section/statement, rather than authorship.

If the supervisor is not willing to go this far, then you could ask them to emphasize your primary contribution to this article in all letters written on your behalf on the job market. This would be very standard and would do the same thing as a contribution statement, just in a more private manner.

Finally, you could purposely look for a health Econ journal where this type of statement/disclaimer is more standard. If it is a journal norm, then your colleagues can hardly object to your including it. You might even be able to use the fact that you have to write such a statement to remove people whose contribution would give a bad impression .

I am assuming that you are mostly concerned about getting full credit for this paper on the job market. I would offer three solutions.

First, if you have a supervisor who is sympathetic to your point (and who agrees to this strategy), you can make them the “bad guy.” Then you can say that your supervisor said that you cannot add any additional authors at this time. You might even be able to say that you have been advised that proofreading needs to be handled as an acknowledgment, rather than authorship.

If the supervisor is not willing to go this far, then you could ask them to emphasize your primary contribution to this article in all letters written on your behalf on the job market. This would be very standard and would do the same thing as a contribution statement, just in a more private manner.

Finally, you could purposely look for a health Econ journal where this type of statement/disclaimer is more standard. If it is a journal norm, then your colleagues can hardly object to your including it. You might even be able to use the fact that you have to write such a statement to remove people whose contribution would give a bad impression .

I am assuming that you are mostly concerned about getting full credit for this paper on the job market. I would offer three solutions.

First, if you have a supervisor who is sympathetic to your point (and who agrees to this strategy), you can make them the “bad guy.” Then you can say that your supervisor said that you cannot add any additional authors at this time. You might even be able to say that you have been advised that proofreading needs to be handled as a note in the Acknowledgment section/statement, rather than authorship.

If the supervisor is not willing to go this far, then you could ask them to emphasize your primary contribution to this article in all letters written on your behalf on the job market. This would be very standard and would do the same thing as a contribution statement, just in a more private manner.

Finally, you could purposely look for a health Econ journal where this type of statement/disclaimer is more standard. If it is a journal norm, then your colleagues can hardly object to your including it. You might even be able to use the fact that you have to write such a statement to remove people whose contribution would give a bad impression .

2 added 344 characters in body
source | link

I am assuming that you are mostly concerned about getting full credit for this paper on the job market. I would offer twothree solutions.

First, if you have a supervisor who is sympathetic to your point (and who agrees to this strategy), you can make them the “bad guy.” Then you can say that your supervisor said that you cannot add any additional authors at this time. You might even be able to say that you have been advised that proofreading needs to be handled as an acknowledgment, rather than authorship.

If the supervisor is not willing to go this far, then you could ask them to emphasize your primary contribution to this article in all letters written on your behalf on the job market. This would be very standard and would do the same thing as a contribution statement, just in a more private manner.

Finally, you could purposely look for a health Econ journal where this type of statement/disclaimer is more standard. If it is a journal norm, then your colleagues can hardly object to your including it. You might even be able to use the fact that you have to write such a statement to remove people whose contribution would give a bad impression .

I am assuming that you are mostly concerned about getting full credit for this paper on the job market. I would offer two solutions.

First, if you have a supervisor who is sympathetic to your point, you can make them the “bad guy.” Then you can say that your supervisor said that you cannot add any additional authors at this time. You might even be able to say that you have been advised that proofreading needs to be handled as an acknowledgment, rather than authorship.

If the supervisor is not willing to go this far, then you could ask them to emphasize your primary contribution to this article in all letters written on your behalf on the job market. This would be very standard and would do the same thing, just in a more private manner.

I am assuming that you are mostly concerned about getting full credit for this paper on the job market. I would offer three solutions.

First, if you have a supervisor who is sympathetic to your point (and who agrees to this strategy), you can make them the “bad guy.” Then you can say that your supervisor said that you cannot add any additional authors at this time. You might even be able to say that you have been advised that proofreading needs to be handled as an acknowledgment, rather than authorship.

If the supervisor is not willing to go this far, then you could ask them to emphasize your primary contribution to this article in all letters written on your behalf on the job market. This would be very standard and would do the same thing as a contribution statement, just in a more private manner.

Finally, you could purposely look for a health Econ journal where this type of statement/disclaimer is more standard. If it is a journal norm, then your colleagues can hardly object to your including it. You might even be able to use the fact that you have to write such a statement to remove people whose contribution would give a bad impression .

1
source | link

I am assuming that you are mostly concerned about getting full credit for this paper on the job market. I would offer two solutions.

First, if you have a supervisor who is sympathetic to your point, you can make them the “bad guy.” Then you can say that your supervisor said that you cannot add any additional authors at this time. You might even be able to say that you have been advised that proofreading needs to be handled as an acknowledgment, rather than authorship.

If the supervisor is not willing to go this far, then you could ask them to emphasize your primary contribution to this article in all letters written on your behalf on the job market. This would be very standard and would do the same thing, just in a more private manner.