Skip to main content
Academia

Return to Answer

edited body
Source Link
Thomas Chen
Thomas Chen
  • 134
  • 1
  • 4

The use of "and"'and' in author attributions usually implies an equal contribution from all named authors. On the other hand, the less common "with"'with' could imply a lesser contribution from the second author. However, this can vary between academic fields and journals, and the exact nature of each author's contribution is best ascertained from the acknowledgments or author contribution statement in the paper. Given the 1938 paper you referred to, "with"'with' might reflect outdated conventions or stylistic preferences.

Hope this helps.

The use of "and" in author attributions usually implies an equal contribution from all named authors. On the other hand, the less common "with" could imply a lesser contribution from the second author. However, this can vary between academic fields and journals, and the exact nature of each author's contribution is best ascertained from the acknowledgments or author contribution statement in the paper. Given the 1938 paper you referred to, "with" might reflect outdated conventions or stylistic preferences.

Hope this helps.

The use of 'and' in author attributions usually implies an equal contribution from all named authors. On the other hand, the less common 'with' could imply a lesser contribution from the second author. However, this can vary between academic fields and journals, and the exact nature of each author's contribution is best ascertained from the acknowledgments or author contribution statement in the paper. Given the 1938 paper you referred to, 'with' might reflect outdated conventions or stylistic preferences.

Hope this helps.

Source Link
Thomas Chen
Thomas Chen
  • 134
  • 1
  • 4

The use of "and" in author attributions usually implies an equal contribution from all named authors. On the other hand, the less common "with" could imply a lesser contribution from the second author. However, this can vary between academic fields and journals, and the exact nature of each author's contribution is best ascertained from the acknowledgments or author contribution statement in the paper. Given the 1938 paper you referred to, "with" might reflect outdated conventions or stylistic preferences.

Hope this helps.