Timeline for Who should the authors of a corrigendum be?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 28, 2014 at 10:24 | vote | accept | Johanna | ||
| S Jul 24, 2014 at 22:47 | history | suggested | adipro | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
changed erratum to corrigendum
|
| Jul 24, 2014 at 22:22 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 24, 2014 at 22:47 | |||||
| Jul 23, 2014 at 10:27 | comment | added | Johanna | @Pete L. Clark Yes, of course. That's why I wrote "so far". | |
| Jul 23, 2014 at 10:08 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @Lea: Certainly you want every named author of the erratum to read it! | |
| Jul 23, 2014 at 9:17 | history | edited | Dmitry Savostyanov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected grammar
|
| Jul 23, 2014 at 9:15 | comment | added | Johanna | @Pete L. Clark Thanks for the explanation. Especially your comments on the third point are convincing. For the "contribution": I do not think publishing errors is a good way to "gain points" and I would be very happy if I could just not publish anything at all. Maybe I should be happy to share the responsibility. It just felt wrong writing names of people on a document that so far did not even read it. However, I think you both convinced me. | |
| Jul 23, 2014 at 9:05 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @Lea: An erratum is not necessarily a "contribution". Even if it is, the contribution (in mathematics) need not be by the named author! For instance there is a published erratum which describes an error that was pointed out by me and another mathematician...but the erratum was formally authored by the (solo) original author of the paper (three different people). The point of an erratum is not to "gain points" but rather to set the record straight. | |
| Jul 23, 2014 at 9:02 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | 3. is an important point. It could look even worse than that: if authors A,B,C,D write a paper and the erratum is only written by A and B, then to me it looks like C and D are somehow not endorsing the erratum: i.e., they either do not agree that there is a problem or they don't agree with the fix. If that is actually the case, then I suppose they should not be coauthors (how could they be?). Conversely, if this is not the case then avoiding giving that impression already seems like a good reason to include all the original authors. | |
| Jul 23, 2014 at 8:30 | comment | added | Johanna | Thanks for your reply. As I have the feeling that you assume that this is not what I think (as this is completely new to me, I do not have an opinion about this, that is why I was interested in opinions different from my advisor's one): I do not mind at all including them as authors. I was just wondering whether this is the right thing to do, because normally, authorship means that you contributed (your first item took not place yet). :-) | |
| Jul 23, 2014 at 8:11 | history | answered | Dmitry Savostyanov | CC BY-SA 3.0 |