Timeline for Using "et al." in maths papers
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
36 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 26, 2021 at 9:51 | vote | accept | user1729 | ||
| Jan 15, 2020 at 11:28 | vote | accept | user1729 | ||
| Jan 15, 2020 at 11:28 | |||||
| Jun 14, 2018 at 8:36 | history | edited | Wrzlprmft♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 14, 2018 at 8:34 | history | edited | user1729 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 412 characters in body
|
| Jun 23, 2015 at 19:58 | comment | added | JeffE | So you don’t realise that it’s a Zelmanov paper. — It's not a Zelmanov paper. It's a Smith, Smythe, and Zelmanov paper! | |
| Jun 23, 2015 at 19:23 | comment | added | smci | @user1729 then please improve the title. It's unclear from the title that this is anything more than an arbitrary stylistic issue; you're asking if it's fair to alphabetically later-named authors and whether people infer contribution from order of appearance in the author-list, in particular for maths. | |
| Jun 23, 2015 at 19:11 | history | edited | user1729 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Jun 23, 2015 at 18:37 | answer | added | Ned64 | timeline score: -1 | |
| S Jun 23, 2015 at 13:44 | history | suggested | TRiG | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
is -> in. Did a few other bits and pieces while I was about it. (I like curley quotation marks.)
|
| Jun 23, 2015 at 13:33 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 23, 2015 at 13:44 | |||||
| Jun 23, 2015 at 10:01 | comment | added | yo' | Related: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/41759/… You certainly cannot cite it as Zelmanov et al. | |
| Jun 23, 2015 at 10:00 | comment | added | yo' | I don't see why this is getting closed as opinion-based. This is quite about the culture of math publishing, and while we may have different opinions on things, we still can produce quality and objective answers. | |
| Jun 23, 2015 at 8:20 | comment | added | user1729 | @smci I've rolled back you edit as, although your new title asks a relevant question, this question isn't the question I am specifically asking. | |
| Jun 23, 2015 at 8:20 | history | rollback | user1729 |
Rollback to Revision 2
|
|
| Jun 22, 2015 at 23:32 | comment | added | RoboKaren | This is why I changed my last name to A'abanana. | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 23:27 | answer | added | Boris Bukh | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 22:26 | answer | added | Scott Seidman | timeline score: 1 | |
| S Jun 22, 2015 at 21:00 | history | suggested | smci | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improve title
|
| Jun 22, 2015 at 20:50 | answer | added | Hagen von Eitzen | timeline score: -1 | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 20:48 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 22, 2015 at 21:00 | |||||
| Jun 22, 2015 at 19:51 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 23, 2015 at 2:21 | |||||
| Jun 22, 2015 at 16:45 | comment | added | Kimball | (revision of earlier comment) Actually, I just checked a recent Springer paper of mine (in Math Z), and I noticed they did this to my paper too. I'm sure I disliked this at the time, but then forgot it as there were plenty of things I was unhappy at with Springer's copyediting. Anyway, I guess this is the standard for Springer math, as WillieWong mentions in his answer. After some thought, I think it may be worthwhile to pushback, as Veblen and Anonymous suggest. If people keep combating this policy, they may consider changing it. | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 16:16 | answer | added | Wolfgang Bangerth | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 15:36 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackAcademia/status/613007731239329793 | ||
| Jun 22, 2015 at 14:11 | answer | added | Anonymous | timeline score: 25 | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 12:47 | comment | added | Oswald Veblen | The best thing to do is to is first ask the editor nicely if they will change it back. If they will not, then insist more firmly that they allow you to rewrite the paragraph, at which point you can add the author names in the prose. The editors have a paper they are nearly ready to publish, and so they want to get it off their desk. I have written a different answer on this subject here: academia.stackexchange.com/a/36731/16122 | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 12:25 | comment | added | user1729 | @Kimball I did that too - I was mostly just side-stepping your question for fear of...something... | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 12:16 | answer | added | Willie Wong | timeline score: 23 | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 12:13 | comment | added | Kimball | Not all Springer journals have the same formatting guidelines. You should specifically look for papers in the journal you're publishing in. | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 12:09 | comment | added | user1729 | @Kimball It is a Springer journal. I searched about in Springer journals for a while and I found one other paper which did this (and then I immediately stopped searching). However, I saw no citations of >2 people before finding this example. | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 12:06 | comment | added | Kimball | I don't recall having seen math journals do this. What journal is this? Do all the other paper in the journal do this? | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 11:54 | history | edited | user1729 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 84 characters in body
|
| Jun 22, 2015 at 11:53 | comment | added | Willie Wong | Regarding your second paragraph: in fields with citation orders, big shots almost always come further down the list, since they are almost always the last author. | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 11:51 | answer | added | Aleksandr Blekh | timeline score: 38 | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 11:48 | comment | added | Lazzaro Campeotti | They should either change it back to your original style, or if they refuse, just give the label [10]. There is no justification for elevating some authors over others. | |
| Jun 22, 2015 at 11:34 | history | asked | user1729 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |