Timeline for Referring to previous work “by the authors”
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2, 2012 at 15:17 | vote | accept | F'x | ||
| Nov 22, 2012 at 21:54 | vote | accept | F'x | ||
| Nov 22, 2012 at 21:54 | |||||
| Nov 20, 2012 at 14:50 | comment | added | F'x | @dmckee I had to look up what MPU meant… It probably is related to some extent. The most common situation I see is having one or two staff researchers as authors common to multiple papers, along with a post-doc. As post-docs come and go, authorship changes along time on related (but not necessarily sequential) papers. | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 14:45 | comment | added | JeffE | @dmckee: Yes, but that's one of the reasons the situation feels so awkward. | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 14:34 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | Of course this situation will only come up occasionally unless you are in the habit of submitting a lot of MPUs. | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 13:52 | answer | added | StrongBad | timeline score: -1 | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 13:38 | comment | added | user102 | @F'x: it's weird to write (I've been there :)), but it's not that weird to read actually, and I guess that would be the best thing to do. | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 13:30 | answer | added | Nate Eldredge | timeline score: 7 | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 13:08 | comment | added | F'x | In a paper by X and others, it seems a bit weird to write “X et al. have shown that…” | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 13:07 | comment | added | gerrit | I would avoid it altogether, why not simply write B1 et. al have shown that...? | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 12:56 | history | asked | F'x | CC BY-SA 3.0 |