Timeline for Is it okay to add mention of a grant in the acknowledgements at the proof-stage when the grant started after the paper was submitted for publication?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 23, 2017 at 19:04 | vote | accept | Nikey Mike | ||
| Mar 3, 2017 at 16:46 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAcademia/status/837705738634022912 | ||
| Mar 2, 2017 at 5:51 | history | edited | Jeromy Anglim | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Mar 2, 2017 at 0:59 | answer | added | Dan Romik | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 23:53 | comment | added | PsySp | @BryanKrause I agree with you. If the revision included just corrections of typos then no ack would be required. But if the paper was revised in a major way (whatever this means) then I think the most appropriate is to write what I mentioned above. | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 23:51 | comment | added | Bryan Krause♦ | @PsySp Last sentence of the OP: "I add that for dealing with the referees remarks, we have also worked at the paper, work that correspond to a time when the grant was active." In my opinion, it would depend on how substantial that work was. Responses to referees can be simple edits or sometimes require substantial new experiments. | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 23:09 | comment | added | PsySp | @BryanKrause OP says "The paper was submitted when we were working at a grant proposal." So 0% time was spent on the paper since the new grant started. However, the only way I can see around is if some revisions were done while working under the new grant. Then they could say this work was partially supported by such-and such | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 22:54 | comment | added | Bryan Krause♦ | @PsySp I think in general I agree with you; however, the OP's question regards the time spent working on the paper under the new grant, so the situation isn't quite as clear. Maybe one could reword the question of how much support for a paper needs to come from a particular grant to justify an acknowledgement. >0%? 1%? 10%? 30%? | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 21:06 | comment | added | PsySp | Unless I miss something, the situation is pretty clear: the research was done and the paper was written before the grant was accepted, I do not think it makes any sense to acknowledge the current grant. | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 17:24 | history | asked | Nikey Mike | CC BY-SA 3.0 |