I wrote a paper with a collaborator. The collaborator wrote a followup paper where they referred to their work in that paper in the first person, i.e. "in a previous paper, I presented the idea that...". To be clear, that particular idea really was their idea, not mine.

Is this acceptable, or should they have instead said "we presented the idea that..."? Does it differ between different fields, such as computer science, mathematics, physics, and economics?

  • 2
    What would you gain from this? Commented Aug 8, 2018 at 6:04

3 Answers 3


In maths you never use the first person singular anyway, so they question as stated does not apply. Also, all work in a paper (in pure maths at least) is understood to be the work of all authors. In fact, it is common to refer to the other paper in the third person, even when the authors are the same.

In short: no, this is not acceptable.

  • 2
    Having said that, in the interest of maintaining the collaboration, it might not be a good idea to argue with your coauthor over this.
    – Jessica B
    Commented Aug 8, 2018 at 6:12
  • This answer relates to math. I am wondering how it is in the other disciplines
    – user56834
    Commented Aug 8, 2018 at 10:19
  • Very rarely, I have read math papers where one section is the work of one of the authors, and the rest is the work of both authors. But it's uncommon enough to stand out.
    – user37208
    Commented Aug 8, 2018 at 16:46
  • 1
    I've seen some solo-author math papers where the authors do use "I", particularly when discussing their own past (solo) work or their own opinions. It's more a matter of personal writing style than anything; it's less common but I don't think anybody seriously objects to it. But I agree that references to joint work should definitely use "we". Commented Aug 8, 2018 at 17:33
  • @NateEldredge I'm surprised that got past the referee. I tend to use I in the acknowledgements section, since that really is just me, but that doesn't always get allowed.
    – Jessica B
    Commented Aug 8, 2018 at 20:45

The I and we is less of a problem in my field. In my field (sociology) double blind review is standard. A reference "we (2018) shows" identifies the authors, so it cannot be part of the review copy. In principle, you could have a review copy that says "A and B (2018) show", and the final copy replace it with "we (2018) show", but that is rarely done. It is usually left as "A and B (2018) show". Now your colleague cannot say "A (2018) shows" as that does not correctly refer to the entry in the bibliography, so it will always be "A and B (2018) show".

This is a non-intentional side-effect of this tradition, but I think a good one. I would consider all co-authors responsible for the entire paper.


In physics

  • Most often the paper and its authors are not mentioned. The results are stated followed by a citation.
  • Occasionally the authors are mentioned in the third person "Lastname et al." where Lastname is usually the first author of the paper.
  • "We" or "I" would be rare but I don't see why anyone would care if they were used.

As a final note, papers with only two authors are not so common. I have never published one myself.

  • Whereas papers with more than two authors are not so common in my field.
    – Jessica B
    Commented Aug 8, 2018 at 15:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .