18

I am currently close to publishing a paper that I first sent for review 5 years ago. The reasons why the review process was so long are not entirely clear to me, and are beside the point. During that time, I have not done any significant work on the paper, except for editing it for clarity—the vast majority of the time, the paper was with the journal.

I'm unsure what funding information I should put on the paper in this case. I wrote it, and it appeared on arXiv, during my PhD. In the meantime, I had a post-doc, and now I have just started a new post-doc. Should I mention all these sources of funding, or only the ones from during the PhD? A similar question applies to affiliations.

My field is mathematics.

  • Given that you can credit as many as you want, your "outputs" under various projects/sponsors go up without downside. They're all happy and nothing has actually changed. – user3445853 Oct 5 at 14:26
22

As I often try to remember, a stable baseline for such things is honesty. So, perhaps something like "the main part of this work was partially funded by X. Revisions were partially funded by Y and Z".

(I'm assuming that "partially" is the correct thing in your situation...)

In the U.S., in math, the funding agencies not only "require" such acknowledgements, but do want to be able to "point to" them to make an impact on higher-ups, including the U.S. Congress. I somehow doubt that Congressional staffers are fact-checking the NSF's claims... but, still. :)

Similarly regarding affiliations, I think, though in that regard the more functionally relevant item is probably "current contact information". At the same time, you could also credit former employers/institutions with "partially funding" the research. Although I don't see this in any U.S. math rule-book, it would certainly be honest and fair.

(Years ago, a senior colleague of mine here in Minnesota, Steven Gaal, in the intro to his very nice monograph on linear analysis, explicitly thanked "the farmers and workers of Minnesota" for supporting him while he did that work.)

| improve this answer | |
6

Funding should be that which contributed to the paper and the research that went in to it. Unlikely that anything later than that would be appropriate.

There are two purposes for affiliation. One is to acknowledge any support of the institutions that, again, contributed to making the paper possible. But the other is to make it easy for people to find you if there are questions or suggestions. A footnote in the paper about your affiliation then but listing your current affiliation to make it easy to find you might be a good plan.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    Current affiliations are also important to identify conflict of interests with the reviewers. (you don't want the possibility of someone to claim the peer review wasn't truly neutral because of an undisclosed affiliation). As for people being able to find you post-publication, I would argue that it'd be even better to register in ORCID and include that identifier (allowing you to update your contact info decades later) : orcid.org – Joe Oct 5 at 16:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.