62

While we cannot conclusively determine whether or not you would have deserved co-authorship, for the reasons others mentioned (number of authors on the paper, the time you invested into this project, etc.), it seems likely that you should have been one - or at the very least acknowledged. Now, let me share with you my hunch why that never happened, and how ...


37

You seem to be in a Math department, and are having a problem that is going to effect everyone in that department. I suggest you speak to the chair of the department. There are journals in mathematics, good ones, that insist on an alphabetical order of authors. This is also the standard in most of pure mathematics. If you have your facts correct, your ...


25

Your “friend” is no friend to you at all, and behaved unethically in promising you coauthorship and making other promises that he has not kept, and that it’s not clear he had any intention of keeping. The other answers analyze at length whether you being a coauthor makes sense or not, but that seems beside the point to me. You were promised to be made a ...


15

Basically, you spent XYZ hours on this work depending on your colleagues promise that you would be co-author. This is time you would have spent on your own research otherwise. Pacta sunt servanda and you did your part. In addition, I agree with @JochenGlueck that if the paper already has 20 authors, there is no good reason why you shouldn't be also one of ...


14

Very strictly speaking, the following is rather a discussion of the circumstances than a plain answer to the question "What is the best thing I should do here?" Anyway, I think the following points should be pointed out in some detail. Should the OP be a co-author of the paper? Many (not all) people here seem to agree that, given the information ...


11

You've been scooped, I'd say it's common. You could write: Further to publication of our preliminary results [1], X et al. showed ... Or: In parallel with this work, X et al. showed ... (You could cite your technical report elsewhere in the latter instance.) You can then explain how your work improves on theirs, especially as your results are way more ...


11

I am assuming this is not experimental work. How to convince the referees that I got the results independently? Don't. How you got the results is irrelevant to the fact that they have already been published. It is my first time dealing with this issue. Shall I also submit the timestamps to prove that I had the result A? No. I am thinking about putting ...


9

Sorry, but you may not like this answer. Spending time and effort helping someone on a paper, even giving advice on presentation, doesn't make you an author. Had they used your statistical model, assuming that you created it and it is of publishable quality, then you would, of course, be an author. But if they decided not to use it, then you have no real ...


7

The head author’s insistence that you contributed is irrelevant. One simply cannot make someone a coauthor without their consent. I suggest that you reply to the chain of emails with something along the following lines: Dear [ACM editors], Thank you for your assistance with the issue of the coauthorship of [paper]. My colleague [head author], cc’ed, is ...


7

Using "we" as you suggest is fine. As to the APA, I say a mathematician needs a guide to psychology writing like a fish needs a bicycle. We with a single author is good enough for Terry Tao 1,2 so you can do it as well. There are many specific style issues in mathematics. There are many guides. Here is one 3. By the way, the best time to discuss ...


5

ok after the clarification in the comments I'll post it as an answer. Like I said, the "The journal did not send me the page-proof before publishing it online" part seems very odd. Some journals do put early "just accepted" versions of the accepted papers online, and only then send the proofs to the authors. The fact that there is no DOI ...


4

Without knowing the field you're working in, it's difficult to say who should be author. In some fields, co-authorship is given for any number of reasons, such as to acknowledge the PI who originally collected the data, even if they weren't directly involved in the paper. In other fields, authors are only the people who both worked on the paper and are ...


3

To expand on earlier answers, the following is offered. One of the hardest things to do is to not worry about the primacy of one's research. That other researchers independently determined your answer A should not detract from your own independent work in the determination of answer A, or consequential answer B, or the culmination in your determining C. ...


3

Good answers here already, but I feel some points are still missing: How you will behave depends on your research area, but I've never seen someone trying to revert a scoop situation and succeeding. Try to establish that your work came first is irrelevant in my opinion. You had the result and didn't publish it, and frankly, it doesn't make a lot of sense ...


3

That's always an awkward situation. The bar to "deserve" authorship is generally considered to be pretty low: If you intellectually contributed to the project, you should be a co-author. At the same time, people generally have the expectations that all co-authors continue to contribute to the paper in some form or other till the end, for example ...


3

If the supervisor of the postdoc and your own are not in the loop yet, they should be. At the very least, they should be able to provide perspective. My feeling is that if someone has worked on a project, even if their particular solution didn't work out, they should be considered for authorship. I don't know what field you are in, but the claim that papers ...


2

tl;dr: 1. Your supervisor will know what to do. 2. For the long run, change the rule. In our university, it is mandatory for authors to be listed in the order of their contribution. This is highly unlikely, as it is not the university which decides on publication order conventions. I would suspect this is at most a guideline or default suggested order. It'...


2

I wrote a couple of reviews with 5-7 coauthors in the last years, and indeed, in all of them almost every coauthor was asked to write their part. Some of my co-authors were indeed PhD students. On top of that, there was one "main guy" who was basically responsible for getting everything together, making sure that different parts have comparable ...


2

Who does the actual "writing" (i.e. putting pen to paper or fingers to keys) is actually immaterial. I've published with half a dozen people where everything was "written" by one person, since he is (by far) the best writer in the group. He chose the words and the sentence structure. But the ideas came primarily from two other people and ...


2

Ideally, he (either S or A or both) should be included if and only if their intellectual contributions appear in the paper. If they have contributed that, then they should be an author, just as is true for any other person. Unfortunately, the world isn't ideal and in some fields it is just "pretty standard" to include an advisor even if they have ...


2

I think it is perilleous to make a judgement on this one-sided story, especially regarding the point There was a technician who repeatedly refused to work, did useless measurements after having been forced, which he never evaluated I do not know your former lab policy, but a technician is just a technician: he should just provide you working tool, but he ...


2

You might take a look here; and as for a more detailed response, let me focus on this one question: Would you do some "preparing steps" from my side if not willing to give in? You could ask everyone to tell you which contributions they offered based on the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT). And make sure that the CRediTs are visible in the ...


2

While some others disagree, I think you have a strong case for co-authorship of the paper, particularly since you did work on the project in consideration of a promise to be included as an author. The role you played sounds sufficient to me to warrant co-authorship, particularly on a paper that already has so many authors (who presumably each did a small ...


2

Authorship can be a contentious issue. In this case, I think it is actually impossible for any of us, including the OP, to know whether it should have been granted. While the OP helped the main author via discussions and suggestions, the final version of the paper may look very different and be the product of many other discussions, suggestions and ...


1

This is only a partial answer, specifically discussing the point of whether the OP should be a coauthor or not. While I would agree with the general premise of other answers discussing this point (e.g. @Buffy and @JochenGlueck), I would like to take a different point of view. In my opinion, the details of the contribution of the OP and whether their ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible