We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
40

In my field, where author numbers between one and six are the norm, reasons for having more include the following: The paper results from a large-scale collaboration between different groups that developed different parts of the overall work. The paper is supposed to give a broad picture overview of something, like in the case of a survey paper or a ...


23

De facto, co-authorship means different things in different fields. As Zenon mention in their answer, the Higgs Boson paper has 5154 authors. Does that mean that there is a first author who sent around the manuscript to all co-authors, then waited for 5153 people to give feedback and OK? No, absence of response does not hold up publication and is taken as ...


9

There are many reasons. Science is becoming more and more collaborative, especially in fields requiring experiments. See for example the ATLAS and CMS paper on the discovery of the Higgs Boson which has 5,154 authors, or this 1000 Genome project paper which has hundreds. Those are extreme examples, but with the increase in complexity it is often required to ...


7

The paper Radcliffe, J. M. "Some properties of coherent spin states." Journal of Physics A: General Physics 4.3 (1971): 313 was submitted in 1970, published in 1971, and contains the following: At the time of writing this post, the paper has 951 Google citations. There is no hint as to the date of the passing of Prof. Radcliffe but it is the only ...


6

It can be an issue, but it is doesn't have to be a large one. If all of your work is joint with senior people, many people will wonder to what extent you contributed to these projects, and to what extent you were just following others. Particularly at top schools, people want to hire leaders in their field, and certainly people who will be productive ...


5

It definitely sucks when you feel like you're not getting credit for your work, and in applied math, it is certainly not standard practice to omit mention of PhD students' contributions. In fact, I've seen many presentations where professors and industry leaders show group pictures of their entire lab, and they're proud of the team effort. However, passive ...


5

Yes, papers get published posthumously. I don't know who the world record holders are, but Klaus Schulten, one of the greats of biomolecular simulation, who passed away in October 2016, has written several papers in 2019 (according to Google Scholar). These include a PNAS: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/12/5356.short


4

As others have written, this is extremely field dependent. I work in two fields. In one (forecasting) the maximum number of coauthors has been five, including me, and that was a review paper in which everyone indeed contributed different expertise and a different view on a subfield. In clinical psychology, I have collaborated on papers with up to ten ...


4

Euler has several items published/presented in 1862. This is 79 years after his death on 18 September 1783. (Several were written in the 1740s, so the writing-publishing gap is more than a century.)


4

If everyone made an equal contribution, you can put that information in the footnote. In a very famous (in the AI-related research) paper ADAM: a method for stochastic optimisation you can encounter the following line: ∗Equal contribution. Author ordering determined by coin flip over a Google Hangout. I'd say randomisation is a fair way to go. If you ...


3

This looks like a conference paper to me, so "InProceedings" is appropriate. The one you thought of, "Proceedings" is for the entire conference. i.e. the book that contains every single paper from the conference, not just a single paper. That's why there is no author field, and the title field is for the name of the conference. BTW, definition of the ...


3

Assuming that I understand it now, I do have a suggestion. Given the norms in your field, in which the PI is (I think) a co-author of every paper and who controls the grant and the research, you can't really distinguish yourself without help. But if others speak to your qualities more than you do, it might be enough - or even better. That would be the case ...


2

If you were happy for the work to be resubmitted more or less as it is but didn't want to spend time/energy doing so, you could ask one of your colleagues to be corresponding author (citing other obligations as in cralr's answer). If you would need to make substantial changes to the work to have it published (if reviewers' comments from the rejecting journal ...


2

They’re an ex-PI and one that you’ve had negative experiences with. Still, networking and connections, even if faint, can come back and be helpful directly or indirectly. Diplomacy is key. Give your appreciation for their interest in collaborating, but decline, citing other obligations, time commitments, etc.


2

Combining methodologies often requires a team for each, with their own PI and then a coordinating PI. For example a paper I'm familiar with looked at fMRI and gait metrics, so there was (1) 3-4 people who worked on the fMRI data, (2) 3-4 people who worked on the gait data, (3) a large group of senior professors who wrote the original grant and coordinated ...


2

My maximum is 9 (here). It occurred on an interdisciplinary paper in Molecular Biology and Evolution. Six from computer science: The lead author was a student in our lab. There's another student who helped him, who became coauthor. Aside from me, there are three other teachers from our lab, who probably offered advice to the students during weekly ...


2

Presumably the authors will have all agreed to an author list, and this should be the one used on arXiv, irrespective of who is posting on arXiv or who is the corresponding author.


2

CS/AI perspective: the name on the presentation matters far less than the name on the paper. You are listed as a coauthor on a paper less than 6 months into your PhD, that's a big deal I think. In other words - while not being mentioned during the presentation is annoying and hurtful, I don't think it actually hurts you as much as you think it does. That ...


2

I don't think this case warrants authorship. Your advisor did nothing to contribute to the new work, helping you with a prior paper says nothing about future papers. You should absolutely cite your thesis (or whatever paper used this dataset) in your new work, and make sure that the dataset is not protected in some way (say, if it's a clinical dataset that ...


2

It is very possible that it is unethical, but it would take a bit of analysis to clarify it. Your course professor is probably a good person to adjudicate it. I'd suggest that you take the problem to them, preferably in person. Using other people's work without attribution is plagiarism. Go see the prof.


1

"Proceedings" refers to the entire conference proceedings as a single publication - e.g. "Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Natural Hazards & Infrastructure". What you are looking for is "InProceedings" - a single paper within the conference proceedings. Besides these two, there is also "Conference". This is the same thing as "...


1

I think you should first meet your advisor,and maybe in second time the other colleague. I would not tell him directly the problem but instead asking a question like "I don't get why I am not mentioned for this work. Is it usual ? Didn't I work enough on the problem ?". And if his answer does not convince you, request that your name appears everytime needed ...


1

The answer of JeffE is the morally correct one. The answer of ZeroTheHero is the political one. I'll give the self defense answer. If your advisor has power over your future, then I advise you to go along. But move away from her orbit at your first opportunity. What she is demanding is unethical and seems to be trying to boost herself at your expense, ...


1

I think there is no universal answer. There are fields of pure mathematics where single author papers are quite frequent (the majority?) while there are other areas of the sciences (e.g., the biomedical field) that are so broad that nobody has the requisite knowledge and time to do everything themselves. So it depends on the field you're in. But beyond that,...


1

For both sakes, reaching a Habilitation or being attested "Habilitation equivalence" by a hire committee (either one is mandatory to become a full professor in Germany), you need to show that you have moved on. Papers that do not list your PhD supervisor as a coauthor are considered a strong indicator for this. However, this does not mean that you need to ...


1

It's extremely difficult to understand your special situation with your adviser. As always, there are at least two sides to every such story, and you're telling us your side of it. Getting papers through is an important academic goal for PI's, and many uncomfortable situations occur during the process. I recommend thinking about this in the context of ...


1

From your question, it seems that you are not keen on resubmitting the paper. If that is the case, you have every right to refuse. However, make sure that your response is polite but firm. You need not give any reasons or excuses. Just thank him for the request, and say that unfortunately, you are not interested in resubmitting the paper at the moment. ...


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