55

Actually, in (pure) mathematics, I would find it unusual to find the names of "authors" who didn't contribute to the work. I think that the request to add X, if they didn't participate, was wrong, but removing it was right. Adding the name of the supervisor is less common in math than in some other fields, but I think the same standard should apply:...


53

Yes. Such a grave case of academic misconduct should have publicly visible consequences. Let the editor know; the journal should issue a retraction as the whole article can be deemed to be unreliable. As retractions can take a long time, it would also be useful if you comment on the suspicion of plagiarism on PubPeer. (The authors could respond with a ...


30

In pure mathematics it is common to see both papers that are coauthored by a PhD student and their adviser, and papers that are authored solely by a PhD student without their adviser. Both of these things are considered completely normal and neither of them is likely to cause any prejudice against your paper by a journal or anyone else who looks at it. It is ...


12

I had a very similar experience. I wrote a great paper, mostly alone but under the general (and very kind) supervision of my thesis director (the area was physics). I added him as a secondary author (which he deserved, at least in my opinion) and he asked to be removed. He said It is a great paper, you do not need to dilute your authorship with my name. ...


9

Remind them of the previous communications and insist that you already withdrew the paper. Provide copies if possible, with dates. No, it isn't a duplicate publication, but make sure they understand that their "acceptance" is moot. It isn't required that your withdrawal be acknowledged for it to take effect since the rights to the paper are/were ...


9

Surely it is common for researchers in all fields to not publish all their results? I think many of us have mentioned something informally in private communication or in a talk or two, perhaps looking for feedback. There may be an intention to pursue those ideas further, and sometimes that gets delayed - in some cases indefinitely. Some results are not "...


7

Yes, draw it to relevant attention. Not least because if its a mistake the authors should have a chance to fix it; if (more likely) it isn't then who knows what the implications will be, down the line, of dishonest papers. People could spend years of their life doing work, only to find its invalidated and wasted, because underlying material was unreliable. ...


6

A period of 40 days with a referee is not excessive, even for minor revisions. You can contact the editor if you wish, but it is not clear to me why your preference for faster progress is their problem. If you can explain some compelling reason for needing your publication fast-tracked (ideally one that is sufficiently unusual that it gives good cause for ...


4

Published texts are virtually never 100% error-free. If it happens, it's because all the people involved proofread it very, very carefully. For illustration, I once edited a book where the author's wife said she'll proofread the manuscript again and again until she can't find any more errors. She (and me) carefully checked all the proofs at every stage, and ...


4

It's probably best to separate anxiety related to your advisor into different bins like (a) progress on your qualifying exam, (b) progress on your dissertation, (c) progress on publications, and (d) your professional/social relationship. Since everything is cyclical during a dissertation (ebbs and flow, progress and anxiety), what you feel anxious about ...


3

Elaborating on your "too many interesting results to publish" idea, I wonder how much of this is affected by personal webpages and the arXiv. For well-known researchers, a notes section on their webpages might get as much attention as certain journals. An extreme case is the personal journal of Doron Zeilberger and his computer. See also his ...


2

Think about it from the point of view of the editor - they often have several manuscripts on hand, and they're also working full-time on another job. So they might not look at your manuscript for a long time. If you nudge them, then they'll look at your manuscript. They'll wonder if they should, e.g., nudge the reviewer too, or if the revisions are actually ...


2

You should probably inform the editor that you have found errors that don't (dramatically?) affect the results and can clean them up in a future revision. Don't withdraw the paper, I suggest. Let the editor decide what is sensible to do. They may be fine to let the process continue. But if reviewers flag the error it might be worse in the end.


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