325

Your question has some issues. Given some of the questions you have asked on other SE sites in the last few days, I have some reservations about whether your question is being asked in good faith, but taken on its own merits it is a reasonable question so I will try to answer it. The main issue is that, even in asking this relatively simple question, your ...


267

There is a larger issue at hand that you seem to be missing. Yes, I do believe that you can publish your own work, and probably independently if neither your advisor nor your colleague helped. And I understand that there are some field-dependent conventions in mathematics that would be best to discuss with your advisor. That being said, I believe that, ...


238

The fact that to a seasoned programmer the work is easy doesn't have anything to do with it. As you describe it, this is work that's required for the publication. Without it, you don't have a paper. With it, you do. Therefore the programmer contributed significantly (critically) to the paper, and therefore the programmer should be an author. The fact that ...


218

I think you are treading on thin ice, ethically speaking. Obviously you, as an editor, have no obligation to help the authors in any specific way, and you are free to tell them about your improvement or not, but rejecting their paper, taking the idea/problem, applying a different method to its resolution, and then publishing this under your own name seems ...


216

Nobody will notice or care, unless you share a last name with your wife, in which case the strongest reaction is likely to be, "aw how cute, a husband and wife published a paper together."


211

In short, because it is difficult to express something concisely, and precisely in language that any undergraduate can understand. Conciseness is required not just because without it every report would be inconveniently long to write and to read, but because it would be harder to understand. It would be harder to understand because the jargon neatly ...


210

Regardless of whether the work is correct or not, the following statement applies: The burden of proof is on the author to convince the reader of the result. The community (e.g., editors, reviewers) has no responsibility to evaluate your work to your satisfaction. If the reviewers made a good faith effort to read your paper and were not convinced, then you ...


200

First, make sure you are not really a crank before trying to convince others. Read these common characteristics of cranks. If they apply to you then get professional help. For the rest of the answer I will assume that you have really solved a famous open problem. In the following "he" refers to a typical non-expert claiming to have a solution for a ...


187

On a coauthored paper, it's perfectly reasonable for the acknowledgments to specify who is thanking whom when it's just a subset of the authors, and this is not uncommon (e.g., "X and Y are grateful to the A Institute for hosting their visit" or the like, when author Z wasn't actually there). This is the approach Ritz suggested in the comments, and I'd ...


187

YES. The responsibility for correctness of the paper is yours not the reviewers’. The reviewers may help you find errors, but that is secondary to their main function: recommending to the editor whether to publish.


185

This sounds like a clear-cut case of a violation of academic ethics to me - if he’s willing to steal work from you, how could anyone trust anything he’s ever published? I’d strongly consider going to talk with the head of your faculty, school, or department, depending on how your university’s hierarchy is structured, so that the university can begin academic ...


174

There are cases where real code is preferable, and cases where pseudocode is preferable. You shouldn't rely on a simple iron rule, but rather on judgement of what is appropriate to the situation. Some things to consider: Programming languages come and go. In the 60s, Fortran was considered a really nice and readable programming language, much easier to ...


171

Welcome to the wonderful world of academia! I appreciate your consideration of your fellow Ph.D. student. I would suggest to invite the student to do some work on the paper, and then have him as second author. Perhaps the student can work on that lower bound? Or write down why the other approach does not work? Or more simulations? You can probably come up ...


170

Feel free to edit this answer to improve it, in particular to add other names you know to be used for the individual steps or to extend the maximum typical durations from your experience. The source for the diagram can be found here. Overview Initial Check This step is usually performed by the non-scientific staff of the journal. It may include for ...


164

There is a golden standard (codified in the Vancouver Recommendations on authorship) that every author individually vouches for the correctness of the entire paper. In other words, you can't ask a co-author to only read and write part of the paper, because they need the whole paper to vouch for its correctness. They wouldn't satisfy the criteria to be ...


159

Who presents a work should not affect its authorship. Authorship is determined by the contribution to the publication. That work is complete at the time when the publication is accepted and the camera-ready is submitted. Now, it is entirely reasonable (and in fact common) for a paper to be presented by somebody other than the first author, and it's quite ...


157

Is this sound and appropriate? No. Your job as a reviewer is not to choose which manuscripts are accepted or rejected. Your job is to advise the editor as to the merits and the flaws of the manuscript, and then let the editor decide the fate of the manuscript. Thus, you should give the manuscript the ratings that most accurately reflect your perception of ...


153

Your problem is quite common among researchers. Actually it's not really a problem, being overwhelmed like this is just natural. Me and all my friends and colleagues face it. How I overcame this issue: I try to focus on one paper at a time. Try starting reading the latest research paper on a particular subject and go back chronologically. Print the ...


153

There are several possibilities here, although generally they all have the same solution. The English is poor or incorrect and the company did not check it well It is possible that the company that checked your article did a bad job. This happens. Maybe the service did not have a native English speaker check your article. Maybe they had a bad day. Maybe ...


152

There was a similar case in 1975, when an American mathematician and physicist, Professor Jack H. Hetherington of Michigan State University, added his cat as a co-author. Apparently, a collegaue who had reviewed his manuscript, had pointed out that he had used "we" and "us" throughout the manuscript, but this was incorrect as he was the sole author. so, ...


152

These are the Registered names of sanctioned programs in your industry. Their developers chose those names not for their prurient value but for their impact value. "Brainfuck" sends an INSTANT message that something like "Cerebral Challenge" could never pull off. You show your professionalism when you structure the "Brainfuck" section of your paper with ...


150

Yes, it is fair. The quality of reviews written by highly experienced researchers is low. Many manuscripts have obvious flaws that should be spotted by the inexperienced. Reviewers are (in theory) supervised by the editor. Novice reviewers are more enthusiastic than experienced reviewers. If the paper cannot be understood by a PhD student, it will not be ...


149

Science is not about getting papers published; it's about writing papers that move a field forward. So don't let worries about reviewers prevent you from adding content that you feel should be there. Indeed, modeling papers that hide their limitations are much less effective at advancing a field than those that clearly explain them. Good reviewers ...


149

Once upon a time, before the internet existed, the only way to distribute scientific content to a worldwide audience was through print. There are obvious costs related to printed publications such as paper, ink, printing, distribution, etc. Commercial publishing houses were established, which took care of this task, as well as the editing, the type-setting, ...


145

The "point" of 1000 authors is to recognize that 1000 people contributed to the paper at a level sufficient to be considered authors, according to the standards of that particular field. In some fields (including high-energy physics), large numbers of authors are not unusual. See e.g. the 2015 paper estimating the mass of the Higgs boson with 5,154 authors. ...


141

"…a quick- one, two, you're published!" That's not how it works. What works is: Make it a publicly available preprint (online repositories like arXiv, a preprint series of some institute, university, maybe via your personal website or blog…). Submit to some peer reviewed journal that complies with papers that are available as preprints (and there are ...


137

The way I usually choose journals is by looking at where people I trust/follow publish, and where previous work was published. It is usually not too hard to compare the quality your work to the quality of the work you are citing, and chose a target based on that. Unless your field is highly mutli-disciplinary, you will see the same journals/conferences ...


133

OK, it's getting weird now. I thought this would be much less common in top 10s. There's a simple path here: tell them plagiarized papers are not going to get published, or will be retracted in the future, and this will hinder their graduation & will create trouble for their advisor (+ advisor would lose face) if they insist on submitting such papers. ...


132

Nobody will know how you have gained access to the article. Feel free to cite articles found via whatever sources. It might not even be illegal to download content from the website; check your local laws and Berne convention (if your country is signed up) to be sure. In any case, this is unlikely to affect your reputation in any way. Remember to cite the ...


131

The way to "retract" old work is to publish better work that references the old work and its errors. There should be nothing embarrassing about having found earlier errors and correcting them. You have grown in the interim. Every active academic will likely have such an experience at least once in their career. The earliest work was done when you were, ...


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