What to do if you notice a substantial improvement to a result in a paper whilst refereeing it?
up vote
13
down vote
favorite
What would you do/have you done in such a situation?
1) Hand out the improvement for free in your report
2) Wait until the result is published and then submit elsewhere
3) Inform the editor about the situation and ask for advice
The paper is not posted publicly so contacting the authors directly informing them and asking what they want to do is out of the question.
soft-question journals
edited 5 hours ago
Martin Sleziak
2,90032028
asked 6 hours ago
Hercule Poirot
664
New contributor
Hercule Poirot is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
favorite
What would you do/have you done in such a situation?
1) Hand out the improvement for free in your report
2) Wait until the result is published and then submit elsewhere
3) Inform the editor about the situation and ask for advice
The paper is not posted publicly so contacting the authors directly informing them and asking what they want to do is out of the question.
soft-question journals
edited 5 hours ago
Martin Sleziak
2,90032028
asked 6 hours ago
Hercule Poirot
664
New contributor
Hercule Poirot is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
4
Perhaps not the same, but these questions on Academia Stack Exchange seem related: A manuscript I refereed gave me an idea for a paper, not sure how to proceed and How to use results/ideas from a paper I reviewed?
– Martin Sleziak
5 hours ago
9
I invariably do #1. Usually that is reciprocated with an offer of co-authorship, which I accept or decline based on the circumstances.
– fedja
5 hours ago
6
This very much depends on the nature of the improvement, and the people involved. I can imagine myself doing all three, in different circumstances.
– Mark Grant
5 hours ago
6
This happened to a paper I submitted awhile ago. The referring report came out with a simpler proof and and an improvement on the result. I felt that the improvements were substantial, and I asked the editor to ask the referee whether they would accept to coauthor the paper. They did (it turned out the improvement was a joint effort between 2 referees), and the paper appeared shortly after with three authors. In my mind this was the most fair outcome.
– user129564
4 hours ago
Thanks all for the helpful comments, I will likely try 1.
– Hercule Poirot
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
favorite
up vote
13
down vote
favorite
What would you do/have you done in such a situation?
1) Hand out the improvement for free in your report
2) Wait until the result is published and then submit elsewhere
3) Inform the editor about the situation and ask for advice
The paper is not posted publicly so contacting the authors directly informing them and asking what they want to do is out of the question.
soft-question journals
edited 5 hours ago
Martin Sleziak
2,90032028
asked 6 hours ago
Hercule Poirot
664
New contributor
Hercule Poirot is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
What would you do/have you done in such a situation?
1) Hand out the improvement for free in your report
2) Wait until the result is published and then submit elsewhere
3) Inform the editor about the situation and ask for advice
The paper is not posted publicly so contacting the authors directly informing them and asking what they want to do is out of the question.
soft-question journals
soft-question journals
edited 5 hours ago
Martin Sleziak
2,90032028
asked 6 hours ago
Hercule Poirot
664
New contributor
Hercule Poirot is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 5 hours ago
Martin Sleziak
2,90032028
asked 6 hours ago
Hercule Poirot
664
New contributor
Hercule Poirot is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 5 hours ago
Martin Sleziak
2,90032028
edited 5 hours ago
Martin Sleziak
2,90032028
edited 5 hours ago
Martin Sleziak
2,90032028
2,90032028
asked 6 hours ago
Hercule Poirot
664
New contributor
Hercule Poirot is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 6 hours ago
Hercule Poirot
664
asked 6 hours ago
Hercule Poirot
664
664
New contributor
Hercule Poirot is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Hercule Poirot is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Hercule Poirot is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
4
Perhaps not the same, but these questions on Academia Stack Exchange seem related: A manuscript I refereed gave me an idea for a paper, not sure how to proceed and How to use results/ideas from a paper I reviewed?
– Martin Sleziak
5 hours ago
9
I invariably do #1. Usually that is reciprocated with an offer of co-authorship, which I accept or decline based on the circumstances.
– fedja
5 hours ago
6
This very much depends on the nature of the improvement, and the people involved. I can imagine myself doing all three, in different circumstances.
– Mark Grant
5 hours ago
6
This happened to a paper I submitted awhile ago. The referring report came out with a simpler proof and and an improvement on the result. I felt that the improvements were substantial, and I asked the editor to ask the referee whether they would accept to coauthor the paper. They did (it turned out the improvement was a joint effort between 2 referees), and the paper appeared shortly after with three authors. In my mind this was the most fair outcome.
– user129564
4 hours ago
Thanks all for the helpful comments, I will likely try 1.
– Hercule Poirot
1 hour ago
add a comment |
4
Perhaps not the same, but these questions on Academia Stack Exchange seem related: A manuscript I refereed gave me an idea for a paper, not sure how to proceed and How to use results/ideas from a paper I reviewed?
– Martin Sleziak
5 hours ago
9
I invariably do #1. Usually that is reciprocated with an offer of co-authorship, which I accept or decline based on the circumstances.
– fedja
5 hours ago
6
This very much depends on the nature of the improvement, and the people involved. I can imagine myself doing all three, in different circumstances.
– Mark Grant
5 hours ago
6
This happened to a paper I submitted awhile ago. The referring report came out with a simpler proof and and an improvement on the result. I felt that the improvements were substantial, and I asked the editor to ask the referee whether they would accept to coauthor the paper. They did (it turned out the improvement was a joint effort between 2 referees), and the paper appeared shortly after with three authors. In my mind this was the most fair outcome.
– user129564
4 hours ago
Thanks all for the helpful comments, I will likely try 1.
– Hercule Poirot
1 hour ago
4
4
Perhaps not the same, but these questions on Academia Stack Exchange seem related: A manuscript I refereed gave me an idea for a paper, not sure how to proceed and How to use results/ideas from a paper I reviewed?
– Martin Sleziak
5 hours ago
Perhaps not the same, but these questions on Academia Stack Exchange seem related: A manuscript I refereed gave me an idea for a paper, not sure how to proceed and How to use results/ideas from a paper I reviewed?
– Martin Sleziak
5 hours ago
9
9
I invariably do #1. Usually that is reciprocated with an offer of co-authorship, which I accept or decline based on the circumstances.
– fedja
5 hours ago
I invariably do #1. Usually that is reciprocated with an offer of co-authorship, which I accept or decline based on the circumstances.
– fedja
5 hours ago
6
6
This very much depends on the nature of the improvement, and the people involved. I can imagine myself doing all three, in different circumstances.
– Mark Grant
5 hours ago
This very much depends on the nature of the improvement, and the people involved. I can imagine myself doing all three, in different circumstances.
– Mark Grant
5 hours ago
6
6
This happened to a paper I submitted awhile ago. The referring report came out with a simpler proof and and an improvement on the result. I felt that the improvements were substantial, and I asked the editor to ask the referee whether they would accept to coauthor the paper. They did (it turned out the improvement was a joint effort between 2 referees), and the paper appeared shortly after with three authors. In my mind this was the most fair outcome.
– user129564
4 hours ago
This happened to a paper I submitted awhile ago. The referring report came out with a simpler proof and and an improvement on the result. I felt that the improvements were substantial, and I asked the editor to ask the referee whether they would accept to coauthor the paper. They did (it turned out the improvement was a joint effort between 2 referees), and the paper appeared shortly after with three authors. In my mind this was the most fair outcome.
– user129564
4 hours ago
Thanks all for the helpful comments, I will likely try 1.
– Hercule Poirot
1 hour ago
Thanks all for the helpful comments, I will likely try 1.
– Hercule Poirot
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
Option (1) is definitely the professional course of action in this case. As pointed out in the remarks, it is likely to lead to an offer of co-authorship from the original author, but that is purely within the author's discretion. If you feel that your improvement is really substantial and you are worried about credit you can try to increase the chances of co-authorship by asking the editor to put you in contact with the author (after explaining the situation to the editor). You may then discuss this with the author directly and suggest co-authorship, a situation in which the author is more likely to accept (but they still may insist to refuse, in which case you should give them the idea "for free"). If your improvement is sufficiently significant and novel that not getting credit for it seems an unacceptable injustice, then what you can do is wait for the paper to be published (or accepted and online) and then write to the author with your idea of improvement and suggest co-authorship for a second paper. Here of course if they refuse you can publish alone. In any case, you should not submit your own paper without giving the original author a chance of co-authorship. That would be rather unprofessional.
answered 1 hour ago
Yonatan Harpaz
6,2761840
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
Option (1) is definitely the professional course of action in this case. As pointed out in the remarks, it is likely to lead to an offer of co-authorship from the original author, but that is purely within the author's discretion. If you feel that your improvement is really substantial and you are worried about credit you can try to increase the chances of co-authorship by asking the editor to put you in contact with the author (after explaining the situation to the editor). You may then discuss this with the author directly and suggest co-authorship, a situation in which the author is more likely to accept (but they still may insist to refuse, in which case you should give them the idea "for free"). If your improvement is sufficiently significant and novel that not getting credit for it seems an unacceptable injustice, then what you can do is wait for the paper to be published (or accepted and online) and then write to the author with your idea of improvement and suggest co-authorship for a second paper. Here of course if they refuse you can publish alone. In any case, you should not submit your own paper without giving the original author a chance of co-authorship. That would be rather unprofessional.
answered 1 hour ago
Yonatan Harpaz
6,2761840
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
Option (1) is definitely the professional course of action in this case. As pointed out in the remarks, it is likely to lead to an offer of co-authorship from the original author, but that is purely within the author's discretion. If you feel that your improvement is really substantial and you are worried about credit you can try to increase the chances of co-authorship by asking the editor to put you in contact with the author (after explaining the situation to the editor). You may then discuss this with the author directly and suggest co-authorship, a situation in which the author is more likely to accept (but they still may insist to refuse, in which case you should give them the idea "for free"). If your improvement is sufficiently significant and novel that not getting credit for it seems an unacceptable injustice, then what you can do is wait for the paper to be published (or accepted and online) and then write to the author with your idea of improvement and suggest co-authorship for a second paper. Here of course if they refuse you can publish alone. In any case, you should not submit your own paper without giving the original author a chance of co-authorship. That would be rather unprofessional.
answered 1 hour ago
Yonatan Harpaz
6,2761840
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
Option (1) is definitely the professional course of action in this case. As pointed out in the remarks, it is likely to lead to an offer of co-authorship from the original author, but that is purely within the author's discretion. If you feel that your improvement is really substantial and you are worried about credit you can try to increase the chances of co-authorship by asking the editor to put you in contact with the author (after explaining the situation to the editor). You may then discuss this with the author directly and suggest co-authorship, a situation in which the author is more likely to accept (but they still may insist to refuse, in which case you should give them the idea "for free"). If your improvement is sufficiently significant and novel that not getting credit for it seems an unacceptable injustice, then what you can do is wait for the paper to be published (or accepted and online) and then write to the author with your idea of improvement and suggest co-authorship for a second paper. Here of course if they refuse you can publish alone. In any case, you should not submit your own paper without giving the original author a chance of co-authorship. That would be rather unprofessional.
answered 1 hour ago
Yonatan Harpaz
6,2761840
Option (1) is definitely the professional course of action in this case. As pointed out in the remarks, it is likely to lead to an offer of co-authorship from the original author, but that is purely within the author's discretion. If you feel that your improvement is really substantial and you are worried about credit you can try to increase the chances of co-authorship by asking the editor to put you in contact with the author (after explaining the situation to the editor). You may then discuss this with the author directly and suggest co-authorship, a situation in which the author is more likely to accept (but they still may insist to refuse, in which case you should give them the idea "for free"). If your improvement is sufficiently significant and novel that not getting credit for it seems an unacceptable injustice, then what you can do is wait for the paper to be published (or accepted and online) and then write to the author with your idea of improvement and suggest co-authorship for a second paper. Here of course if they refuse you can publish alone. In any case, you should not submit your own paper without giving the original author a chance of co-authorship. That would be rather unprofessional.
answered 1 hour ago
Yonatan Harpaz
6,2761840
answered 1 hour ago
Yonatan Harpaz
6,2761840
answered 1 hour ago
Yonatan Harpaz
6,2761840
answered 1 hour ago
Yonatan Harpaz
6,2761840
6,2761840
add a comment |
add a comment |
Hercule Poirot is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Hercule Poirot is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Hercule Poirot is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Hercule Poirot is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f317256%2fwhat-to-do-if-you-notice-a-substantial-improvement-to-a-result-in-a-paper-whilst%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
Perhaps not the same, but these questions on Academia Stack Exchange seem related: A manuscript I refereed gave me an idea for a paper, not sure how to proceed and How to use results/ideas from a paper I reviewed?
– Martin Sleziak
5 hours ago
9
I invariably do #1. Usually that is reciprocated with an offer of co-authorship, which I accept or decline based on the circumstances.
– fedja
5 hours ago
6
This very much depends on the nature of the improvement, and the people involved. I can imagine myself doing all three, in different circumstances.
– Mark Grant
5 hours ago
6
This happened to a paper I submitted awhile ago. The referring report came out with a simpler proof and and an improvement on the result. I felt that the improvements were substantial, and I asked the editor to ask the referee whether they would accept to coauthor the paper. They did (it turned out the improvement was a joint effort between 2 referees), and the paper appeared shortly after with three authors. In my mind this was the most fair outcome.
– user129564
4 hours ago
Thanks all for the helpful comments, I will likely try 1.
– Hercule Poirot
1 hour ago