What to do if you notice a substantial improvement to a result in a paper whilst refereeing it?
up vote
29
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
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
29
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
9
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
yesterday
13
I invariably do #1. Usually that is reciprocated with an offer of co-authorship, which I accept or decline based on the circumstances.
– fedja
yesterday
8
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
yesterday
11
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
23 hours ago
1
Thanks all for the helpful comments, I will likely try 1.
– Hercule Poirot
20 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
29
down vote
favorite
up vote
29
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
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 yesterday
community wiki
Hercule Poirot
9
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
yesterday
13
I invariably do #1. Usually that is reciprocated with an offer of co-authorship, which I accept or decline based on the circumstances.
– fedja
yesterday
8
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
yesterday
11
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
23 hours ago
1
Thanks all for the helpful comments, I will likely try 1.
– Hercule Poirot
20 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
9
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
yesterday
13
I invariably do #1. Usually that is reciprocated with an offer of co-authorship, which I accept or decline based on the circumstances.
– fedja
yesterday
8
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
yesterday
11
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
23 hours ago
1
Thanks all for the helpful comments, I will likely try 1.
– Hercule Poirot
20 hours ago
9
9
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
13
13
I invariably do #1. Usually that is reciprocated with an offer of co-authorship, which I accept or decline based on the circumstances.
– fedja
yesterday
I invariably do #1. Usually that is reciprocated with an offer of co-authorship, which I accept or decline based on the circumstances.
– fedja
yesterday
8
8
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
11
11
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
23 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
23 hours ago
1
1
Thanks all for the helpful comments, I will likely try 1.
– Hercule Poirot
20 hours ago
Thanks all for the helpful comments, I will likely try 1.
– Hercule Poirot
20 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
22
down vote
accepted
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.
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
Just do (1), and pat yourself on the back!
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
My advise: don't do 3) in any case. It is up to you to decide, not the editor. The rest depends on the paper and on the improvement.
Would you recommend to accept the paper as is?
Suppose the answer is yes. Now imagine that you see this paper published, and you see how to make an improvement. Would you publish this improvement as a separate paper of your own? If yes, then do 2). If not, do 1).You think the paper in its present state is not worth publishing but your improvement will make it worth. Then do 1). Then it is likely that the author of the paper will propose you joint authorship. And you may agree or not.
If you think that the paper does not deserve to be published (with the improvement or without). Then recommend to reject and do nothing else.
Thanks this is quite helpful, my feeling is that it is somewhere between your 1. and 2. so my 1) is the best option forward.
– Hercule Poirot
9 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
22
down vote
accepted
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.
add a comment |
up vote
22
down vote
accepted
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.
add a comment |
up vote
22
down vote
accepted
up vote
22
down vote
accepted
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.
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 20 hours ago
community wiki
Yonatan Harpaz
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
Just do (1), and pat yourself on the back!
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
Just do (1), and pat yourself on the back!
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
Just do (1), and pat yourself on the back!
Just do (1), and pat yourself on the back!
answered 13 hours ago
community wiki
Nicholas Kuhn
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
My advise: don't do 3) in any case. It is up to you to decide, not the editor. The rest depends on the paper and on the improvement.
Would you recommend to accept the paper as is?
Suppose the answer is yes. Now imagine that you see this paper published, and you see how to make an improvement. Would you publish this improvement as a separate paper of your own? If yes, then do 2). If not, do 1).You think the paper in its present state is not worth publishing but your improvement will make it worth. Then do 1). Then it is likely that the author of the paper will propose you joint authorship. And you may agree or not.
If you think that the paper does not deserve to be published (with the improvement or without). Then recommend to reject and do nothing else.
Thanks this is quite helpful, my feeling is that it is somewhere between your 1. and 2. so my 1) is the best option forward.
– Hercule Poirot
9 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
My advise: don't do 3) in any case. It is up to you to decide, not the editor. The rest depends on the paper and on the improvement.
Would you recommend to accept the paper as is?
Suppose the answer is yes. Now imagine that you see this paper published, and you see how to make an improvement. Would you publish this improvement as a separate paper of your own? If yes, then do 2). If not, do 1).You think the paper in its present state is not worth publishing but your improvement will make it worth. Then do 1). Then it is likely that the author of the paper will propose you joint authorship. And you may agree or not.
If you think that the paper does not deserve to be published (with the improvement or without). Then recommend to reject and do nothing else.
Thanks this is quite helpful, my feeling is that it is somewhere between your 1. and 2. so my 1) is the best option forward.
– Hercule Poirot
9 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
My advise: don't do 3) in any case. It is up to you to decide, not the editor. The rest depends on the paper and on the improvement.
Would you recommend to accept the paper as is?
Suppose the answer is yes. Now imagine that you see this paper published, and you see how to make an improvement. Would you publish this improvement as a separate paper of your own? If yes, then do 2). If not, do 1).You think the paper in its present state is not worth publishing but your improvement will make it worth. Then do 1). Then it is likely that the author of the paper will propose you joint authorship. And you may agree or not.
If you think that the paper does not deserve to be published (with the improvement or without). Then recommend to reject and do nothing else.
My advise: don't do 3) in any case. It is up to you to decide, not the editor. The rest depends on the paper and on the improvement.
Would you recommend to accept the paper as is?
Suppose the answer is yes. Now imagine that you see this paper published, and you see how to make an improvement. Would you publish this improvement as a separate paper of your own? If yes, then do 2). If not, do 1).You think the paper in its present state is not worth publishing but your improvement will make it worth. Then do 1). Then it is likely that the author of the paper will propose you joint authorship. And you may agree or not.
If you think that the paper does not deserve to be published (with the improvement or without). Then recommend to reject and do nothing else.
answered 13 hours ago
community wiki
Alexandre Eremenko
Thanks this is quite helpful, my feeling is that it is somewhere between your 1. and 2. so my 1) is the best option forward.
– Hercule Poirot
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks this is quite helpful, my feeling is that it is somewhere between your 1. and 2. so my 1) is the best option forward.
– Hercule Poirot
9 hours ago
Thanks this is quite helpful, my feeling is that it is somewhere between your 1. and 2. so my 1) is the best option forward.
– Hercule Poirot
9 hours ago
Thanks this is quite helpful, my feeling is that it is somewhere between your 1. and 2. so my 1) is the best option forward.
– Hercule Poirot
9 hours ago
add a comment |
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
9
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
yesterday
13
I invariably do #1. Usually that is reciprocated with an offer of co-authorship, which I accept or decline based on the circumstances.
– fedja
yesterday
8
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
yesterday
11
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
23 hours ago
1
Thanks all for the helpful comments, I will likely try 1.
– Hercule Poirot
20 hours ago