I have two studies that are not related to each other but in the same domain (Social Media Analysis) and I already submitted one of them to a conference as my name the main author.

-Can I submit the second paper where I am also the main author to the same conference event? I have read the conferance regulation but did not find any related information for such an issue.

EDIT: I also tried to contact them, but since two weeks, still no answer and the deadline is within 2 days. And normally if it ok to submit two papers, will I be having two-time slot for the presentation, or will it be one slot to manage both?

I am writing a research paper in computer science and I got a help from a guy who works in different country and he is not enrolled in any university.

is it possible to put his name as a co-author of the research paper even if he doesn’t know my professor or being registered in the univeristy? do universities have general rules regarding this issue? and do professors consider such a thing a bad impression? and do the guy have to have an academic email to address contact details?

For my thesis, I did some programming for a project. My supervisor seemed to be very happy with the results when I was there and promised I was going to be in the publication. Problems started when I graduated and moved abroad. My supervisor said they couldn’t replicate my results and started pushing me to continue into the project. I left all my scripts properly organized with README files and was available to answer emails and connect remotely to do minor fixes, but I was already fully dedicated to my masters and didn’t have time to do extensive extra programming. Indeed, I was doing field work and didn’t have access to computers for most of the time. After almost a month in which I was out of reach, I checked my email and found a communication claiming I have stalled the whole project and lead to its cancellation. I let things pass for almost two years, not having much contact with my then coworkers or supervisor, and just yesterday found the paper was indeed submitted around six months after that final communication and taken into publication! And I’m in the acknowledgements albeit for a menial task that took me less than a day to complete!

I can’t be sure if there was misappropriation of my work since the code of the project hasn’t been published. They might have rewritten the code, but they might have also indeed used MY code or parts of it. Unfortunately, I don’t have a copy of my work, since I was doing everything remotely in the server and I now fear I wouldn’t be able to substantiate my allegation to the editors in case they ask for prove to my claims (I know, I should have kept a copy for myself, but I never expected this to happen at all…).

I noticed some red flags before leaving but didn’t think they were of real concern. My supervisor seemed to be resented at me leaving instead of staying in his lab. Although my supervisor is very good in his field, I didn’t like the overall way in which he treated us, his students — he is the kind of supervisor that would yell and call you stupid in front of your colleagues –. This is one of the reasons why I decided to leave the lab and even change field. I don’t know if this affected his intention to include me as an author, but in any case, I think they should have informed me I was going to be mentioned in the paper, and they didn’t.

Is this among the normal things that happened in academia? Should I tell the editors either they include me as author or they drop any mention of me in the acknowledgements? Also, among the authors are other students for whom I have real appreciation and I don’t want to spoil their names in their first publication. Should I let things just pass and be forgotten? (The paper has been published already for more than a year and haven’t been cited once. -In my opinion it’s a good paper, but not a breakthrough). What would be the normal thing to do in academia?

As a part of my PhD project, I wrote a paper. When my supervisor read it, she said “it is perfect and complete, go ahead and publish it yourself because I cannot contribute more to it”. She really meant it and tried to do me a favor.

However, I still think it can be more beneficial for my future to have her name on my paper. Should I insist to have her as a coauthor or it might be useful in the future to have all the credits of a good paper?

I recently had a paper published, my first one, on which I am second author. On the paper, my name has been written as M. Kuczynska-Burggraf (Kuczynska is my middle name), whereas I would usually just go by M. Burggraf. I contacted the journal and they said that an amendment would need to be made through a corrigendum. I have contacted the other authors to see how they feel about it, but since it is my first paper, would it be acceptable for me to just make my ‘academic name’ (so to speak) M. Kuczynska-Burggraf, even if it is not what I have gone by previously?

As a part of my PhD project, I wrote a paper. When my supervisor read it, she said “it is perfect and complete, go ahead and publish it yourself because I cannot contribute more to it”. She really meant it and tried to do me a favor.

However, I still think it can be more beneficial for my future if having her name on my paper. Should I insist to have her as a coauthor or it might be useful in the future to have all the credits of a good paper?

I have a question about my affiliations on my article.

I belong to two institutions, A and B (both are schools). I have a regular position at A (so I receive a monthly salary from A). I also have a non-regular position at the other shcool, B.

This time, I am contributing to an article as a co-author at school B. Do I need to mention school A as one of my affiliations? (I did not do anything at A. I did not use any resources at A. )

One more question. Do you think school approval (review) at A is usually required ?

In the question When does a paid research assistant become a co-author?, one of the answer indicates that aiding in implementation of research is not enough to claim co-authorship. I very much agree with the idea.

However, if say during the course of implementation the RA finds important conclusions (i.e. aids in interpretation of data), is the claim of co-authorship justified?

Beside the determination of a property of newly prepared compounds, I aimed for a comparision with the value of the same property for already literature-known materials. During this meta-analysis I became aware of a program that may assist this process.

In a first attempt, the software performed better than I expected. It looked like the potential field of application was more general than the one initially described in an accompanying publication for this program. I contacted the developer to check if the results still were reasonable with this “version A” of the softwared. The developer was surprised the algorithm implemented performs so well even in cases initially not envisaged / estimated as “too difficult” back then the software was released initially, confirmed the results, provided hints “how to do even better” and improved the software further into “version A+”.

The question is in the context of writing up for a publication. The intended paper’s barycentre will not be the aforementioned meta-analysis with this software. Certainly the developer will appear in the literature references for the initial publication presenting the software. Where however discern between a special acknowledgement in the publication, on one hand, and co-authorship, on the other? As “version A” was performing well, offering already the insight sought-after, yet “version A+” does so even better?

So far, to express gratitude for the assistance provided by the developer in the section “acknowledgements” is the minimum to do.

I’m in a very unique situation. I have ideas of something potentially valuable for science and I want to get it published but I haven’t been able to go through the peer-review process, yet. That is why I’m thinking about simply putting all I have on the Internet and leaving it be there to see would any “real” scientist (with the equipment and the position) be interested in them. I don’t work in anything related to science and although I have a degree I don’t have PhD so it’s like I’m nobody.

What is my “protection” if one of those experts (who obviously know much better how to publish) just takes it and puts his/hers name on it even if I manage to show files containing the same ideas loaded on the Internet for public access (so I have the site administration to verify my publication dates) much before his/her work was submitted to a journal?

Does such obviously public documents have any weight against peer-reviewed paper or is the fact that s/he managed to go through the process but I didn’t make these ideas his/hers? Is any value in the fact that a document is publicly displayed before the submission date or does the fact that it’s publication anyways make it “the real deal” while the other document, even if it can be shown to be earlier by outside source (like the administration of the web site)? If I just “publish” it on the Internet under the Creatice Commons license does it give it any authority in any way measurable to a peer-reviewed publication or anybody who has one can claim ownership over the ideas?

P.S. Can the entire issue be “dissolved” quickly if the one who got it published in a peer-review journal just mentions my work in the acknowledgements and says these ideas were mine and s/he just “used” them. Then is the authorship of the ideas automatically transferred to me and the issue is non-existent? But what if I ask him/her and s/he refuses. Then, can I claim authorship of the ideas or are they out of my reach now and I would just have to be satisfied with the fact that at least now they have gained some form of recognition (although I’m not their author in the eyes of the community)? (The issue is I just want scientists to view my work seriously, I don’t do it for the money, the job or the fame. I just want to know am I right or wrong, so what if someone just uses and claims authorship-should I be satisfied only with the fact that I was right all along or should I try to pursue him/her for non-proper use of my ideas.)