3 ms·
Only a small minority of jerks would bother to try, so just make sure that the professor you're approaching isn't a jerk. Frankly most professors don't have tim
by hugh 18y ago
Only a small minority of jerks would bother to try, so just make sure that the professor you're approaching isn't a jerk. Frankly most professors don't have time to bother trying to steal credit, especially for something which isn't close to their core research.
Ultimately you're just asking them for help in refining it into publishable form, so you should be first author, they should be second author.
Also, note that the first professor you go to is likely to think that what you've done isn't sufficient for a publication. That's OK. But if you try three professors and they all think that, you might want to give up trying. Based on your description (small change, decent improvement), what you've done may or may not warrant a publication all on its own.
- cperciva 18y agoUltimately you're just asking them for help in refining it into publishable form, so you should be first author, they should be second author. Only if you've feeling very generous. I would acknowledge help received in a section at the end of the paper, but I would never list a co-author who didn't contribute any of the ideas.
- hugh 18y agoPerhaps we're estimating differently the amount of work which will be needed to turn this into an actual paper. But I've never published in a maths journal (only physics) so you probably know better than I do on this point.
- brent 18y agoIf I had to guess I would presume the OP has not done a formal analysis of the algorithm. This would undoubtedly be the contribution of the professor/researcher assuming the analysis proves it is an improvement over prior algorithms. This analysis/proof is certainly worth being a second author even if it is not a contribution to the algorithm itself.