3 ms·
If it was his discovery, would be nice if they'd give him first author on the paper's author list (Farach-Colton, Krapivin, Kuszmaul). Though I understand if th
by herf 2y ago
If it was his discovery, would be nice if they'd give him first author on the paper's author list (Farach-Colton, Krapivin, Kuszmaul). Though I understand if the proofs were not done by him.
- ziddoap 2y agoI believe alphabetical is the norm in computer science, is it not?
- treefarmer 2y agoIt is not, other than sometimes in the case of equal contribution. The first and sometimes second authors are the most important, and the last author is often the advisor/senior researcher supervising the work.
- ziddoap 2y agoInteresting! I didn't realize it varied between sub-disciplines of CS, I guess. Theoretical computer science and cryptography both typically do alphabetical. Maybe because of their adjacency to pure math?
- senderista 2y agoThis is not accurate; it depends on the subfield. As a rule, the more theoretical the subfield, the more likely that alphabetical order is used. See e.g. papers from a theoretical conference like STOC vs. a systems conference like HotOS.
- abdullahkhalids 2y agoIf you look at the papers of the third author [1], almost all of them seem to be alphabetical by last name. [1] https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Kuszmaul,+W https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Kuszmaul...
- tylerhou 2y agoAlphabetical is the norm in algorithms theory. It is not the norm in other subfields that I can think of, even theoretical fields like programming language theory.