Claims of Paper Authorship

Question

Update: There is no need to go through a tedious process to claim authorship any longer. Simply write a new answer to this thread, asking for authorship of a submitted paper.

Since the first phase of the reviews section is now launched, it is time for the Paper Authorship Claims thread.

On PhysicsOverflow, papers and other material defined by the limits here can be reviewed and voted on by users. The reputation from the voting will go to the authors of the paper. To be considered as the authors of the paper (which allows editing of the submission summary, and allows you to obtain the reputation gained from upvotes on the paper), you need to have defended or explained your paper on PhysicsOverflow. The detailed instructions as to how you may claim authorship on a paper are as follows:

• First, register on PhysicsOverflow and log in to your account.
• Confirming your email
  • If you are claiming authorship on an ArXiV (or any other database which paper, then please use the same email as your ArXiV account's email address.
  • If not, use the email address provided by your university or institute if you work at one.
  • If you do not have an official email, AND your paper is not submitted from the ArXiV or any other database which permits public access to submitters' emails, then proceed with your personal email, but note that you may be interrogated further once you make your request. 
  • Then, confirm your email on PhysicsOverflow. 
• Now, you must either
  • respond to at least one review of your paper
  • OR summarise your paper by editing the submission or suggesting an edit on the submission if you don't have enough points.
    • if there is already a summary, there is almost always something that only a paper author could add. E.g.
      • defending common "possible criticisms" of the paper, for example by showing that there are some theoretical implications, etc.
      • adding some hidden insights regarding the paper
      • explaining the motivation behind the paper
  • Or you may bypass this step if you have presented or explained your paper elsewhere, such as at a conference but you must link to this elsewhere in your authorship request in the next step. 
• Then request an administrator to add you as an author to your paper by posting a request below. Please include the following details in your request:
  • A link to the submission on PhysicsOverflow.
  • Whether you have defended your paper, summarised it, or both?
  • A link to your response to the reviewer (which should be made as a comment on the review), should you have defended your paper.
  • optional unless you bypass the defence/summary step A link to any conference, seminar, etc. where you have presented or explained your paper. 

If you would like to have a paper of yours submitted to PhysicsOverflow for review, please submit a request here.

Please note that:

• Multiple authors may be added to a submission, so do note hesitate to place a request for authorship if another author is already associated with the paper. 
• The reputation points gained from the paper are not divided among multiple authors; instead, the entire sum of reputation is given to each author. 
• PhysicsOverflow is not responsible if an impersonator gets access to your paper. We will, however, remove the impersonator's authorship and block the impersonator.

Comments

I am the sole author of this paper: https://www.physicsoverflow.org/44290

Answer 1

[CLAIMED]

\(\mbox{I claim authorship of the paper}\) http://physicsoverflow.org/19536/regularization-by-test-function. My e-mail, for the purposes both of PhysicsOverflow and of arXiv, is peter.w.morgan@yale.edu. I have posted the Abstract and paraphrased the principal argument in the paper, to which I might add in response to comments or reviews. The Math, elementary as it is, should speak for itself.

Comments

Done.

Answer 2

[CLAIMED]

I claim authorship of the paper Symmetron Inflation, published in JCAP.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.4451

Comments

Done, see here: http://physicsoverflow.org/30909.

Answer 3

[CLAIMED]

I claim authorship of the paper Gyrosymmetry: Global Considerations.

I have included a comment that describes the content of the paper.

This paper has been subjected to peer review by the journal Physics of Plasmas. A link to the published version is here.

The email I used to submit to arXiv is jburby@princeton.edu .

Comments

Hi JoshBurby, it seems like another moderator just added you as author but forgot to mention. You're added as author now.

Answer 4

[CLAIMED]

I claim authorship of the paper Size of atoms in RW universe: a correction to Dirac equation in curved space-time

Comments

Done.

Answer 5

[CLAIMED]

I claim the authorship of the paper: http://physicsoverflow.org/34973/pseudo-newtonian-limit-for-test-motion-arbitrary-space-times

Comments

Done.

Answer 6

I claim authorship of the paper The dual behavior of quantum Fields and the big Bang

http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.01253

Comments

Hi malik matwi,

To claim authorship means to have your paper assigned to your PhysicsOverflow account.

As you do not have a PhysicsOverflow account, this is not yet possible.

Please create a PhysicsOverflow account and inform me by commenting on this thread, and I will then be able to assign authorship of the paper to you.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow!

Answer 7

[CLAIMED]

I claim authorship of the paper Atom as a "Dressed" Nucleus: I published it in CEJP.

Comments

Hi Vladimir, I have now assigned you as an author to your paper, as you have some kind of summarized it already at different places. However, for the future reviewers (answerers) it would be nice if you could also put (copy?) a summary directly below the horizontal bar of the submission itself, to have it at the same place where also the reviews and comments will appear. Cheers

---

@Dilaton: Thanks. How should I put my summary, as a comment or as an edition?

---

As an edit (below the horizontal bar)

---

Hi Vladimir--- I am reading your paper, and I am surprised if the smearing out you are talking about isn't calculated elsewhere earlier. I don't know the literature, but perhaps you can say what previous work was in your summary, and what the paper adds to this? It is difficult for someone who doesn't follow atomic physics.

---

Hi Ron! I have not found this "second atomic form-factor" in the texbooks, and people I talked to did not know it either. I cannot guarantee that it was never obtained before, but apparently for the scattering business (calculations of the stopping power, for example) it is inessential. Note, this "smearing" can only be seen by a fast projectile, not by the atomic electron. It is a property of a target with respect to a projectile.

I will try to summarize this shortly.

---

Ok, then, given the situation, +1 for originality from me.

Answer 8

[CLAIMED]

I claim authorship of paper "A Toy Model of Renormalization and Reformulation".

Answer 9

I am the author of this paper "On Perturbation Theory for the Sturm-Liouville Problem with Variable Coefficients". The summary can be found on the submission creation request page.

I would like to share some of my results in the perturbation theory for a Sturm-Liouville problem presented here.

Many years ago I studied the usual perturbation theory for a Sturm-Liouville problem, for practical applications. At that time we only had small calculators and big electronic machines with punched cards (computers like old IMB, but Soviet machines), so analytical formulas were quite useful for quick qualitative analysis and quantitative estimations.

We encountered divergent matrix elements and I was thinking of applying renormalization (I had just finished my studies at the University). However, I managed to reformulate the problem in better terms and obtained finite matrix elements from the very beginning. Also, I managed to construct another perturbative expansion, with even smaller terms because I figured out how to sum up exactly a part of the perturbative series into a finite function. The remaining series converged even faster.

In addition, I discovered an error in the perturbative treatment of the problem and managed to correctly derive the "matrix elements". The expansion parameter turned then from a logarithm into another function, which does not grow to infinity. I obtained some other results too.

I published a preprint and several  papers in Russian, and recently I translated some of it in English and submitted to arXiv (sorry for my poor English).

It may be interesting and instructive for us physicists dealing with the perturbation theory. Apart from possible practical applications, my study shows the importance of choosing the initial approximation for the convergence of the remaining series and some danger to resolve the divergence difficulties with "renormalizations".

Comments

@dimension10: I tried to make VK author on the paper, but it doesn't let me assign authors still. I thought you guys fixed that bug.

---

I have added you as an author.

@RonMaimon You should be able to assign authors now, the permission is now set to admins+.

Answer 10

[CLAIMED]

I claim the authorship of paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.03145. Any questions, comments and discussions are welcome. Contact email: ruifengd@buffalo.edu. Thank you!