Timeline for How to acknowledge help from Mathematica StackExchange
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 30, 2013 at 18:37 | comment | added | Oleksandr R. | Based on their stated purpose as well as the convention for websites in general, I would consider StackExchange sites to constitute a published resource rather than a personal communication. As such, for referencing purposes it seems that identifiability (e.g. via a link) should probably be considered more important than the identity of the particular author. If there are conflicts of interest, those have to be declared per the StackExchange T&Cs, making the attributability of authorship less of an issue, IMO. | |
| Dec 29, 2013 at 16:59 | comment | added | bobthechemist | @JacobAkkerboom You are absolutely right, and I decided to answer in this fashion because it seemed to be an appropriate place to comment on aspects of publishing. That said, the information gleaned from this website wouldn't be considered "common knowledge" and therefore, I think the source needs to be cited somehow in addition to acknowledging the contributions of the SE users. | |
| Dec 29, 2013 at 16:30 | comment | added | Jacob Akkerboom | I (also) like this answer. However, I feel there is emphasis on referencing/citing rather than acknowledging. Isn't referencing used more to get some authority behind statements your paper relies on? Sorry for not being precise, but it would of course be silly to say something like "I have it on good authority that the code used to generate my plots works" | |
| Dec 29, 2013 at 14:42 | history | answered | bobthechemist | CC BY-SA 3.0 |