Offer of co-authorship

by Vanessa Kosoy1 min read10th Jan 20201 comment


Ω 14

Crossposted from the AI Alignment Forum. May contain more technical jargon than usual.

I am offering interested persons to become a co-author on (a revised version of) my paper "forecasting using incomplete models". The paper was rejected from the Electronic Journal of Statistics with possibility to resubmit. The main criticism of the reviewers was: not enough citations and discussion of relation to other work. The job of the collaborator would be to revise the paper in order to (i) address this concern (ii) improve the overall presentation and make it more accessible. After that, the paper will be resubmitted to EJS (and/or other publications venues, according to what we will decide together).

Naturally, I will work closely with the collaborator and review the changes ey make, but ey are expected to do the lion share of the work in the revision.

The requirements for a candidate collaborator are:

  • Must: The knowledge required to understand the paper in full, including all the technical details. It is fine if ey need to refresh eir memory or look up particular theorems / definitions, but ey need to have enough background for that to be efficient. To see what sort of knowledge is necessary, one is advised to skim the paper. Mostly it involves measure theory, probability theory and functional analysis.

  • Advantage: Strong background in statistics, familiarity with the relevant literature

  • Advantage: Experience with doing literature surveys on technical subjects

  • Advantage: Experience with writing good explanations of technical subjects

  • Advantage: Experience with peer-reviewed academic publications

In order to apply, email me at rot13 of In your email, please share with me (i) your name (ii) your background (iii) the extent to which you are compatible with the above requirements and (iv) your motivation for applying.

1 comments, sorted by Highlighting new comments since Today at 2:16 PM
New Comment
The main criticism of the reviewers was: not enough citations and discussion of relation to other work.

I'd call this a failure mode (not valuing new work), if that weren't a useful way of operating for someone to do, if they also accepted things that are nothing but discussion of other work - specifically, distillation.