"(Co-)authors are those that have actively participated on a matrix."
Recently, Arno had kindly elaborated on this and provided further and greater level of details on what exactly he meant by active participation, and that information is being now shared with all of you, below, so that everyone is well informed:
- The main author (who found the matrix) should have the right to include additional authors that he feels have contributed validly to the record.
- The co-authors should have a valuable contribution, not just something very obvious and simple, but a real improvement. While this does not mean that they have to do 50% of the work and input, it should be enough to feel comfortable with it. And certainly - if the main author himself invites someone to be the co-author, that composer should feel free to join even if they feel that their input was minimal.
- Simple ideas that without doubt the author himself would have come up within a very short time, like adding a few moves if widely the same matrix is used or finding a more economical position are fine to be mentioned just in case that he overlooks, but that does not qualify for co-authorship.
- If someone finds a real new clue or adds moves by a new idea that is not too obvious, he is certainly a co-author.
- "Extracting" a new record with less pieces from an existing record seems not to be enough for a co-authorship. At least the main author of the matrix should have the choice to decide whether the second composer should become co-author of the new record.
- On the other hand, if someone has an idea (for instance, adding the white rook on a2 and white pawn on h7 on the 208 StrictCirce record), announces it and then the main author ends up doing it in praxis, then the second composer has quite some part in the composition and without doubt he would be invited as co-author, although the main matrix plus the final version (and all the work with it) was done by the main author.
