What funding to include in an old paper? I am currently close to publishing a paper that I first sent for review 5 years ago. The reasons why the review process was so long are not entirely clear to me, and are beside the point. During that time, I have not done any significant work on the paper, except for editing it for clarity—the vast majority of the time, the paper was with the journal.
I'm unsure what funding information I should put on the paper in this case. I wrote it, and it appeared on arXiv, during my PhD. In the meantime, I had a post-doc, and now I have just started a new post-doc. Should I mention all these sources of funding, or only the ones from during the PhD? A similar question applies to affiliations.
My field is mathematics.
As I often try to remember, a stable baseline for such things is honesty. So, perhaps something like &quot;the main part of this work was partially funded by X. Revisions were partially funded by Y and Z&quot;.
(I'm assuming that &quot;partially&quot; is the correct thing in your situation...)
In the U.S., in math, the funding agencies not only &quot;require&quot; such acknowledgements, but do want to be able to &quot;point to&quot; them to make an impact on higher-ups, including the U.S. Congress. I somehow doubt that Congressional staffers are fact-checking the NSF's claims... but, still. :)
Similarly regarding affiliations, I think, though in that regard the more functionally relevant item is probably &quot;current contact information&quot;. At the same time, you could also credit former employers/institutions with &quot;partially funding&quot; the research. Although I don't see this in any U.S. math rule-book, it would certainly be honest and fair.
(Years ago, a senior colleague of mine here in Minnesota, Steven Gaal, in the intro to his very nice monograph on linear analysis, explicitly thanked &quot;the farmers and workers of Minnesota&quot; for supporting him while he did that work.)