I submitted a short paper and received a positive review and a negative review. The editor (he) briefly wrote the following things:


1. He thinks my original result could be mistaken because of XYZ
2. He presents an alternative theorem (not entirely in mathematical language but with a combination of math and English), which gives a finer result than mine
3. He presents a sketch of proof
4. He presents an example
5. He adds that, if I think he is wrong, and I was right, please revise my manuscript addressing concerns of reviewers and submit again.


I thought I was right, but after working on this topic for a few more months, I find that he is actually correct. So I wrote down his theorem, proofs, and example in details. I am about to submit, but an idea jumps into my head: he should own the copyright, not me. What should I do here?


*Background*: he is a very smart and cutting-edge researcher in my field, but he does not work on the problems in my direction, so I won't be plagiarizing his papers.



The editor wrote the paper for me
[Comments combined into a community wiki answer.]


*Copyright* is the wrong word in this context; the correct word is *authorship*. A reasonable course of action is to propose to the editor that you and he be coauthors of the paper. If the editor agrees, then the paper would need to be re-submitted to a different journal; it would be a conflict of interest for the editor to accept his own paper for publication. If the editor declines, then the editor's contribution should be formally acknowledged in the paper, and you can proceed with the publication process.


