I don’t think there’s a clear protocol. I’ve seen referees generously offer improvements. I’ve seen authors offer coauthorship for those improvements. I’ve seen the referee accept or decline the offer. Of course, it’s perfectly legitimate for you to wait for them to publish and then submit your improvement. Delaying by a few months is a gamble (might get ...


I made a flow chart describing what I think is the typical process in this case: You will notice many articles end with "We would like to acknowledge the anonymous reviewer whose suggestions tremendously simplified the proof ..."


Some reviewing guidelines state explicitly that referees are not supposed to communicate any original research as part of their review letter. If this is not the case, there is the option of telling the authors (as well as the area chairs) openly about the dilemma you find yourself in and, at the same time, sketching your generalization in sufficient detail. ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible