In papers there are often sketchy arguments in proofs that I find hard to understand. Filling in the gaps is laborious and time-consuming. According to the post www.mathoverflow.net/questions/40729/does-a-referee-have-to-check-carefully-the-proof, referees seem to be faced with this problem as well.
Presently I'm preparing my first paper for submission to a journal. Of course I approve the usual conventions and write more or less sketchy proofs myself in order to keep the paper short (around 15 pages). On the other hand, I checked the proofs carefully. So I could support the publishing process by this idea:
Submit two versions of the paper:
- a short one, designated for publishing
- a long one, assigned for the referee with proofs given in full detail
Is this a good idea that simplifies the referee's life (and, maybe, helps getting the paper accepted) or is it, in contrast, maybe even a no-go ?
I appreciate your opinions very, very much. Thanks in advance.
N.b. I intentionally ask the question on MO (and not on academia.stackexchange.com) because I think checking proofs is particular to mathematics and doesn't occur this way in most other fields of science.