Dear All,

thanks in advance to anyone that could give some suggestion.

Here's the situation: starting from a type of random graph I extend the construction introducing a new class of random graphs. I studied some properties and I write a paper that I submitted to the arxiv.org successfully after the endorsment of one of the author cited in the references. I have a math degree but I don't have any formal affiliation to my university, so I submitted the paper as a private without affiliation.

After some minor review I consider submitting it to a math journal. I submitted it and after one month my paper was refused because of the following reviewer motivation:

"The paper considers random graphs where roughly speaking one starts with a precise graph and adds new vertices into random cycles. Clearly, the graphs that are obtained have a very special form. The presented results are neither interesting nor significant enough for publication in our journal."

So it seems to me that even if the paper was correct it's not as general results as required.

So here are my questions:

Considering that the paper seems ok, I mean no first read bad mistakes, would I submit it to another journal and see if is accepted?

In case I would try to generalize the process and would I have to submit again to the same journal?

If I don't have any affiliation this could be somehow bad at the eyes of a reviewer?

Thanks to everyone that could help.

Paolo

againstclosing. It seems that the question is really about protocol, procedure and expected behaviour, not so much about the particular results. – Yemon Choi Feb 27 '11 at 23:14