MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

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 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.


share|cite|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Andrés E. Caicedo, Zev Chonoles, Steven Sam, Mark Sapir, J.C. Ottem Feb 27 '11 at 23:32

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

This question is too specific to your circumstances - MathOverflow is not a place to ask people to look at your results and tell you if the reviewer's assessment is correct or not, so I have voted to close. – Zev Chonoles Feb 27 '11 at 23:04
It would be very helpful if you added a link to your paper in the Arxiv. Generally speaking, if a paper is rejected on the basis of not being interesting or significant to the level of the submitted journal, you can always try with a lower-category journal. I would only resubmit to the same journal if the paper is rejected for (1) the referee incorrectly believing that there is a mathematical flaw in the proofs (2) the referee points out a specific flaw in the proofs that I'm able to fix in a short time. – Pablo Shmerkin Feb 27 '11 at 23:06
Zev, I don't think he is asking anyone to look at his results. He is hoping based on the reviewers comment if that is sufficient to not resubmit the paper as is to another journal. I think your vote to close should not be based on what you have stated in your comment. Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2011.02.27 – Gerhard Paseman Feb 27 '11 at 23:08
Seconding Gerhard's comment, and hence casting a vote against closing. 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
You raised this question on the Usenet newsgroup sci.math, and it appears you have learned nothing from the answers posted there. Anyone interested in seeing the earlier discussion can search Google groups for "not so general". – Gerry Myerson Feb 27 '11 at 23:35

I think that you need a second (and perhaps third) opinion from a professional. If possible, write some individual emails requesting people to give a quick impression as to the publication-worthiness of your result. Since the result is on ArXiv, no question of precedence should arise. You can ask the author you asked before for names of other people to ask. It is important that you emphasize that you don't need them to spend time going over the paper (if all you need is a quick impression; for a more thorough review, you will want a different strategy of approach).

Please note: MathOverflow is a place for specific questions. If you have trouble with a particular proof, you can ask about that detail. Zev Chonoles is right in commenting that MathOverflow is not a place to solicit reviewers for your work. Pablo Shmerkin is (somewhat) right in the idea that it is smart to include a link to your ArXiv submission, in case someone is interested and volunteers to review it. (In short: Asking for review on MathOverflow, bad; making it possible using less than 100 characters without asking, not so bad, and possibly priceless.)

Gerhard "Will Rewrite Commercials For Barter" Paseman, 2011.02.27

share|cite|improve this answer
I want to add that making it possible on MathOverflow for people to get at your results also gets a number of eager non-professionals, who might be willing to help. Referee practice for people who will enter the profession, more eyes debugging your work; how could it not be a win-win, especially if everyone involved volunteered? Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2011.02.27 – Gerhard Paseman Feb 27 '11 at 23:47

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.