I recently have a paper rejected from a very good (but not the top) journal. The referee report said the result was good and certainly belong there, but he did not think I did enough to back up my claims (it was a rather long and harsh criticism at the exposition). Now I know for sure that my result is good and my proofs are correct, should I resubmit to the same journal after rewriting it.
closed as off topic by Andy Putman, Qiaochu Yuan, Deane Yang, Felipe Voloch, Igor Rivin Dec 23 '11 at 9:20
Questions on MathOverflow are expected to relate to research level mathematics within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
A paper can be accepted (maybe subject to minor changes), rejected with a request for certain major changes, or rejected outright. If your paper fits into the middle category (which the editor will usually make clear), you should do some major surgery on it and send it again to the same journal. If it is in the last category, do some major surgery on it and send it to a different journal. In neither case should you send it anywhere without changes after receiving a long negative report. Even if you disagree with it, you should take the report as evidence of how other specialist readers will regard your paper, including misunderstandings.