A lower bound on paper length would make little sense - if something can be proved very quickly, but the proof is novel and the result is interesting enough to justify the publishing process, then so much the better. (With very important results, sometimes you'll even see papers in well-regarded journals entitled 'A Short Proof of '(already known result)', because short, clear proofs are valuable even when other proofs are known.) One note of caution though: if you are a 'hobby mathematician' as you say in your profile, and you have an unusual writing style, you may have to work extra hard to overcome the referee's scepticism. This is a reason to write more detail rather than less, especially in the initial submission. You can always trim it down later if that's what the journal wants.
|
2 | edited body | ||
|
|
||||
|
|
1 |
|
||
|
A lower bound on paper length would make little sense - if something can be proved very quickly, but the proof is novel and the result is interesting enough to justify the publishing process, then so much the better. (With very important results, sometimes you'll even see papers in well-regarded journals entitled 'A Short Proof of ', because short, clear proofs are valuable even when other proofs are known.) One note of caution though: if you are a 'hobby mathematician' as you say in your profile, and you have an unusual writing style, you may have to work extra hard to overcome the referee's scepticism. This is a reason to write more detail rather than less, especially in the initial submission. You can always trim it down later if that's what the journal wants. |
||||
