|
7
|
|
edited Dec 9 2011 at 21:34 |
I am refereeing my first paper and I'm quite excited! But inexperienced and I would like to ask an advice to the Maths Community of MO. Let me tell you that I have already read http://mathoverflow.net/questions/36596/refereeing-a-paper, but it seems that my question is quite different.
The general question is, roughlyRoughly:
What is the point after which you get nervous while refereeing a paper?
Specifically:
I've found many English mistakes. (Well, I'm not a native English and so I can understand. So I am not nervous yet) I've found some maths inaccuracies like "let A be any set"... and then I have discovered that the proof of the first result works only for finite sets. (OK, those are only inaccuracies - I am not nervous yet) There are many references like "we use the notation of [X]", "this result is proved in [X]", where [X] is a BOOK, without specifying a precise section, or the number of the result... should I get this book and read all to find out the correct references? - just thinking of it, makes me a bit nervous.. (most importantly). There is a mathematical more serious mistake. Something that might be fixed, but not obviously (my definition of obvious is three evenings, in this case). I am not saying that the paper is completely wrong but that now... now I'm getting nervous!
Now, taking into account that the person who asked me to referee this paper told me: be selective, we accept only 20% of submitted papers,
what should you do in these cases? Reject? Ask for a revision? Not getting nervous and try to see if the rest of the piece is good (I'm quite a good guy and I'm doing that at the moment)?
Of course I will talk with the editor, but I also would like to know more opinions that might be helpful in future.
Update: Thank you very much to everybody for the numerous and helpful comments.
Valerio
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
edited Dec 2 2011 at 13:08 |
I am refereeing my first paper and I'm quite excited! But inexperienced and I would like to ask an advice to the Maths Community of MO. Let me tell you that I have already read http://mathoverflow.net/questions/36596/refereeing-a-paper, but it seems my question is different.
The general question is, roughly:
What is the point after which you get nervous while refereeing a paper?
Specifically:
I've found many English mistakes. (Well, I'm not a native English and so I can understand. So I am not nervous yet) I've found some maths inaccuracies like "let A be any set"... and then I have discovered that the proof of the first result works only for finite sets. (OK, those are only inaccuracies - I am not nervous yet) There are many references like "we use the notation of [X]", "this result is proved in [X]", where [X] is a BOOK, without specifying a precise section, or the number of the result... should I get this book and read all to find out the correct references? - just thinking of it, makes me a bit nervous.. (most importantly). There is a mathematical more serious mistake. Something that might be fixed, but not obviously (my definition of obvious is three evenings, in this case). I am not saying that the paper is completely wrong but that now... now I'm getting nervous!
Now, taking into account that the person who asked me to referee this paper told me: be selective, we accept only 20% of submitted papers,
what should you do in these cases? Reject? Ask for a revision? Not getting nervous and try to see if the rest of the piece is good (I'm quite a good guy and I'm doing that at the moment)?
Of course I will talk with the editor, but I also would like to know more opinions that might be helpful in future.
Update: Thank you in advance,very much to everybody for the numerous and helpful comments.
Valerio
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
edited Dec 1 2011 at 15:41 |
I am refereeing my first paper and I'm quite excited! But inexperienced and I would like to ask an advice to the Maths Community of MO. Let me tell you that I have already read http://mathoverflow.net/questions/36596/refereeing-a-paper, but it seems my question is different.
The general question is, roughly:
What is the point after which you get nervous while refereeing a paper?
Specifically:
I've found many English mistakes. (Well, I'm not a native English and so I can understand. So I am not nervous yet) I've found some maths inaccuracies like "let A be any set"... and then I have discovered that the proof of the first result works only for finite sets. (OK, those are only inaccuracies - I am not nervous yet) There are many references like "we use the notation of [X]", "this result is proved in [X]", where [X] is a BOOK, without specifying a precise section, or the number of the result... should I get this book and read all to find out the correct references? - just thinking of it, makes me a bit nervous.. (most importantly). There is a mathematical more serious mistake. Something that might be fixed, but not obviously (my definition of obvious is three nightsevenings, in this case). I am not saying that the paper is completely wrong but that now... now I'm getting nervous!
Now, taking into account that the person who asked me to referee this paper told me: be selective, we accept only 20% of submitted papers,
what should you do in these cases? Reject? Ask for a revision? Not getting nervous and try to see if the rest of the piece is good (I'm quite a good guy and I'm doing that at the moment)?
Of course I will talk with the editor, but I also would like to know more opinions that might be helpful in future.
Thank you in advance,
Valerio
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
edited Dec 1 2011 at 10:29 |
I am refereeing my first paper and I'm quite excited! But inexperienced and I would like to ask an advice to the Maths Community of MO. Let me tell you that I have already read http://mathoverflow.net/questions/36596/refereeing-a-paper, but it seems my question is different.
The general question is, roughly:
What is the point after which you get nervous while refereeing a paper?
Specifically:
I've found many English mistakes. (Well, I'm not a native English and so I can understand. So I am not nervous yet) I've found some maths inaccuracies like "let A be any set"... and then I have discovered that the proof of the first result works only for finite sets. (OK, those are only inaccuracies - I am not nervous yet) There are many references like "we use the notation of [X]", "this result is proved in [X]", where [X] is a BOOK, without specifying a precise section, or the number of the result... should I get this book and read all to find out the correct references? - just thinking of it, makes me a bit nervous.. (most importantly). At some point, the author defines a supremum of a set of elements of There is a group..mathematical more serious mistake. OK, it's clear Something that there is something missingmight be fixed, but also correcting intuitively the definition, it turns out that this supremum is not a constant, depending on one of the elements obviously (my definition of the group, and so it obvious is (apparently) useless for his/her aimsthree nights, in this case). I am not saying that this the paper is a serious mistake, completely wrong but just that now... now I'm getting nervous!
Now, taking into account that the person who asked me to referee this paper told me: be selective, we accept only 20% of submitted papers,
what should you do in these cases? Reject? Ask for a revision? Not getting nervous and try to see if the rest of the piece is good (I'm quite a good guy and I'm doing that at the moment)?
Of course I will talk with the editor, but I also would like to know more opinions that might be helpful in future.
Thank you in advance,
Valerio
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
edited Dec 1 2011 at 0:53 |
I am refereeing my first paper and I'm quite excited! But inexperienced and I would like to ask an advice to the Maths Community of MO. Let me tell you that I have already read http://mathoverflow.net/questions/36596/refereeing-a-paper, but it seems my question is different.
The general question is, roughly:
What is the point after that which you get nervous when while refereeing a paper?
Specifically:
I've found many English mistakes. (Well, I'm not a native English and so I can understand. So I am not nervous yet) I've found some maths inaccuracies like "let A be any set"... and then I have discovered that the proof of the first result works only for finite sets. (OK, those are only inaccuracies - I am not nervous yet) There are many references like "we use the notation of [X]", "this result is proved in [X]", where [X] is a BOOK, without specifying a precise section, or the number of the result... should I get this book and read all to find out the correct references? - just thinking of it, makes me a bit nervous.. (most importantly). At some point, the author defines a supremum of a set of elements of a group... OK, it's clear that there is something missing, but also correcting intuitively the definition, it turns out that this supremum is not a constant, depending on one of the elements of the group, and so it is (apparently) useless for his/her aims. I am not saying that this is a serious mistake, but just that now... I'm getting nervous!
Now, taking into account that the person who asked me to referee this paper told me: be selective, we accept only 20% of submitted papers,
what should you do in these cases? Reject? Ask for a revision? Not getting nervous and try to see if the rest of the piece is good (I'm quite a good guy and I'm doing that at the moment)?
Of course I will talk with the editor, but I also would like to know more opinions that might be helpful in future.
Thank you in advance,
Valerio
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
edited Nov 30 2011 at 23:04 |
I am refereeing my first paper and I'm quite excited! But inexperienced and I would like to ask an advice to the Maths Community of MO. Let me tell you that I have already read http://mathoverflow.net/questions/36596/refereeing-a-paper, but it seems my question is different.
The general question is, roughly:
What is the point after that you get nervous when refereeing a paper?
Specifically:
I've found many English mistakes. (Well, I'm not a native English and so I can understand. So I am not nervous yet) I've found some maths inaccuracies like "let A be any set"... and then I have discovered that the proof of the first result works only for finite sets. (OK, those are only inaccuracies - I am not nervous yet) There are many references like "we use the notation of [X]", "this result is proved in [X]", where [X] is a BOOK, without specifying a precise section, or the number of the result... should I get this book and read all to find out the correct references? - just thinking of it, makes me a bit nervous.. (most importantly). At some point, the author defines a supremum of a set of elements of a group... OK, it's clear that there is something missing, but also correcting intuitively the definition, it turns out that this supremum is not a constant, depending on one of the elements of the group, and so it is (apparently) useless for his/her aims. I am not saying that this is a serious mistake, but just that now... I'm getting nervous!
Now, taking into account that the person who ask asked me to referee this paper told me: be selective, we accept only 20% of submitted papers.
What ,
what should you do in these cases? Reject? Ask for a revision? Not getting nervous and try to see if the rest of the piece is good (I'm quite a good guy and I'm doing that at the moment)?
Of course I will talk with the editor, but I also would like to know more opinions that might be helpful in future.
Thank you in advance,
Valerio
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
asked Nov 30 2011 at 22:55 |
Getting nervous refereeing a paper
I am refereeing my first paper and I'm quite excited! But inexperienced and I would like to ask an advice to the Maths Community of MO. Let me tell you that I have already read http://mathoverflow.net/questions/36596/refereeing-a-paper, but it seems my question is different.
The general question is, roughly:
What is the point after that you get nervous when refereeing a paper?
Specifically:
I've found many English mistakes. (Well, I'm not a native English and so I can understand. So I am not nervous yet) I've found some maths inaccuracies like "let A any set"... and then I have discovered that the proof of the first result works only for finite sets. (OK, those are only inaccuracies - I am not nervous yet) There are many references like "we use the notation of [X]", "this result is proved in [X]", where [X] is a BOOK, without specifying a precise section, or the number of the result... should I get this book and read all to find out the correct references? - just thinking of it, makes me a bit nervous.. (most importantly). At some point, the author defines a supremum of a set of elements of a group... OK, it's clear that there is something missing, but also correcting intuitively the definition, it turns out that this supremum is not a constant, depending on one of the elements of the group, and so it is (apparently) useless for his/her aims. I am not saying that this is a serious mistake, but just that now... I'm getting nervous!
Now, taking into account that the person who ask me to referee this paper told me: be selective, we accept only 20% of submitted papers.
What should you do in these cases? Reject? Ask for a revision? Not getting nervous and try to see if the rest of the piece is good (I'm quite a good guy and I'm doing that at the moment)?
Of course I will talk with the editor, but I also would like to know more opinions that might be helpful in future.
Thank you in advance,
Valerio
|
|
|
