Peter
|
Unregistered User
|
|
|
Jan 22 |
comment |
When should a result be made into a paper? That said, one solution is to publish everything and either not list the weaker papers in your CV or (better) list them in their own section(s) with a two sentence reason for why you published but why they are not supposed to be your 'best work'. |
|
Jan 22 |
comment |
When should a result be made into a paper? Each will be a short paper, they will not link together to make any very coherent story, and you will pick up maybe ten a year. If you publish the lot, then you may well find that you apply to places and you get rejected because 'all their work is in the Rocky Mountain Journal'. Even though the five results you really care about are in top journals - they get overlooked, or at least averaged with the flood of weak papers, where a CV listing only five results in top journals would probably get serious consideration. |
|
Jan 22 |
comment |
When should a result be made into a paper? Actually extra papers can be detrimental, at least if you're not careful. Suppose you're working in a field where you can relatively easily find bits of new evidence towards some major conjecture which is what you actually want to prove. Furthermore these bits of evidence and ideas are not just support, you (with justification) really believe that they are building a path towards some eventual proof of the conjecture (this is not too far from Andrew King's position, actually). So do you try to publish all these results you can get? |
|
Jan 22 |
answered | Non-constructive proofs vs. efficient algorithms |
