Timeline for The unpublished papers in reference to the published papers
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2015 at 6:01 | answer | added | Jason Rute | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 14:59 | comment | added | André Henriques | Related: mathoverflow.net/questions/176472/… | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 14:42 | answer | added | André Henriques | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jun 4, 2015 at 6:19 | answer | added | Denis Serre | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 4, 2015 at 5:38 | answer | added | Alexandre Eremenko | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 23:04 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | There is a famous example of the sort you mention, who proved many things in seminars in the 70s-90s, and published none of them. This person then complains when people publish on these topics without citing them, or using their approach. I find this attitude curious, since many of these results are, by the circumstances, known to a select few, and now this person is practically unwilling to share their work. | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 23:03 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | @Yemon I think some clarification on the type of 'unpublished paper' is warranted: well-circulated among the experts (cf Segal CFT paper before he was forced to publish), a note from the 70s that only a few people have and many have cited (many I could think of in category theory), something you read in some paper with vague attribution to a 'manuscript' etc. Or something someone told you they are working on... | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 14:58 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Jun 3, 2015 at 12:30 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @DavidRoberts If the author doesn't want to make it more widely available, why are the in the business? Perhaps because they joined the business, and were proving difficult or valuable theorems, long before the 56k modem, let alone modern mores? Not everything in maths that some of us need to use is as sparkly and new and enfused with the OS spirit as the Brave New World | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 11:52 | comment | added | user9072 | @PiotrAchinger I have not voted to close the question, but as a matter of principle: please do not quote the help-center out of context. | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 8:03 | comment | added | Gordon Royle | This can often cause problems - in many cases an author asserts a result, perhaps in a conference talk, when they are convinced that they have a proof, but before it is fully written up. As time goes by, the expected paper fails to materialize for one of many possible reasons - the author loses interest, or can't quite nail down the details or leaves mathematics or dies etc. These non-papers can be a real stumbling block because everyone "knows" that X has proved this, so nobody else writes down the details and so on. | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 7:41 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | These days there's little excuse for authors to not make the article available on the internet in some form. It's not like it's the 70s and there's a paper version floating around and you have a friend of a friend who has a photocopy. I would encourage the author to upload it somewhere public, since journals these days realise they can't stop this behaviour, though they lobby against it. If the author doesn't want to make it more widely available, why are they in the business? | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 6:19 | answer | added | Carlo Beenakker | timeline score: 13 | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 5:55 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 3, 2015 at 7:31 | |||||
| Jun 3, 2015 at 5:45 | comment | added | Piotr Achinger | I'm against this question being closed. To quote the Help Center, MO questions should be "the sorts of questions you come across when you're writing or reading articles or graduate level books" and "well-defined," which perfectly applies here. | |
| Jun 3, 2015 at 5:24 | history | asked | Sebastien Palcoux | CC BY-SA 3.0 |