Timeline for How to correct an error in a submitted paper?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 2019 at 8:25 | answer | added | Jakob | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 26, 2019 at 13:40 | review | Close votes | |||
| Feb 26, 2019 at 18:25 | |||||
| Oct 22, 2017 at 18:54 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 23, 2017 at 6:30 | |||||
| Jun 4, 2010 at 12:07 | comment | added | Charles Stewart | @Kevin: Would you be happier if, instead of a revised version, an erratum, detailing by page/line the problems in the paper, were sent? This eliminates the risk of confusion over what is being reviewed. | |
| Apr 22, 2010 at 12:15 | comment | added | Gerald Edgar | I recall when I was young we (I and a co-author) received an interesting preprint related to what we were working on. But she said just put it in the drawer and wait a few days, because that particular author always sends out a corrected version a few days later. And, indeed, he did. | |
| Apr 22, 2010 at 11:40 | comment | added | David E Speyer | Igor: I've often had that wish too, but I decided it might be wrong-headed. A paper is supposed to be a one-way communication. If it requires several rounds of interactive communication to satisfy the referee, that seems like a strong indication that it is not ready to be published. If it were too easy to send those questions, it might lead to too many papers being published that can't stand by themselves. | |
| Apr 22, 2010 at 7:46 | answer | added | Matthew Daws | timeline score: 7 | |
| Apr 22, 2010 at 5:23 | comment | added | D. Savitt | @Noah: on the same theme, I'd be thrilled if journals required authors to submit the .tex files for every revision of a manuscript, so that they can create a latexdiff to send to the referee. | |
| Apr 22, 2010 at 2:24 | comment | added | Noah Snyder | Really nice journals (e.g. JANT) send both author and referee pdfs with the line numbers, that way no one ever has to count. Actual value added by a journal! | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 20:06 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @Sam - as someone who's written a few referee's reports, I think one should give page and line number and a small amount of surrounding context. (Is it really that much effort to locate the right line on a given page? Some of us still prefer dead-tree reading and editing...) | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 20:03 | comment | added | Igor Belegradek | As a referee I always dreamed of cutting out the middleman (i.e. the editor), so that I could communicate with the author directly, while staying anonymous of course. It would save so much refereeing time. In real life I think twice before asking author a question through an editor, because it involves troubling the important people, who may easily get annoyed. | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 19:59 | comment | added | Sam Nead | @Kevin - This is why, instead of page and line number information, the referee should give five to ten words of context with each comment. Typing context/searching for a text string is much, much easier than counting lines of a pdf file (do the equations count?) and is fairly stable across versions. <p> I've started doing this with co-authors and on my referee reports and I'd like all of you to do the same. (Especially if you are my co-author or refereeing one of my papers! :) | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 18:53 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | If I were the referee, I would definitely appreciate receiving fixes (within reason), as long as the author made clear exactly what was changed, so that I wouldn't have to re-read parts of the paper I have already gone over carefully. | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 18:41 | answer | added | Pete L. Clark | timeline score: 20 | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 18:25 | comment | added | Kevin Buzzard | And a note to the questioner: if you start changing your MS (e.g. updating it on ArXiv) then be sure to keep hold of a copy of the exact version you sent the journal, because that's what all the referee's "page 12 line 13" comments will be based on! | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 18:23 | comment | added | Kevin Buzzard | Speaking as someone who does a job for a journal involving passing papers between authors and referees (a sort of "sub-editor"), I can say that there's few things that annoy me more than authors sending revisions and asking me to pass them on to referees. It confuses things in many ways. For example there is now more than one version of the paper in the system, so when the referee says "the x on page 12 line13 should be y" the author says "no it shouldn't" but it turns out he's looking at another line. And imagine how the referee feels---their job is hard enough without multiple versions!WAIT! | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 18:20 | comment | added | Noah Snyder | I'd really like to hear about this from the point of view of an actual editor. The question here is how much of a pain is it to the editor to have to forward a correction. If the author and referee were in direct contact (say through an online system) I think you'd want to send the correction immediately. The problem is that you don't want to waste the editors time (who typically is a very busy and important person). | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 16:33 | answer | added | D. Savitt | timeline score: 4 | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 16:31 | answer | added | Nate Eldredge | timeline score: 23 | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 16:07 | answer | added | Noah Snyder | timeline score: 39 | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 15:55 | answer | added | Angelo | timeline score: 11 | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 15:50 | history | asked | Mike Shulman | CC BY-SA 2.5 |