Timeline for How to correct an error in a submitted paper?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 2, 2014 at 6:49 | comment | added | Laurent Berger | Same here - I recently had a paper rejected on the basis of three reports, one of which was a very angry report which was not based on the version of the paper that I'd sent to the journal. My paper, however, stayed rejected after this was pointed out :-( | |
| Jun 4, 2010 at 11:58 | comment | added | Charles Stewart | One of my early refereeing mistakes was to do exactly this: after I finished writing my report on the paper with the same title I downloaded from the author's site, I took a look at the paper I had been emailed, to note that this paper was completely different: I had to largely rewrite my report, and changed my recommendation from reject to accept. Never again! | |
| Apr 25, 2010 at 17:03 | comment | added | Dylan Thurston | For why this might happen: sometimes the journal provides me with the paper in an inconvenient form, and I'd rather work with the TeX source, which is easily available from the arXiv. (I've had occasional trouble printing PDF's, for instance.) | |
| Apr 25, 2010 at 16:13 | comment | added | Allen Knutson | I, too, had a referee reject the wrong paper -- one that had already been published! | |
| Apr 22, 2010 at 5:12 | comment | added | D. Savitt | @Mike,Kevin: Agreed, I would never have imagined it until it happened to me. | |
| Apr 22, 2010 at 1:28 | comment | added | Simon Willerton | You think that's disastrous? I had a referee reject a completely different paper of mine! I assume they must have downloaded a random paper of mine off the arxiv. They wrote quite a scathing rejection of the paper without being very specific - fortunately I noticed that they alluded to certain things that were not mentioned in the submitted paper so I was able to point this out to the editor. (And it all ended happily for both papers.) | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 20:35 | comment | added | Kevin Buzzard | I'm also surprised. I would never dream of refereeing anything other than the version sent to me by the journal! How do you expect the editors to deal with a report that says "there's an error in section 7" if the submitted version only has 6 sections?? This has the potential to go disastrously wrong! | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 19:30 | comment | added | Kim Morrison | I've certainly done this, mostly when about to get on a plane and scrambling to print something I need to referee. I second David's recommendation -- don't forget to update the arxiv version of your papers! | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 18:47 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | It's really surprising to me that a referee would do that. When I am refereeing a paper I always make sure to read the version sent to me by the journal, for precisely the reason you mention -- the author may have made corrections but not bothered updating the arxiv version until it was final. | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 16:33 | history | answered | D. Savitt | CC BY-SA 2.5 |