Timeline for Should I publish a paper if its results overlap significantly with an earlier paper?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 8 at 19:39 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Stefan Kohl♦ | ||
| Sep 3, 2018 at 13:27 | vote | accept | Ken Gonzales | ||
| Sep 3, 2018 at 13:27 | vote | accept | Ken Gonzales | ||
| Sep 3, 2018 at 13:27 | |||||
| Sep 2, 2018 at 3:50 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | @JimConant "One month is nothing in the world of academia" - that is true in my area, and I guess in yours, but I get the anecdotal impression that in e.g. TCS, or some fast-moving trendy areas of pure maths, this is not the case | |
| Sep 1, 2018 at 19:28 | answer | added | David G. Stork | timeline score: 10 | |
| Sep 1, 2018 at 17:04 | comment | added | Jim Conant | One month is nothing in the world of academia. I would definitely submit your paper, mention the other paper, and say that your results were obtained independently. You could also flesh out the situation in more detail in your letter to the journal's editors when you first submit. | |
| Sep 1, 2018 at 16:57 | answer | added | Pace Nielsen | timeline score: 26 | |
| Sep 1, 2018 at 15:49 | comment | added | Christian Remling | I have been in this situation a few times (twice, I think): I had done something and then it turns out that other people have done the same thing (or even a better version of it) independently at roughly the same time. We always ended up publishing separate papers. That seems the obvious thing to do (though of course there are other options too), and I've never thought of this as a particularly delicate or tricky situation. | |
| Sep 1, 2018 at 11:33 | comment | added | Yiftach Barnea | @SimonS it sounds like you are in a stage of your career where you need publications. So, my suggestion is to submit your paper. Mention the Y paper and say that your results were obtained independently. You can, if you like, mention that their result is more general, but your proof is simpler. | |
| Sep 1, 2018 at 11:08 | history | edited | Ken Gonzales | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Sep 1, 2018 at 11:08 | comment | added | Ken Gonzales | Taras, I originally considered that. It doesn't seem that the author of Paper Y I am corresponding with is suggesting that, and I would have to be the one to suggest it. However, after some consideration, I feel that our methods used do not seem to make a good mix. | |
| Sep 1, 2018 at 4:07 | comment | added | Taras Banakh | Maybe a joint paper with the authors of Y would be a good solution? | |
| Sep 1, 2018 at 3:58 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | IMO if submit at all you should do a substantial rewrite - begin with the exposition of Y, then explain that what you are doing improves it. If this cannot be made convincingly you should not publish. | |
| Sep 1, 2018 at 1:26 | history | edited | Ken Gonzales | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Sep 1, 2018 at 1:20 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 2, 2018 at 3:50 | |||||
| Sep 1, 2018 at 1:19 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | There are a lot of culture specific details that might apply and help determine your response. I recommend talking to advisors, colleagues, and other people in the field. I have had several instances where my results were simultaneous with others. The best outcome was an acknowledgement that I had done an independent discovery using different methods. If you publish, you should be able to say the same about Y and its authors. However, there may be politics involved, and such issues should not (in my opinion) be addressed here. Gerhard "A Reason To Leave Academia" Paseman, 2018.08.31. | |
| Sep 1, 2018 at 1:10 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 1, 2018 at 3:13 | |||||
| Sep 1, 2018 at 1:02 | history | asked | Ken Gonzales | CC BY-SA 4.0 |