Timeline for How Much Flesh to the Bones does an Initial Online Publication need?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sep 30, 2018 at 19:42 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @BrendanMcKay : I think the intent of Carlo's remark is that the arXiv provides a trusted public timestamp, so if someone else claims an earlier date but cannot provide comparable public proof, you should be in good shape, even if that person's formal publication comes out before yours. But obviously, an arXiv preprint can only definitively establish priority for what's actually in the preprint itself. | |
Sep 30, 2018 at 4:19 | comment | added | Brendan McKay | I disagree with the "protect your priority" statement here, at least in one interpretation. A paper with incomplete proofs does not establish priority over a later paper with complete proofs, in my opinion. Otherwise we will have people submitting things they have a good hunch how to prove before they actually prove them. | |
Sep 29, 2018 at 15:02 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
Sep 29, 2018 at 14:45 | vote | accept | Manfred Weis | ||
Sep 29, 2018 at 14:44 | comment | added | Manfred Weis | @CarloBeenakker your understanding is right; the purpose of the initial publication would be to provide a roadmap for others to follow or surpass me. The initial version is by no means intended to be sloppy and no key information or argument will be "left as an excercise to the reader" | |
Sep 29, 2018 at 14:33 | comment | added | Manfred Weis | @DavidESpeyer thanks for pointing me to the option of a research announcement; that will be the path I go to get my feet wet. | |
Sep 29, 2018 at 14:01 | comment | added | David E Speyer | I think a better solution would be to write a separate research announcement and put it on the arXiv, then write the paper. See arxiv.org/abs/1510.00438 for an example. | |
Sep 29, 2018 at 13:56 | comment | added | Carlo Beenakker | @DavidESpeyer --- I fully agree, but it is my understanding that the OP does want to "give enough detail to make the findings checkable and applicable". In that sense the arXiv submission would serve the purpose which in the pre-internet age was accorded to a "Research Announcement" (as discussed in this MO posting) | |
Sep 29, 2018 at 13:43 | comment | added | David E Speyer | "you can submit incomplete papers to arXiv, and complete them later." While I agree that you literally can do this, I think it is usually bad for one's reputation to do so. I think the norm is that it is okay to upload a preprint and then go back later to add a result which was missing from the first version (and perhaps in progress when the first version was written) but that it doesn't look good to upload a paper with content (proofs, definitions) obviously missing. | |
Sep 29, 2018 at 13:35 | history | edited | Carlo Beenakker | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 10 characters in body
|
Sep 29, 2018 at 12:51 | history | answered | Carlo Beenakker | CC BY-SA 4.0 |