Timeline for Permanent archival of errata/corrigenda for published papers
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 22, 2019 at 18:56 | history | edited | Timothy Chow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added an update about MathSciNet
|
| Jul 14, 2019 at 20:33 | history | edited | Timothy Chow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added an example
|
| Dec 25, 2018 at 1:59 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | @SamHopkins : Your comment is actually related because I once tried to add a reviewer comment to an old review of mine, after an error was discovered in the paper and I wanted to mention this. MR told me that they hesitate to do that kind of thing and they prefer that an official erratum be published. | |
| Dec 24, 2018 at 10:35 | answer | added | Carlo Beenakker | timeline score: 6 | |
| Dec 24, 2018 at 1:19 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | Not directly related but I find it extremely useful when MathReviews links to erratum in its reviews of papers, because otherwise there is often no easy way to know their is erratum. | |
| Dec 23, 2018 at 23:04 | answer | added | R W | timeline score: 5 | |
| Dec 23, 2018 at 22:44 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | If the error is significant, it may deserve its own paper. Perhaps you might suggest what deserves to be called an erratum. Gerhard "For Ideas, Check Out 31337" Paseman, 2018.12.23. | |
| Dec 23, 2018 at 21:38 | history | asked | Timothy Chow | CC BY-SA 4.0 |