Timeline for Math papers where the only issue is that someone else could've done it but didn't
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 5, 2023 at 13:59 | comment | added | sendit | A special case for this may be "folklore" results, when formalized. | |
| Nov 23, 2022 at 2:29 | vote | accept | Display name | ||
| S Nov 23, 2022 at 2:29 | vote | accept | Display name | ||
| Nov 23, 2022 at 2:29 | |||||
| Nov 21, 2022 at 18:59 | answer | added | Timothy Chow | timeline score: 14 | |
| Nov 4, 2022 at 13:40 | comment | added | Jyrki Lahtonen | Welcome to the club of mathematicians whose work can be described as "competent but pedestrian". Register at that desk. The line extends to the left. We will be mailing your laminated membership card when we get around to it. | |
| Nov 2, 2022 at 11:09 | answer | added | Hollis Williams | timeline score: 5 | |
| Nov 2, 2022 at 6:46 | comment | added | Kimball | reject it on the basis that this is a top math journal and someone could've done that before but chose not to - While subjective and sometimes mistaken, this reasoning is roughly assessing whether the paper is deep or not. | |
| Nov 2, 2022 at 6:23 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Asaf Karagila♦ | ||
| Nov 2, 2022 at 1:35 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Nov 1, 2022 at 21:15 | comment | added | Christian Remling | Papers submitted to top journals are rejected by default, no reasons needed. There has to be a very special constellation to deviate from this policy. | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 20:32 | vote | accept | Display name | ||
| S Nov 23, 2022 at 2:29 | |||||
| Nov 1, 2022 at 18:47 | comment | added | Denis T | "Do editors for top math journals ever read a submitted paper?" — that is, indeed, a good question... | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 18:34 | answer | added | David White | timeline score: 93 | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 18:27 | comment | added | YCor | I'm not sure this makes much sense to say this is "the only" issue, even if this might be the only one communicated to the authors in some cases. And in any case these are so vague terms ("could have done") that it's not well-defined. In any case if the referee believes they could have done it using existing tools and an essentially predicable path, it's normal the referee recommends rejection for a top journal. For such a journal this will most likely happen before complete verification of the proofs. | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 18:22 | comment | added | Nick S | If "arogant" mathematicians realy think "I could've proven that in a day or week but didn't because there's better stuff to do", then the result is probably not worth publishing in a top journal... It does not mean that it is not interesting or worth publishing, but maybe not in the best journals.... Not every Lemma should be submited to Annals. | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 18:16 | answer | added | JoshuaZ | timeline score: 25 | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 18:10 | history | edited | YCor |
edited tags
|
|
| Nov 1, 2022 at 17:51 | history | edited | Display name | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 294 characters in body
|
| Nov 1, 2022 at 17:51 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | [Do editors for top math journals ever read a submitted paper, agree that there are no mistakes and the result is new, yet still reject it on the basis that this is a top math journal and someone could've done that before but chose not to?] - Certainly, yes, all the time. | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 17:50 | history | edited | Display name | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 294 characters in body
|
| Nov 1, 2022 at 17:35 | history | asked | Display name | CC BY-SA 4.0 |