Timeline for Submission of a paper with a serious error to a good journal
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 6, 2016 at 4:07 | history | edited | BigM | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected a typo
|
| Nov 16, 2010 at 20:07 | vote | accept | Bas Lag | ||
| Nov 16, 2010 at 20:07 | |||||
| Nov 16, 2010 at 19:18 | comment | added | user6976 | @Felipe: Thanks! I actually thought about Faltings' theorem when I wrote my comment, so I looked where Bombieri's proof was published. I did not look at Vojta's. Of course this is a truly exceptional case. | |
| Nov 16, 2010 at 18:52 | comment | added | Felipe Voloch | @Mark: Not quite true. The Annals published Vojta's second proof of Mordell's conjecture. | |
| Nov 16, 2010 at 18:31 | comment | added | user6976 | @Darij: Journals usually do not publish "second proofs" unless it is a proof of an very important statement and the ideas are sufficienly different. Some journals (Annals of Math, for example) do not publish second proofs at all. Perhaps there were exceptions but I do not know it. The journal I submitted the paper to was good, the statement was nice but not exceptionally strong, the ideas of proofs were different but still nothing fancy. The paper should have been rejected, but the referee did not know about the old paper too. I discovered it just by chance. | |
| Nov 16, 2010 at 17:59 | comment | added | darij grinberg | 1. What is the problem with it? The more often something is written up in a different way, the better it is readable. | |
| Nov 16, 2010 at 16:41 | history | answered | user6976 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |