Timeline for On referee-author communications
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 3, 2011 at 9:22 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | darij, the real world is different from my ideal, of course. If two or three letters results in significant improvements, then I view it as a stage where the old version is rejected, and the process begins anew with the improved version, and another two or three letters as needed. Of course, the real world will do what it wants anyway, common sense or no. From an economic standpoint, two or three letters seemed appropriate to place in my idealized version. Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2011.01.03 | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 22:52 | comment | added | darij grinberg | "Arrange it so that you only need to send two or three such letters at most." This is not always possible (answers to questions often provoke new questions) and often far from desirable (some papers are considerably improved in proof - this happened with some of mine, for example -, and improving a paper is quite difficult if you can just exchange 3 letters...). | |
| Jan 2, 2011 at 21:36 | history | answered | Gerhard Paseman | CC BY-SA 2.5 |