Timeline for A question about rejected journal submissions, similar results, and discrepancies between the order of submission and the order of publication [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 3, 2012 at 14:56 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | Paul, so what happened at the end? | |
| Nov 19, 2011 at 6:44 | vote | accept | Paul | ||
| Nov 17, 2011 at 22:17 | history | closed |
user9072 José Figueroa-O'Farrill Tom Leinster Felipe Voloch Will Jagy |
not constructive | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 21:08 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | Do you agree with the referee's assessment that Prof. B's paper proves the same result using the same technique? Or do you think that your paper adds something? | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 21:04 | history | edited | Kevin Walker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Not a great title, but better than the previous one
|
| Nov 17, 2011 at 20:01 | answer | added | fedja | timeline score: 8 | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 19:26 | answer | added | Gil Kalai | timeline score: 8 | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 17:58 | comment | added | Tyler Lawson | Did you post your paper to the arXiv? | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 16:34 | history | reopened |
algori Andrey Rekalo Paul Martin Brandenburg Oscar Randal-Williams |
||
| Nov 17, 2011 at 16:30 | history | edited | user6976 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Nov 17, 2011 at 11:27 | history | rollback | Boris Novikov |
Rollback to Revision 1
|
|
| Nov 17, 2011 at 7:09 | comment | added | Theo Johnson-Freyd | There is some discussion on the linked meta page about this question. What I get from the discussion --- and this is true about most closed questions --- is that there's certainly bits of a good question here, but the question should be revised. As the question is CW, if anyone reading this wants to revise the question, they should, and if they think it is revised enough to be reopened (and to satisfy the complaints listed on meta), then please flag it for moderator attention or mention the revisions on meta. | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 5:21 | history | closed |
user6976 Bill Johnson Gerry Myerson Ryan Budney Anton Petrunin |
off topic | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 4:47 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Meta discussion: tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1210/… | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 4:46 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | You should realize the refereeing process is non-uniform. So outcomes can be unpredictable. For example, perhaps the reason the other author had a smoother refereeing process was that they had a more informative introduction or references? Editors sometimes look to that to find an appropriate referee. IMO your question is too vague to have anything close to a specific answer. | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 4:29 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | I took the liberty of providing a more informative title | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 4:28 | history | edited | Gerry Myerson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
more informative title
|
| Nov 17, 2011 at 3:51 | comment | added | Bill Johnson | I understand that you cannot communicate on MO exactly the facts of this case. I suggest that you go to a senior mathematician you know well (perhaps your PhD advisor) and show him or her all the correspondence with editors and the two papers. That person should be able to give you good advice on how to proceed. Having said that, I think that this is not a question appropriate for MO, so I vote to close. | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 3:48 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Ben Webster♦ | ||
| Nov 17, 2011 at 3:14 | comment | added | Marcin Kotowski | 3) Post under a more informative title. | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 2:51 | comment | added | user6976 | Suggestion: 1) Make this "community Wiki" and 2) Write a better paper. | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 2:08 | history | asked | Paul | CC BY-SA 3.0 |