Timeline for A question about rejected journal submissions, similar results, and discrepancies between the order of submission and the order of publication
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 19, 2011 at 6:46 | comment | added | Paul | @Gil Kalai: Thank you for your suggestion. In the report, the referee said that, "The result and its proof are correct." So I think I will follow your suggestion. | |
| Nov 19, 2011 at 6:44 | vote | accept | Paul | ||
| Nov 17, 2011 at 21:44 | comment | added | user9072 | A perhaps very risky idea: but why not ask the editors of A (not B)to reconsider their decision to reject the paper, since ex post it seems it was a misdecision (if everything is as OP describes)? | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 21:29 | comment | added | fedja | That depends on what the editors of B think their mission is. If they think it is to give a reward to everyone who deserves it, then what Gil proposes makes sense. Alas, I think it is not the case and, most likely, the editors will prefer publishing some other (perhaps, even lower quality) work to duplicating a paper published elsewhere just to make the journal more interesting to its readers. | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 19:26 | history | answered | Gil Kalai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |