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
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 18, 2011 at 2:34 | comment | added | fedja | @Ben Oh, well, I guess I should stop publishing then: my list is long enough, and I don't care about impressing deans anymore. It'll be great to stop wasting my time on writing and proofreading papers and do something that is more fun. It'll free space in journals for those who still need to impress deans too :). @quid "Moral of the story" is not the same as "advice for the moment". Using your car crash analogy, it makes sense to tell that the accident of this type is not uncommon and show a few braking techniques to use in the future. This car is gone. The point is not to crash another one. | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 23:45 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | I think your point 5 is completely wrong-headed. At this point publications aren't there to communicate mathematics. They are for the purpose of impressing deans. The dean won't know that the work is duplicated elsewhere. | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 21:38 | comment | added | user9072 | In some sense there might still be room for 'negotation' say for future work, or I do not know, that OP refers to "the other guy" as Prof B. might suggest there is quite some gap in 'standing' so if you get lucky and this person is nice she/he might be editor somewhere else and take your parallel work, or whathever. But all these seems extremely vague to me if one does not know what is actually going on. Which is precisly why some think the question is too vague (btw this is the main reason given for closure , not the nonmath reason). | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 21:33 | comment | added | user9072 | Sure. But the semi-positive outcome in your situations seems to be a nonoption. And, what do you want to negutiate if the other paper is already printed? (your point 3). So in my opinion the situations are not comparable. Like if somebody asks about what to do after a car accidents and somebody tells a story how they were able to break in time. ('If I had hit the break 2 seconds later it would have been the same...') | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 21:27 | comment | added | fedja | @quid It is merely the stage at which the problem was caught that is different, not the general line of development. If $Z$ hadn't sent his draft to $Y$ before submitting it somewhere, we would have pretty much the same story. @Benjamin. a) OK, "anywhere in the same connected component" then. b) Your second remark is quite orthogonal to what I meant. I did not say that the impossibility to publish the paper won't make the OP's life harder; it is obvious to everyone that it will. I rather meant that the best way to overcome this difficulty is not through "appeals" and such. | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 20:25 | comment | added | Benjamin Steinberg | Actually, back during the cold war it wasn't uncommon to have nearly identical papers appearing in both a western journal and a Russian journal. In all seriousness, a beginning grad student needs publications to get jobs and while 1 paper means nothing to an experienced researcher, it could be a significant percentage of a grad students output. | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 20:14 | comment | added | user9072 | The other paper already appeared. The situation is not close at all. | |
| Nov 17, 2011 at 20:01 | history | answered | fedja | CC BY-SA 3.0 |