In papers there are often sketchy arguments in proofs that I find hard to understand. Filling in the gaps is laborious and time-consuming. According to the post www.mathoverflow.net/questions/40729/does-a-referee-have-to-check-carefully-the-proof, referees seem to be faced with this problem as well.

Presently I'm preparing my first paper for submission to a journal. Of course I approve the usual conventions and write more or less sketchy proofs myself in order to keep the paper short (around 15 pages). On the other hand, I checked the proofs carefully. So I could support the publishing process by this idea:

Submit two versions of the paper:

- a short one, designated for publishing
- a long one, assigned for the referee with proofs given in full detail

Is this a good idea that simplifies the referee's life (and, maybe, helps getting the paper accepted) or is it, in contrast, maybe even a no-go ?

I appreciate your opinions very, very much. Thanks in advance.

N.b. I intentionally ask the question on MO (and not on academia.stackexchange.com) because I think checking proofs is particular to mathematics and doesn't occur this way in most other fields of science.

Pleasedo not perpetuate this idea that «sketchy proofs» are acceptable. Also, as a writer you should be ideally concered with making the life of yourreadereasier, not the referee's. Your paper will have one, two, very, very few referees but —hopefully!— many readers: optimze for the general case! $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jan 16 '14 at 16:48"Equation (4.8) shows that ... is isometric. Since ... the containments (4.2) follow from (3.3) and (2.5)."There is nothing wrong with it. But: a) Showing that the function is actually isometric requires a tedious computation in its own where using (4.8) is one step (the key step). A referee who really validates the proof should do this computation (should the reader also do ?). If the referee had the long version, he could just read that computation line by line. b) Understanding why (4.2) follows from (3.3), (2.5) is sometimes not that obvious. $\endgroup$ – user45614 Jan 16 '14 at 17:57