Sunday, January 25, 2009

papers end, writing never does.

the preprint [1] is done;
i declare it to be done.

one problem solved, another problem open:
where the heck am i going to submit it?

this, i vow: apart from formatting it for submission to a journal, i will no longer edit it, for its quality will only deteriorate if i add further "ideas which sounded good at the time."

also: it's time to write another preprint, and i'll need to cite the first preprint. it's time that the first one become a published paper: something worthy of being cited.

after all, would you trust the main result in one preprint, which depends crucially on a result in another (unpublished) preprint?

admittedly, i would have my suspicions ..

[1] this is the one cut out from my thesis. if you're still waiting on the sch0enflies result(s), then sorry: you'll have to wait another month or two.

1 comment:

Leonid said...

Put preprint #1 on ArXiv and give its reference number when you cite it in preprint #2. This way, the referee of #2 will have an opportunity to check if the result from #1 is correct [whether or not they use this opportunity is up to them]. They will also have more confidence in #1 knowing that it was widely distributed a while ago.

In fact, ArXiv sometimes works better than actual refereeing. I remember seeing a paper that was published in a respectable journal in 2007, posted on ArXiv at the end of 2008, and soon thereafter withdrawn for a critical error.