- i knew i'd have at least one regret after submitting that research article for publication. yesterday it occurred to me that the start of one sub-section is incredibly foolish.
- the good part is that my lemmas and theorems remain true [1]; that's not the problem. in that part of the article, i am simply explaining motivations [2] and not proving anything.
on the other hand, i was discussing someone else's conjecture and the motivation i give is the wrong motivation. it's exactly the opposite reason that i gave. - oh well. the article's been submitted and it's not a good enough reason to retract it. maybe the referee will catch this and i can fix it during the revision/rejection process.
as a last resort, i suppose that i'll add a remark or lemma about it, in another paper.
[2] i.e. "why bother proving it?"
4 comments:
You can fix mistakes whether referee notices them or not.
Word verification: "cohumpy". A thing that is dual to something humpy.
You can fix mistakes whether referee notices them or not.
that's a relief. on the other hand, is it overkill to include additional theorems?
as for the motivation i give in that article, maybe "wrong" is .. er, the wrong word. it could use some clarification, though.
If you add more theorems after the paper is accepted, the editor may have to send it to the referee again, which may or may not make both of them very happy. A straightforward corollary added for clarification would probably be okay.
if i cite another theorem from one of the existing references, then i might be able to manage a straightforward corollary.
i'll ponder it further. thanks for the suggestion(s).
Post a Comment