Timeline for answer to How to interpret this rejection email from Journal of American Math Society? Anything to read between the lines? by Nate Eldredge
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 13, 2019 at 9:52 | vote | accept | user102868 | ||
| Jan 12, 2019 at 10:27 | comment | added | Tommi | @user102868 1. It is usually to a good idea to address every concern of the reviewers in some way; there is a good chance that the next reviewers in the next journal will have similar concerns otherwise. If this is still unclear, check if some has asked about it here already or ask a new, separate question.2. In many fields of mathematics addressing possible applications is welcome and appropriate. More specific advice is hard to give without more info. Maybe ask a question about how to address applications in a pure maths paper, if such has not been asked yet. | |
| Jan 11, 2019 at 7:13 | comment | added | user10060 | @user102868 Most people do not view themselves as competing with fellow workers in the field. That is neither healthy nor helpful. That is all it seems Tobias is saying. | |
| Jan 11, 2019 at 6:16 | comment | added | user102868 | @TobiasKildetoft : "your view of research is very different from your peers", Can you explain what this means. I am not able to get what you are trying to say. Is it technical? | |
| Jan 10, 2019 at 19:07 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | @user102868: "All he is suggesting is to include a comparision discussion, but with no chance to revise and submit. I don't understand this logical." What I am trying to say is that I don't think the lack of this discussion was the main reason for rejection. It was a comment that the reviewer thought might help you going forward, but the straight "reject" decision should be understood as saying that even had you included such a discussion, the paper would still be rejected. That's why there wasn't a "revise and resubmit" decision: resubmitting to this journal would just waste your time. | |
| Jan 10, 2019 at 15:27 | comment | added | user102868 | well no point in trying to arguing. from my point of view, the perspective and problem I pose is more interesting and beautiful than others. I also know my problem has practical applications, which I indicated, but cannot publish all the experiments as its a math journal and its not appropriate to establish superiority by showing non mathematical content. There is a different place for that. I believed they would appreciate the aesthetics of the math, but they were not impressed is what it seems. | |
| Jan 10, 2019 at 15:21 | comment | added | Tobias Kildetoft | @user102868 If it poses and solves a completely different problem, then just being on the same topic (which I assume is why you are citing the other paper) has nothing to do with how interesting the results are. | |
| Jan 10, 2019 at 15:18 | comment | added | user102868 | @TobiasKildetoft : hmmm...I don't mean the person as a competitor, my paper gives a completely different perspective and poses and solves a different math problem on the same topic of the competing paper. Neither is better than other, I just used the word competing to mean both being on same topic of interest. perhaps "competing" is a wrong word here. | |
| Jan 10, 2019 at 15:10 | comment | added | Tobias Kildetoft | @user102868 Submitting to a math journal does not mean you can't describe the real world applications. But being correct and citing work in top journals is in no way sufficient for the work itself to be publishable in a top journal (in fact, this describes by far the larger part of my own paper, but I have certainly not written any that could be published in JAMS or the like). As an aside: The fact that you describe the person you cite as your competitor makes me worried that your view of research is very different from your peers. | |
| Jan 10, 2019 at 11:45 | comment | added | user102868 | Moreover, what I am excited about is, that my method has real world applications in a field, and I cannot describe/demonstrate them here as I am submitting to a math journal. If I want to submit to a journal of that field by including the applications/demonstrations, my worry is the reviewers of that field won't understand the mathematics to be gin with, so they might be skeptical. | |
| Jan 10, 2019 at 11:35 | comment | added | user102868 | I had written to the author of the papers I have cited in my work and with which I am competing against, and he has agreed that my work was correct.These papers of him were published in top journals, which prompted me to submit to a top journals. I should include that the author has said it was correct, but I did not dare to further ask that is my method/paper superior than his papers. | |
| Jan 10, 2019 at 11:32 | comment | added | user102868 | ..(contd.)..Havng seen the reference, In my opinion, the reference suggested to me is no where close to my paper or its theme, and I don't know what to discuss and compare, when its not related. On the other hand, the papers I havev cited and compared, and which I am directly competing against, are published in top journals. So I don't understand why my paper is not important. | |
| Jan 10, 2019 at 11:29 | comment | added | user102868 | @NateEldredge : If they reject without full review, and if the reviewer thinks the cited reference contains the result, then shouldn't he explicitly say that? Ok, if he was not sure, and he has no time to read/understand my paper fully and ascertain the fact himself, then whats the point of him suggesting that I do the comparison and include it in discussion of my paper, when I am not given any chance to revise and submit. All he is suggesting is to include a comparision discussion, but with no chance to revise and submit. I don't understand this logical. .....(contd.).. | |
| Jan 10, 2019 at 2:43 | comment | added | Peter K. | Fools seldom differ? ;-) | |
| Jan 9, 2019 at 22:14 | comment | added | David Richerby | @NateEldredge ... but great enough to submit a joint answer to JAMS? | |
| Jan 9, 2019 at 16:35 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | @Kimball: "Great minds think alike..." ;-) | |
| Jan 9, 2019 at 16:31 | history | answered | Nate Eldredge | CC BY-SA 4.0 |