Mixing
Obsessive editing/revising of math papers
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I've been wanting to ask this question, because I have no insights into the way other mathematicians prepare papers (for eventual publication).
How much are editing, revising, updating, adding to, etc., part of the "normal" process of process of drafting math papers? Specifically, papers of moderate (10-15 pages) length. I've noticed I tend to do this for several months, and the thought has occurred to me that perhaps I'm being too "fussy" and that I'm wasting time.
journals mathematical-writing
asked 2 hours ago
Forever Mozart
250313
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I've been wanting to ask this question, because I have no insights into the way other mathematicians prepare papers (for eventual publication).
How much are editing, revising, updating, adding to, etc., part of the "normal" process of process of drafting math papers? Specifically, papers of moderate (10-15 pages) length. I've noticed I tend to do this for several months, and the thought has occurred to me that perhaps I'm being too "fussy" and that I'm wasting time.
journals mathematical-writing
asked 2 hours ago
Forever Mozart
250313
4
I've often thought there is quite a good argument for getting a paper to literally the minimum acceptable level and then just submitting.
– T_M
2 hours ago
12
@FedericoPoloni, also readers! I have often read papers that could have benefited from more editing, but have never read a paper and thought "if only the author had taken less care in writing this."
– LSpice
2 hours ago
6
I think this (interesting) question would be better suited for academia.stackexchange.
– Greg Martin
2 hours ago
5
I was once told that an hour of the author's time is worth a minute of the reader's time. I write all my papers with this firmly in mind.
– Mark Wildon
54 mins ago
6
@MarkWildon You mean you start by trying to decide whether more or fewer than 60 people are likely to read the paper?
– Jeremy Rickard
49 mins ago
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I've been wanting to ask this question, because I have no insights into the way other mathematicians prepare papers (for eventual publication).
How much are editing, revising, updating, adding to, etc., part of the "normal" process of process of drafting math papers? Specifically, papers of moderate (10-15 pages) length. I've noticed I tend to do this for several months, and the thought has occurred to me that perhaps I'm being too "fussy" and that I'm wasting time.
journals mathematical-writing
asked 2 hours ago
Forever Mozart
250313
I've been wanting to ask this question, because I have no insights into the way other mathematicians prepare papers (for eventual publication).
How much are editing, revising, updating, adding to, etc., part of the "normal" process of process of drafting math papers? Specifically, papers of moderate (10-15 pages) length. I've noticed I tend to do this for several months, and the thought has occurred to me that perhaps I'm being too "fussy" and that I'm wasting time.
journals mathematical-writing
journals mathematical-writing
asked 2 hours ago
Forever Mozart
250313
asked 2 hours ago
Forever Mozart
250313
asked 2 hours ago
Forever Mozart
250313
asked 2 hours ago
Forever Mozart
250313
asked 2 hours ago
Forever Mozart
250313
250313
4
I've often thought there is quite a good argument for getting a paper to literally the minimum acceptable level and then just submitting.
– T_M
2 hours ago
12
@FedericoPoloni, also readers! I have often read papers that could have benefited from more editing, but have never read a paper and thought "if only the author had taken less care in writing this."
– LSpice
2 hours ago
6
I think this (interesting) question would be better suited for academia.stackexchange.
– Greg Martin
2 hours ago
5
I was once told that an hour of the author's time is worth a minute of the reader's time. I write all my papers with this firmly in mind.
– Mark Wildon
54 mins ago
6
@MarkWildon You mean you start by trying to decide whether more or fewer than 60 people are likely to read the paper?
– Jeremy Rickard
49 mins ago
 |Â
show 7 more comments
4
I've often thought there is quite a good argument for getting a paper to literally the minimum acceptable level and then just submitting.
– T_M
2 hours ago
12
@FedericoPoloni, also readers! I have often read papers that could have benefited from more editing, but have never read a paper and thought "if only the author had taken less care in writing this."
– LSpice
2 hours ago
6
I think this (interesting) question would be better suited for academia.stackexchange.
– Greg Martin
2 hours ago
5
I was once told that an hour of the author's time is worth a minute of the reader's time. I write all my papers with this firmly in mind.
– Mark Wildon
54 mins ago
6
@MarkWildon You mean you start by trying to decide whether more or fewer than 60 people are likely to read the paper?
– Jeremy Rickard
49 mins ago
4
4
I've often thought there is quite a good argument for getting a paper to literally the minimum acceptable level and then just submitting.
– T_M
2 hours ago
I've often thought there is quite a good argument for getting a paper to literally the minimum acceptable level and then just submitting.
– T_M
2 hours ago
12
12
@FedericoPoloni, also readers! I have often read papers that could have benefited from more editing, but have never read a paper and thought "if only the author had taken less care in writing this."
– LSpice
2 hours ago
@FedericoPoloni, also readers! I have often read papers that could have benefited from more editing, but have never read a paper and thought "if only the author had taken less care in writing this."
– LSpice
2 hours ago
6
6
I think this (interesting) question would be better suited for academia.stackexchange.
– Greg Martin
2 hours ago
I think this (interesting) question would be better suited for academia.stackexchange.
– Greg Martin
2 hours ago
5
5
I was once told that an hour of the author's time is worth a minute of the reader's time. I write all my papers with this firmly in mind.
– Mark Wildon
54 mins ago
I was once told that an hour of the author's time is worth a minute of the reader's time. I write all my papers with this firmly in mind.
– Mark Wildon
54 mins ago
6
6
@MarkWildon You mean you start by trying to decide whether more or fewer than 60 people are likely to read the paper?
– Jeremy Rickard
49 mins ago
@MarkWildon You mean you start by trying to decide whether more or fewer than 60 people are likely to read the paper?
– Jeremy Rickard
49 mins ago
 |Â
show 7 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Welcome to the twenty first century. (for eventual publication) means something different now than it did twenty years ago.
If you are building your career and have to follow certain steps to do traditional publishing in journals, then you have deadlines forced upon you (unless you have tenure, in which case your paycheck is not so deadline dependent), and that should factor into your process. I am vaguely aware of different styles my advisors used, but they were different people. I imagine both had several papers in the pipe and protocols for when to tweak and when to let go.
If you have the benefit of naming your own schedule, then I suggest ArXiv when you are not embarrassed by the resulting article, and updating every year as needed. That combines Ben McKay's "shovel" suggestion with the opportunity of "error tracking" as suggested in RBega's comment above. I think this method is very effective if you have a large goal in mind, such as rearranging your work in book form for students to follow. (Replace every year by your own interval, but be careful about overly frequent public changes.)
Gerhard "You Worry About Version Tracking" Paseman, 2018.09.27.
answered 1 hour ago
Gerhard Paseman
7,92111845
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
My quick thoughts on the topic:
Most of the papers are not written carefully. Here are my major complains that apply to many (if not to most) of the papers that I have seen:
- Proofs are too sketchy and difficult to follow. Very often they are not correct. Even, if the mistakes are minor and easy to correct, very often the proofs are not correct the way they are written.
- Results often have complicated and abstract statements and there are no examples that would illustrate the main result.
- Authors often write something like that: `It follows from [5]' and they refer to a 500 pages long book without specifying any particular results.
- Introductions do not provide right motivation by placing the results within the existing literature.
I think it is extremely rude and unprofessional to write papers in the manner described above. This are some of the reasons why:
- Reading a paper that is not well written takes much more time both for the referee and the readers. The author perhaps saved some of his or her precious time by writing a paper not very carefully, but he or she put a burden of filling details on the shoulders of those who want to read it.
- Writing: `It follows from [5]' means that the author did not bother to check what particular result needs to be used and the reader, not familiar with [5], needs to spend hours finding the right result. Very often no result actually applies, because the result from [5] that the author had in mind, needs to be modified before it can be applied to the particular situation.
By writing a paper the author should (in my opinion):
- Keep in mind that most of the readers are graduate students who have a very limited knowledge and maturity. Papers should help them learn the subject and so the papers should have all necessary details and relevant comments placing the result in a broader framework. For example the introductions should be like a short and well written survey on the subject. At last, but not least, the papers should have no mistakes.
In my own practice I do my best to follow the rules above. Whether I am successful or not, others will judge.
- When I write a paper, I always try to write it in a way accessible to a (talented and motivated) graduate student.
- When I have a result with a complete proof and if I could write a (10 pages long) paper within a week, it usually takes me at least a month (of hard work from early morning to late night night) to write it, because of the standards that I try to follow.
- At the stage of writing a paper, I usually write about 30 pages of scrap paper for every single page in the paper. This is, because I check carefully every proof several times, each time from scratch.
- If something can be easily explained by adding a couple of lines, I do it. For example it is well known that every separable metric space can be isometrically embedded into $ell^infty$. One could quote this result from the literature, but since the proof is 1-2 lines long, why not to add such a proof?
Of course, one needs to keep a certain balance and not add too many details. A good advice (in my opinion) is: if a paper could be written in 10 pages, it should be written on say, 13 pages. - When I quote a result from the literature I usually state the result as a lemma (instead of saying: by Theorem 3.12 in [5]). If the statement is not exactly as in [5] I explain why the modified statement is true.
answered 23 mins ago
Piotr Hajlasz
4,89631952
I'm not an expert but I'm going to try and play Devil's advocate regardless. You ascribe these first points to "extreme" rudeness and unprofessionality, but ask yourself, what do you see as your goal as a mathematician? Presumably it'll be something akin to "to advance mathematics", like most mathematicians. With this in mind, maybe the proofs are sketchy because the writers find it just hard; maybe they reference to [5] rather than to [5,Thm. 6.41] because they forgot; maybe they do not provide appropriate motivation because they don't know yet what things will be good for.
– Sofie Verbeek
5 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Welcome to the twenty first century. (for eventual publication) means something different now than it did twenty years ago.
If you are building your career and have to follow certain steps to do traditional publishing in journals, then you have deadlines forced upon you (unless you have tenure, in which case your paycheck is not so deadline dependent), and that should factor into your process. I am vaguely aware of different styles my advisors used, but they were different people. I imagine both had several papers in the pipe and protocols for when to tweak and when to let go.
If you have the benefit of naming your own schedule, then I suggest ArXiv when you are not embarrassed by the resulting article, and updating every year as needed. That combines Ben McKay's "shovel" suggestion with the opportunity of "error tracking" as suggested in RBega's comment above. I think this method is very effective if you have a large goal in mind, such as rearranging your work in book form for students to follow. (Replace every year by your own interval, but be careful about overly frequent public changes.)
Gerhard "You Worry About Version Tracking" Paseman, 2018.09.27.
answered 1 hour ago
Gerhard Paseman
7,92111845
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Welcome to the twenty first century. (for eventual publication) means something different now than it did twenty years ago.
If you are building your career and have to follow certain steps to do traditional publishing in journals, then you have deadlines forced upon you (unless you have tenure, in which case your paycheck is not so deadline dependent), and that should factor into your process. I am vaguely aware of different styles my advisors used, but they were different people. I imagine both had several papers in the pipe and protocols for when to tweak and when to let go.
If you have the benefit of naming your own schedule, then I suggest ArXiv when you are not embarrassed by the resulting article, and updating every year as needed. That combines Ben McKay's "shovel" suggestion with the opportunity of "error tracking" as suggested in RBega's comment above. I think this method is very effective if you have a large goal in mind, such as rearranging your work in book form for students to follow. (Replace every year by your own interval, but be careful about overly frequent public changes.)
Gerhard "You Worry About Version Tracking" Paseman, 2018.09.27.
answered 1 hour ago
Gerhard Paseman
7,92111845
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Welcome to the twenty first century. (for eventual publication) means something different now than it did twenty years ago.
If you are building your career and have to follow certain steps to do traditional publishing in journals, then you have deadlines forced upon you (unless you have tenure, in which case your paycheck is not so deadline dependent), and that should factor into your process. I am vaguely aware of different styles my advisors used, but they were different people. I imagine both had several papers in the pipe and protocols for when to tweak and when to let go.
If you have the benefit of naming your own schedule, then I suggest ArXiv when you are not embarrassed by the resulting article, and updating every year as needed. That combines Ben McKay's "shovel" suggestion with the opportunity of "error tracking" as suggested in RBega's comment above. I think this method is very effective if you have a large goal in mind, such as rearranging your work in book form for students to follow. (Replace every year by your own interval, but be careful about overly frequent public changes.)
Gerhard "You Worry About Version Tracking" Paseman, 2018.09.27.
answered 1 hour ago
Gerhard Paseman
7,92111845
Welcome to the twenty first century. (for eventual publication) means something different now than it did twenty years ago.
If you are building your career and have to follow certain steps to do traditional publishing in journals, then you have deadlines forced upon you (unless you have tenure, in which case your paycheck is not so deadline dependent), and that should factor into your process. I am vaguely aware of different styles my advisors used, but they were different people. I imagine both had several papers in the pipe and protocols for when to tweak and when to let go.
If you have the benefit of naming your own schedule, then I suggest ArXiv when you are not embarrassed by the resulting article, and updating every year as needed. That combines Ben McKay's "shovel" suggestion with the opportunity of "error tracking" as suggested in RBega's comment above. I think this method is very effective if you have a large goal in mind, such as rearranging your work in book form for students to follow. (Replace every year by your own interval, but be careful about overly frequent public changes.)
Gerhard "You Worry About Version Tracking" Paseman, 2018.09.27.
answered 1 hour ago
Gerhard Paseman
7,92111845
answered 1 hour ago
Gerhard Paseman
7,92111845
answered 1 hour ago
Gerhard Paseman
7,92111845
answered 1 hour ago
Gerhard Paseman
7,92111845
7,92111845
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
My quick thoughts on the topic:
Most of the papers are not written carefully. Here are my major complains that apply to many (if not to most) of the papers that I have seen:
- Proofs are too sketchy and difficult to follow. Very often they are not correct. Even, if the mistakes are minor and easy to correct, very often the proofs are not correct the way they are written.
- Results often have complicated and abstract statements and there are no examples that would illustrate the main result.
- Authors often write something like that: `It follows from [5]' and they refer to a 500 pages long book without specifying any particular results.
- Introductions do not provide right motivation by placing the results within the existing literature.
I think it is extremely rude and unprofessional to write papers in the manner described above. This are some of the reasons why:
- Reading a paper that is not well written takes much more time both for the referee and the readers. The author perhaps saved some of his or her precious time by writing a paper not very carefully, but he or she put a burden of filling details on the shoulders of those who want to read it.
- Writing: `It follows from [5]' means that the author did not bother to check what particular result needs to be used and the reader, not familiar with [5], needs to spend hours finding the right result. Very often no result actually applies, because the result from [5] that the author had in mind, needs to be modified before it can be applied to the particular situation.
By writing a paper the author should (in my opinion):
- Keep in mind that most of the readers are graduate students who have a very limited knowledge and maturity. Papers should help them learn the subject and so the papers should have all necessary details and relevant comments placing the result in a broader framework. For example the introductions should be like a short and well written survey on the subject. At last, but not least, the papers should have no mistakes.
In my own practice I do my best to follow the rules above. Whether I am successful or not, others will judge.
- When I write a paper, I always try to write it in a way accessible to a (talented and motivated) graduate student.
- When I have a result with a complete proof and if I could write a (10 pages long) paper within a week, it usually takes me at least a month (of hard work from early morning to late night night) to write it, because of the standards that I try to follow.
- At the stage of writing a paper, I usually write about 30 pages of scrap paper for every single page in the paper. This is, because I check carefully every proof several times, each time from scratch.
- If something can be easily explained by adding a couple of lines, I do it. For example it is well known that every separable metric space can be isometrically embedded into $ell^infty$. One could quote this result from the literature, but since the proof is 1-2 lines long, why not to add such a proof?
Of course, one needs to keep a certain balance and not add too many details. A good advice (in my opinion) is: if a paper could be written in 10 pages, it should be written on say, 13 pages. - When I quote a result from the literature I usually state the result as a lemma (instead of saying: by Theorem 3.12 in [5]). If the statement is not exactly as in [5] I explain why the modified statement is true.
answered 23 mins ago
Piotr Hajlasz
4,89631952
I'm not an expert but I'm going to try and play Devil's advocate regardless. You ascribe these first points to "extreme" rudeness and unprofessionality, but ask yourself, what do you see as your goal as a mathematician? Presumably it'll be something akin to "to advance mathematics", like most mathematicians. With this in mind, maybe the proofs are sketchy because the writers find it just hard; maybe they reference to [5] rather than to [5,Thm. 6.41] because they forgot; maybe they do not provide appropriate motivation because they don't know yet what things will be good for.
– Sofie Verbeek
5 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
My quick thoughts on the topic:
Most of the papers are not written carefully. Here are my major complains that apply to many (if not to most) of the papers that I have seen:
- Proofs are too sketchy and difficult to follow. Very often they are not correct. Even, if the mistakes are minor and easy to correct, very often the proofs are not correct the way they are written.
- Results often have complicated and abstract statements and there are no examples that would illustrate the main result.
- Authors often write something like that: `It follows from [5]' and they refer to a 500 pages long book without specifying any particular results.
- Introductions do not provide right motivation by placing the results within the existing literature.
I think it is extremely rude and unprofessional to write papers in the manner described above. This are some of the reasons why:
- Reading a paper that is not well written takes much more time both for the referee and the readers. The author perhaps saved some of his or her precious time by writing a paper not very carefully, but he or she put a burden of filling details on the shoulders of those who want to read it.
- Writing: `It follows from [5]' means that the author did not bother to check what particular result needs to be used and the reader, not familiar with [5], needs to spend hours finding the right result. Very often no result actually applies, because the result from [5] that the author had in mind, needs to be modified before it can be applied to the particular situation.
By writing a paper the author should (in my opinion):
- Keep in mind that most of the readers are graduate students who have a very limited knowledge and maturity. Papers should help them learn the subject and so the papers should have all necessary details and relevant comments placing the result in a broader framework. For example the introductions should be like a short and well written survey on the subject. At last, but not least, the papers should have no mistakes.
In my own practice I do my best to follow the rules above. Whether I am successful or not, others will judge.
- When I write a paper, I always try to write it in a way accessible to a (talented and motivated) graduate student.
- When I have a result with a complete proof and if I could write a (10 pages long) paper within a week, it usually takes me at least a month (of hard work from early morning to late night night) to write it, because of the standards that I try to follow.
- At the stage of writing a paper, I usually write about 30 pages of scrap paper for every single page in the paper. This is, because I check carefully every proof several times, each time from scratch.
- If something can be easily explained by adding a couple of lines, I do it. For example it is well known that every separable metric space can be isometrically embedded into $ell^infty$. One could quote this result from the literature, but since the proof is 1-2 lines long, why not to add such a proof?
Of course, one needs to keep a certain balance and not add too many details. A good advice (in my opinion) is: if a paper could be written in 10 pages, it should be written on say, 13 pages. - When I quote a result from the literature I usually state the result as a lemma (instead of saying: by Theorem 3.12 in [5]). If the statement is not exactly as in [5] I explain why the modified statement is true.
answered 23 mins ago
Piotr Hajlasz
4,89631952
I'm not an expert but I'm going to try and play Devil's advocate regardless. You ascribe these first points to "extreme" rudeness and unprofessionality, but ask yourself, what do you see as your goal as a mathematician? Presumably it'll be something akin to "to advance mathematics", like most mathematicians. With this in mind, maybe the proofs are sketchy because the writers find it just hard; maybe they reference to [5] rather than to [5,Thm. 6.41] because they forgot; maybe they do not provide appropriate motivation because they don't know yet what things will be good for.
– Sofie Verbeek
5 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
My quick thoughts on the topic:
Most of the papers are not written carefully. Here are my major complains that apply to many (if not to most) of the papers that I have seen:
- Proofs are too sketchy and difficult to follow. Very often they are not correct. Even, if the mistakes are minor and easy to correct, very often the proofs are not correct the way they are written.
- Results often have complicated and abstract statements and there are no examples that would illustrate the main result.
- Authors often write something like that: `It follows from [5]' and they refer to a 500 pages long book without specifying any particular results.
- Introductions do not provide right motivation by placing the results within the existing literature.
I think it is extremely rude and unprofessional to write papers in the manner described above. This are some of the reasons why:
- Reading a paper that is not well written takes much more time both for the referee and the readers. The author perhaps saved some of his or her precious time by writing a paper not very carefully, but he or she put a burden of filling details on the shoulders of those who want to read it.
- Writing: `It follows from [5]' means that the author did not bother to check what particular result needs to be used and the reader, not familiar with [5], needs to spend hours finding the right result. Very often no result actually applies, because the result from [5] that the author had in mind, needs to be modified before it can be applied to the particular situation.
By writing a paper the author should (in my opinion):
- Keep in mind that most of the readers are graduate students who have a very limited knowledge and maturity. Papers should help them learn the subject and so the papers should have all necessary details and relevant comments placing the result in a broader framework. For example the introductions should be like a short and well written survey on the subject. At last, but not least, the papers should have no mistakes.
In my own practice I do my best to follow the rules above. Whether I am successful or not, others will judge.
- When I write a paper, I always try to write it in a way accessible to a (talented and motivated) graduate student.
- When I have a result with a complete proof and if I could write a (10 pages long) paper within a week, it usually takes me at least a month (of hard work from early morning to late night night) to write it, because of the standards that I try to follow.
- At the stage of writing a paper, I usually write about 30 pages of scrap paper for every single page in the paper. This is, because I check carefully every proof several times, each time from scratch.
- If something can be easily explained by adding a couple of lines, I do it. For example it is well known that every separable metric space can be isometrically embedded into $ell^infty$. One could quote this result from the literature, but since the proof is 1-2 lines long, why not to add such a proof?
Of course, one needs to keep a certain balance and not add too many details. A good advice (in my opinion) is: if a paper could be written in 10 pages, it should be written on say, 13 pages. - When I quote a result from the literature I usually state the result as a lemma (instead of saying: by Theorem 3.12 in [5]). If the statement is not exactly as in [5] I explain why the modified statement is true.
answered 23 mins ago
Piotr Hajlasz
4,89631952
My quick thoughts on the topic:
Most of the papers are not written carefully. Here are my major complains that apply to many (if not to most) of the papers that I have seen:
- Proofs are too sketchy and difficult to follow. Very often they are not correct. Even, if the mistakes are minor and easy to correct, very often the proofs are not correct the way they are written.
- Results often have complicated and abstract statements and there are no examples that would illustrate the main result.
- Authors often write something like that: `It follows from [5]' and they refer to a 500 pages long book without specifying any particular results.
- Introductions do not provide right motivation by placing the results within the existing literature.
I think it is extremely rude and unprofessional to write papers in the manner described above. This are some of the reasons why:
- Reading a paper that is not well written takes much more time both for the referee and the readers. The author perhaps saved some of his or her precious time by writing a paper not very carefully, but he or she put a burden of filling details on the shoulders of those who want to read it.
- Writing: `It follows from [5]' means that the author did not bother to check what particular result needs to be used and the reader, not familiar with [5], needs to spend hours finding the right result. Very often no result actually applies, because the result from [5] that the author had in mind, needs to be modified before it can be applied to the particular situation.
By writing a paper the author should (in my opinion):
- Keep in mind that most of the readers are graduate students who have a very limited knowledge and maturity. Papers should help them learn the subject and so the papers should have all necessary details and relevant comments placing the result in a broader framework. For example the introductions should be like a short and well written survey on the subject. At last, but not least, the papers should have no mistakes.
In my own practice I do my best to follow the rules above. Whether I am successful or not, others will judge.
- When I write a paper, I always try to write it in a way accessible to a (talented and motivated) graduate student.
- When I have a result with a complete proof and if I could write a (10 pages long) paper within a week, it usually takes me at least a month (of hard work from early morning to late night night) to write it, because of the standards that I try to follow.
- At the stage of writing a paper, I usually write about 30 pages of scrap paper for every single page in the paper. This is, because I check carefully every proof several times, each time from scratch.
- If something can be easily explained by adding a couple of lines, I do it. For example it is well known that every separable metric space can be isometrically embedded into $ell^infty$. One could quote this result from the literature, but since the proof is 1-2 lines long, why not to add such a proof?
Of course, one needs to keep a certain balance and not add too many details. A good advice (in my opinion) is: if a paper could be written in 10 pages, it should be written on say, 13 pages. - When I quote a result from the literature I usually state the result as a lemma (instead of saying: by Theorem 3.12 in [5]). If the statement is not exactly as in [5] I explain why the modified statement is true.
answered 23 mins ago
Piotr Hajlasz
4,89631952
answered 23 mins ago
Piotr Hajlasz
4,89631952
answered 23 mins ago
Piotr Hajlasz
4,89631952
answered 23 mins ago
Piotr Hajlasz
4,89631952
4,89631952
I'm not an expert but I'm going to try and play Devil's advocate regardless. You ascribe these first points to "extreme" rudeness and unprofessionality, but ask yourself, what do you see as your goal as a mathematician? Presumably it'll be something akin to "to advance mathematics", like most mathematicians. With this in mind, maybe the proofs are sketchy because the writers find it just hard; maybe they reference to [5] rather than to [5,Thm. 6.41] because they forgot; maybe they do not provide appropriate motivation because they don't know yet what things will be good for.
– Sofie Verbeek
5 mins ago
add a comment |Â
I'm not an expert but I'm going to try and play Devil's advocate regardless. You ascribe these first points to "extreme" rudeness and unprofessionality, but ask yourself, what do you see as your goal as a mathematician? Presumably it'll be something akin to "to advance mathematics", like most mathematicians. With this in mind, maybe the proofs are sketchy because the writers find it just hard; maybe they reference to [5] rather than to [5,Thm. 6.41] because they forgot; maybe they do not provide appropriate motivation because they don't know yet what things will be good for.
– Sofie Verbeek
5 mins ago
I'm not an expert but I'm going to try and play Devil's advocate regardless. You ascribe these first points to "extreme" rudeness and unprofessionality, but ask yourself, what do you see as your goal as a mathematician? Presumably it'll be something akin to "to advance mathematics", like most mathematicians. With this in mind, maybe the proofs are sketchy because the writers find it just hard; maybe they reference to [5] rather than to [5,Thm. 6.41] because they forgot; maybe they do not provide appropriate motivation because they don't know yet what things will be good for.
– Sofie Verbeek
5 mins ago
I'm not an expert but I'm going to try and play Devil's advocate regardless. You ascribe these first points to "extreme" rudeness and unprofessionality, but ask yourself, what do you see as your goal as a mathematician? Presumably it'll be something akin to "to advance mathematics", like most mathematicians. With this in mind, maybe the proofs are sketchy because the writers find it just hard; maybe they reference to [5] rather than to [5,Thm. 6.41] because they forgot; maybe they do not provide appropriate motivation because they don't know yet what things will be good for.
– Sofie Verbeek
5 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f311576%2fobsessive-editing-revising-of-math-papers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
4
I've often thought there is quite a good argument for getting a paper to literally the minimum acceptable level and then just submitting.
– T_M
2 hours ago
12
@FedericoPoloni, also readers! I have often read papers that could have benefited from more editing, but have never read a paper and thought "if only the author had taken less care in writing this."
– LSpice
2 hours ago
6
I think this (interesting) question would be better suited for academia.stackexchange.
– Greg Martin
2 hours ago
5
I was once told that an hour of the author's time is worth a minute of the reader's time. I write all my papers with this firmly in mind.
– Mark Wildon
54 mins ago
6
@MarkWildon You mean you start by trying to decide whether more or fewer than 60 people are likely to read the paper?
– Jeremy Rickard
49 mins ago