How Much Flesh to the Bones does an Initial Online Publication need?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
4
down vote

favorite












Background of my question is the following: I have found a solution for my question Smoothness Conditions for Planar “Mock-parametric” Spline Interpolation and while developing the solution, I encountered aspects of spline interpolation that I haven't seen documented:



  • calculation of interpolating splines via an iterative formula, that would also allow the calculation of splines from point-sequences that are infinite in both directions


  • a general solution for optimizing linear functionals on interpolating splines


now, as I am no professional mathematician and haven't published anything yet, I would like to communicate my results in a lightweight process, which would mean giving enough detail to make my findings checkable and applicable.




Question:



is acceptable to make an online publications sketchy, i.e. providing arguments instead of proofs, in first version and, to deliver what is missing in later editing e.g. upon feedback?




I'm thinking about putting the results on arXiv, but I would also be happy to put them on MO in a CW contribution; direct communication to interested people would also be an option to me.

Any suggestions in that respect are welcome






soft-question mathematical-writing







share|cite|improve this question

























    up vote
    4
    down vote

    favorite












    Background of my question is the following: I have found a solution for my question Smoothness Conditions for Planar “Mock-parametric” Spline Interpolation and while developing the solution, I encountered aspects of spline interpolation that I haven't seen documented:



    • calculation of interpolating splines via an iterative formula, that would also allow the calculation of splines from point-sequences that are infinite in both directions


    • a general solution for optimizing linear functionals on interpolating splines


    now, as I am no professional mathematician and haven't published anything yet, I would like to communicate my results in a lightweight process, which would mean giving enough detail to make my findings checkable and applicable.




    Question:



    is acceptable to make an online publications sketchy, i.e. providing arguments instead of proofs, in first version and, to deliver what is missing in later editing e.g. upon feedback?




    I'm thinking about putting the results on arXiv, but I would also be happy to put them on MO in a CW contribution; direct communication to interested people would also be an option to me.

    Any suggestions in that respect are welcome






    soft-question mathematical-writing







    share|cite|improve this question























      up vote
      4
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      4
      down vote

      favorite











      Background of my question is the following: I have found a solution for my question Smoothness Conditions for Planar “Mock-parametric” Spline Interpolation and while developing the solution, I encountered aspects of spline interpolation that I haven't seen documented:



      • calculation of interpolating splines via an iterative formula, that would also allow the calculation of splines from point-sequences that are infinite in both directions


      • a general solution for optimizing linear functionals on interpolating splines


      now, as I am no professional mathematician and haven't published anything yet, I would like to communicate my results in a lightweight process, which would mean giving enough detail to make my findings checkable and applicable.




      Question:



      is acceptable to make an online publications sketchy, i.e. providing arguments instead of proofs, in first version and, to deliver what is missing in later editing e.g. upon feedback?




      I'm thinking about putting the results on arXiv, but I would also be happy to put them on MO in a CW contribution; direct communication to interested people would also be an option to me.

      Any suggestions in that respect are welcome






      soft-question mathematical-writing







      share|cite|improve this question













      Background of my question is the following: I have found a solution for my question Smoothness Conditions for Planar “Mock-parametric” Spline Interpolation and while developing the solution, I encountered aspects of spline interpolation that I haven't seen documented:



      • calculation of interpolating splines via an iterative formula, that would also allow the calculation of splines from point-sequences that are infinite in both directions


      • a general solution for optimizing linear functionals on interpolating splines


      now, as I am no professional mathematician and haven't published anything yet, I would like to communicate my results in a lightweight process, which would mean giving enough detail to make my findings checkable and applicable.




      Question:



      is acceptable to make an online publications sketchy, i.e. providing arguments instead of proofs, in first version and, to deliver what is missing in later editing e.g. upon feedback?




      I'm thinking about putting the results on arXiv, but I would also be happy to put them on MO in a CW contribution; direct communication to interested people would also be an option to me.

      Any suggestions in that respect are welcome






      soft-question mathematical-writing




      soft-question mathematical-writing






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 2 hours ago









      Manfred Weis

      4,22021036




      4,22021036




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          I personally regard an arXiv preprint as a usual article, just not refereed. One should be able to refer to it, hence it should contain full proofs. After you put your results with full proofs on arXiv, you will be able to write a short answer to your question (not necessarily as a CW) with a reference to your preprint. This acceptable; see this answer.






          share|cite|improve this answer





























            up vote
            0
            down vote













            I presume that with "online" publication you have arXiv in mind. (For a journal it does not really make a difference whether it is online or not.) With regards to your question, the key difference between arXiv and a journal is not so much the absence of a refereeing process, but the fact that on arXiv you can post multiple revised versions. With a journal publication you get a chance to revise it after the referee reports come in, but once it's accepted no further revisions are possible.



            So yes, you can submit incomplete papers to arXiv, and complete them later. The arXiv moderators will hold you to a certain standard, but if you are not submitting a proof of the Riemann hypothesis you should be OK.



            There are risks and benefits with an early submission to arXiv. One benefit is that you can protect your priority. Another benefit is that you might receive helpful feedback on your findings. One risk is that a sloppy first version may damage your reputation a professional researcher. Another risk is that someone may build on your results (with proper attribution, of course), perhaps generalizing them or applying them in a different context, while you may have wanted to do that yourself.






            share|cite|improve this answer






















            • "you can submit incomplete papers to arXiv, and complete them later." While I agree that you literally can do this, I think it is usually bad for one's reputation to do so. I think the norm is that it is okay to upload a preprint and then go back later to add a result which was missing from the first version (and perhaps in progress when the first version was written) but that it doesn't look good to upload a paper with content (proofs, definitions) obviously missing.
              – David E Speyer
              10 mins ago










            Your Answer




            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            );
            );
            , "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "504"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: false,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f311674%2fhow-much-flesh-to-the-bones-does-an-initial-online-publication-need%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest

















            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            2
            down vote













            I personally regard an arXiv preprint as a usual article, just not refereed. One should be able to refer to it, hence it should contain full proofs. After you put your results with full proofs on arXiv, you will be able to write a short answer to your question (not necessarily as a CW) with a reference to your preprint. This acceptable; see this answer.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              up vote
              2
              down vote













              I personally regard an arXiv preprint as a usual article, just not refereed. One should be able to refer to it, hence it should contain full proofs. After you put your results with full proofs on arXiv, you will be able to write a short answer to your question (not necessarily as a CW) with a reference to your preprint. This acceptable; see this answer.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                2
                down vote










                up vote
                2
                down vote









                I personally regard an arXiv preprint as a usual article, just not refereed. One should be able to refer to it, hence it should contain full proofs. After you put your results with full proofs on arXiv, you will be able to write a short answer to your question (not necessarily as a CW) with a reference to your preprint. This acceptable; see this answer.






                share|cite|improve this answer














                I personally regard an arXiv preprint as a usual article, just not refereed. One should be able to refer to it, hence it should contain full proofs. After you put your results with full proofs on arXiv, you will be able to write a short answer to your question (not necessarily as a CW) with a reference to your preprint. This acceptable; see this answer.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 1 hour ago

























                answered 1 hour ago









                Mikhail Borovoi

                5,6391641




                5,6391641




















                    up vote
                    0
                    down vote













                    I presume that with "online" publication you have arXiv in mind. (For a journal it does not really make a difference whether it is online or not.) With regards to your question, the key difference between arXiv and a journal is not so much the absence of a refereeing process, but the fact that on arXiv you can post multiple revised versions. With a journal publication you get a chance to revise it after the referee reports come in, but once it's accepted no further revisions are possible.



                    So yes, you can submit incomplete papers to arXiv, and complete them later. The arXiv moderators will hold you to a certain standard, but if you are not submitting a proof of the Riemann hypothesis you should be OK.



                    There are risks and benefits with an early submission to arXiv. One benefit is that you can protect your priority. Another benefit is that you might receive helpful feedback on your findings. One risk is that a sloppy first version may damage your reputation a professional researcher. Another risk is that someone may build on your results (with proper attribution, of course), perhaps generalizing them or applying them in a different context, while you may have wanted to do that yourself.






                    share|cite|improve this answer






















                    • "you can submit incomplete papers to arXiv, and complete them later." While I agree that you literally can do this, I think it is usually bad for one's reputation to do so. I think the norm is that it is okay to upload a preprint and then go back later to add a result which was missing from the first version (and perhaps in progress when the first version was written) but that it doesn't look good to upload a paper with content (proofs, definitions) obviously missing.
                      – David E Speyer
                      10 mins ago














                    up vote
                    0
                    down vote













                    I presume that with "online" publication you have arXiv in mind. (For a journal it does not really make a difference whether it is online or not.) With regards to your question, the key difference between arXiv and a journal is not so much the absence of a refereeing process, but the fact that on arXiv you can post multiple revised versions. With a journal publication you get a chance to revise it after the referee reports come in, but once it's accepted no further revisions are possible.



                    So yes, you can submit incomplete papers to arXiv, and complete them later. The arXiv moderators will hold you to a certain standard, but if you are not submitting a proof of the Riemann hypothesis you should be OK.



                    There are risks and benefits with an early submission to arXiv. One benefit is that you can protect your priority. Another benefit is that you might receive helpful feedback on your findings. One risk is that a sloppy first version may damage your reputation a professional researcher. Another risk is that someone may build on your results (with proper attribution, of course), perhaps generalizing them or applying them in a different context, while you may have wanted to do that yourself.






                    share|cite|improve this answer






















                    • "you can submit incomplete papers to arXiv, and complete them later." While I agree that you literally can do this, I think it is usually bad for one's reputation to do so. I think the norm is that it is okay to upload a preprint and then go back later to add a result which was missing from the first version (and perhaps in progress when the first version was written) but that it doesn't look good to upload a paper with content (proofs, definitions) obviously missing.
                      – David E Speyer
                      10 mins ago












                    up vote
                    0
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    0
                    down vote









                    I presume that with "online" publication you have arXiv in mind. (For a journal it does not really make a difference whether it is online or not.) With regards to your question, the key difference between arXiv and a journal is not so much the absence of a refereeing process, but the fact that on arXiv you can post multiple revised versions. With a journal publication you get a chance to revise it after the referee reports come in, but once it's accepted no further revisions are possible.



                    So yes, you can submit incomplete papers to arXiv, and complete them later. The arXiv moderators will hold you to a certain standard, but if you are not submitting a proof of the Riemann hypothesis you should be OK.



                    There are risks and benefits with an early submission to arXiv. One benefit is that you can protect your priority. Another benefit is that you might receive helpful feedback on your findings. One risk is that a sloppy first version may damage your reputation a professional researcher. Another risk is that someone may build on your results (with proper attribution, of course), perhaps generalizing them or applying them in a different context, while you may have wanted to do that yourself.






                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    I presume that with "online" publication you have arXiv in mind. (For a journal it does not really make a difference whether it is online or not.) With regards to your question, the key difference between arXiv and a journal is not so much the absence of a refereeing process, but the fact that on arXiv you can post multiple revised versions. With a journal publication you get a chance to revise it after the referee reports come in, but once it's accepted no further revisions are possible.



                    So yes, you can submit incomplete papers to arXiv, and complete them later. The arXiv moderators will hold you to a certain standard, but if you are not submitting a proof of the Riemann hypothesis you should be OK.



                    There are risks and benefits with an early submission to arXiv. One benefit is that you can protect your priority. Another benefit is that you might receive helpful feedback on your findings. One risk is that a sloppy first version may damage your reputation a professional researcher. Another risk is that someone may build on your results (with proper attribution, of course), perhaps generalizing them or applying them in a different context, while you may have wanted to do that yourself.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited 19 mins ago

























                    answered 1 hour ago









                    Carlo Beenakker

                    69.1k8155260




                    69.1k8155260











                    • "you can submit incomplete papers to arXiv, and complete them later." While I agree that you literally can do this, I think it is usually bad for one's reputation to do so. I think the norm is that it is okay to upload a preprint and then go back later to add a result which was missing from the first version (and perhaps in progress when the first version was written) but that it doesn't look good to upload a paper with content (proofs, definitions) obviously missing.
                      – David E Speyer
                      10 mins ago
















                    • "you can submit incomplete papers to arXiv, and complete them later." While I agree that you literally can do this, I think it is usually bad for one's reputation to do so. I think the norm is that it is okay to upload a preprint and then go back later to add a result which was missing from the first version (and perhaps in progress when the first version was written) but that it doesn't look good to upload a paper with content (proofs, definitions) obviously missing.
                      – David E Speyer
                      10 mins ago















                    "you can submit incomplete papers to arXiv, and complete them later." While I agree that you literally can do this, I think it is usually bad for one's reputation to do so. I think the norm is that it is okay to upload a preprint and then go back later to add a result which was missing from the first version (and perhaps in progress when the first version was written) but that it doesn't look good to upload a paper with content (proofs, definitions) obviously missing.
                    – David E Speyer
                    10 mins ago




                    "you can submit incomplete papers to arXiv, and complete them later." While I agree that you literally can do this, I think it is usually bad for one's reputation to do so. I think the norm is that it is okay to upload a preprint and then go back later to add a result which was missing from the first version (and perhaps in progress when the first version was written) but that it doesn't look good to upload a paper with content (proofs, definitions) obviously missing.
                    – David E Speyer
                    10 mins ago

















                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f311674%2fhow-much-flesh-to-the-bones-does-an-initial-online-publication-need%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest
































































                    Comments

                    Post a Comment

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    What does second last employer means? [closed]

                    Image
                    Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote -3 down vote favorite Say, for example I have worked in the following companies, Company A => 2010 - 2011 Company B => 2011 - 2012 Company C => 2012 - Till Date Company D => Have offer Now assume Company D is asking to submit documents from my second last employer. So from the list of companies given, which company would be qualified as second last employer? software-industry employer share | improve this question asked Aug 10 '14 at 5:16 Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy 559 1 6 13 closed as off-topic by Jim G., jmort253 ♦ Aug 11 '14 at 1:58 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason: "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address...
                    Read more

                    List of Gilmore Girls characters

                    Image
                    The season three cast—(Back row): Lane, Michel, Paris, Emily, Richard, Sookie, Miss Patty, Kirk; Front row: Jess, Luke, Lorelai, Rory, Dean This is a list of characters for the comedy-drama television series Gilmore Girls . Contents 1 Main characters 1.1 Lorelai Gilmore 1.2 Rory Gilmore 1.3 Sookie St. James 1.4 Lane Kim 1.5 Michel Gerard 1.6 Luke Danes 1.7 Emily Gilmore 1.8 Richard Gilmore 1.9 Paris Geller 1.10 Dean Forester 1.11 Jess Mariano 1.12 Kirk Gleason 1.13 Jason Stiles 1.14 Logan Huntzberger 2 Major recurring characters 2.1 Christopher Hayden 2.2 Jackson Belleville 2.3 Mrs. Kim 2.4 Tristin DuGray 2.5 Max Medina 2.6 Taylor Doose 2.7 Dave Rygalski 2.8 Marty 3 Recurring characters 3.1 Stars Hollow 3.2 Chilton 3.3 Yale 3.4 Other 4 Notable guest stars 5 Unseen characters 6 Notes 7 References Main characters Actor Character Appearances Season 1 Season 2 Season 3 Season 4 Season 5 Season 6 Season 7 A Year in the Life Lauren Graham Lorelai Gilmore...
                    Read more

                    Confectionery

                    Image
                    Prepared foods made with a lot of sugar or other cabohydrates "Sweetmeat" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Sweetmeat (horse). Not to be confused with Sweetbread. This Kransekake is a traditional Scandinavian baker's confection. Confectionery is the art of making confections , which are food items that are rich in sugar and carbohydrates. Exact definitions are difficult. [1] In general, though, confectionery is divided into two broad and somewhat overlapping categories, bakers' confections and sugar confections. [2] Bakers' confectionery, also called flour confections , includes principally sweet pastries, cakes, and similar baked goods. Sugar confectionery includes candies ( sweets in British English), candied nuts, chocolates, chewing gum, bubble gum, pastillage, and other confections that are made primarily of sugar. In some cases, chocolate confections (confections made of chocolate) are treated as a separate category, as are sugar-free versions of ...
                    Read more