5 ms·

> This seems reasonable? In some sense, but it does feel like the journal is missing the bigger picture somewhat. Say the two papers are A and B, and we have A

by remus 2y ago

> This seems reasonable? In some sense, but it does feel like the journal is missing the bigger picture somewhat. Say the two papers are A and B, and we have A + B = C. The journal is saying they'll publish C, but not A and B!

cubefox 2y ago
... A and B separately.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Nevermark 2y ago
How many step papers before a keystone paper seems reasonable to you? I suspect readers don’t find it as exciting to read partial result papers. Unless there is an open invitation to compete on its completion, which would have a purpose and be fun. If papers are not page turners, then the journal is going to have a hard time keeping subscribers. On the other hand, publishing a proof of a Millennium Problem as several installments, is probably a fantastic idea. Time to absorb each contributing result. And the suspense! Then republish the collected papers as a signed special leather limited series edition. Easton, get on this!
- slow_typist 2y ago
  Publishing partial results is always an invitation to compete in the completion, unless the completion is dependent on special lab capabilities which need time and money to acquire. There is no need to literally invite anyone.
  - Nevermark 2y ago
    I meant if the editors found the paper’s problem and progress especially worthy of a competition.
- remus 2y ago
  > I suspect readers don’t find it as exciting to read partial result papers. Unless there is an open invitation to compete on its completion, which would have a purpose and be fun. If papers are not page turners, then the journal is going to have a hard time keeping subscribers. Yeah I agree, a partial result is never going to be as exciting as a full solution to a major problem. Thinking on it a little more, it seems more of a shame the journal wasn't willing to publish the first part as that sounds like it was the bulk of the work towards the end result. I quite like that he went to publish a less-than-perfect result, rather than sitting on it in the hopes of making the final improvement. That seems in the spirit of collaboration and advancing science, whereas the journal rejecting the paper because it's 98% of the problem rather than the full thing seems a shame. Having said that I guess as a journal editor you have to make these calls all the time, and Im sure every author pitches their work in the best light ("There's a breakthrough just around the corner...") and Im sure there are plenty of ideas that turn out to be dead ends.

by remus 2y ago

cubefox 2y ago

... A and B separately.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Nevermark 2y ago

How many step papers before a keystone paper seems reasonable to you? I suspect readers don’t find it as exciting to read partial result papers. Unless there is an open invitation to compete on its completion, which would have a purpose and be fun. If papers are not page turners, then the journal is going to have a hard time keeping subscribers. On the other hand, publishing a proof of a Millennium Problem as several installments, is probably a fantastic idea. Time to absorb each contributing result. And the suspense! Then republish the collected papers as a signed special leather limited series edition. Easton, get on this!

slow_typist 2y ago
Publishing partial results is always an invitation to compete in the completion, unless the completion is dependent on special lab capabilities which need time and money to acquire. There is no need to literally invite anyone.
- Nevermark 2y ago
  I meant if the editors found the paper’s problem and progress especially worthy of a competition.
remus 2y ago
> I suspect readers don’t find it as exciting to read partial result papers. Unless there is an open invitation to compete on its completion, which would have a purpose and be fun. If papers are not page turners, then the journal is going to have a hard time keeping subscribers. Yeah I agree, a partial result is never going to be as exciting as a full solution to a major problem. Thinking on it a little more, it seems more of a shame the journal wasn't willing to publish the first part as that sounds like it was the bulk of the work towards the end result. I quite like that he went to publish a less-than-perfect result, rather than sitting on it in the hopes of making the final improvement. That seems in the spirit of collaboration and advancing science, whereas the journal rejecting the paper because it's 98% of the problem rather than the full thing seems a shame. Having said that I guess as a journal editor you have to make these calls all the time, and Im sure every author pitches their work in the best light ("There's a breakthrough just around the corner...") and Im sure there are plenty of ideas that turn out to be dead ends.