Timeline for Is it worth pointing out missed works in already published papers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 3, 2023 at 8:57 | vote | accept | dennlinger | ||
| May 3, 2023 at 7:45 | answer | added | lighthouse keeper | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 3, 2023 at 7:11 | comment | added | WetlabStudent | I really think that a lot of the answers/comments here while correct as written, are really missing the mark in flavor, it depends on how you write that email. I have expanded in my answer below. The focus should be on collaboration and shared interest, do not point out the omission, the authors can infer that on their own, its their judgment to make. | |
| May 3, 2023 at 7:08 | answer | added | WetlabStudent | timeline score: 14 | |
| May 2, 2023 at 17:51 | history | became hot network question | |||
| May 2, 2023 at 13:43 | answer | added | Cheery | timeline score: 13 | |
| May 2, 2023 at 12:56 | comment | added | dennlinger | @xLeitix I agree, the expectation is not to fix errata in the published pre-print. But rather my intent was to expand the awareness of the authors for potential future work. In case that relevant applications (or conflicting approaches) are missed, it may help future study design or evaluation. | |
| May 2, 2023 at 12:52 | comment | added | xLeitix | I wonder what you expect will happen after? If you mostly want to inform authors about other relevant earlier work, that's fine (particularly if you are not talking about your own work), but I doubt that papers are regularly errata'ed simply to cite some additional earlier work. For the latter there would need to be some actual misconduct, not just "there are some more related works you haven't discussed". | |
| May 2, 2023 at 12:47 | comment | added | Kimball | Is it recommended to reach out to the authors post-publication... - I don't think there's a general expectation. It matters is how relevant they are, and whether you think the authors don't know/understand those references, and would benefit from them. | |
| May 2, 2023 at 12:26 | comment | added | Jochen Glueck | @Oбжорoв: I don't understand your football metaphor. Most scientists actually do have relevant experience with reviewing papers in peer review. | |
| May 2, 2023 at 11:29 | comment | added | Oбжорoв | Great ! Not only is everyone a football trainer now, but everyone is also a referee! | |
| May 2, 2023 at 11:01 | answer | added | Sursula | timeline score: 7 | |
| S May 2, 2023 at 9:50 | review | First questions | |||
| May 2, 2023 at 10:10 | |||||
| S May 2, 2023 at 9:50 | history | asked | dennlinger | CC BY-SA 4.0 |