Timeline for Should we trust a journal article that does not cite any previous work?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 19, 2014 at 5:30 | comment | added | Andy Putman | I remember that Dan Margalit was very proud of the paper arxiv.org/abs/0810.5036, which was initially rejected by the arXiv moderators because it had no references (he shoehorned a couple in to get past the censors), and was later accepted by Geom Topol (for those not in the know, among the best subject-specific journals in mathematics). | |
| Nov 18, 2014 at 15:38 | history | edited | Pete L. Clark | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Nov 18, 2014 at 14:07 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | @Tobias: Sometimes but not always, especially if the standard proof is extremely well known (say it's in every textbook in the subject). I can try to find some examples. | |
| Nov 18, 2014 at 9:06 | comment | added | Tobias Kildetoft | @NateEldredge But don't those usually give some references to the "standard" proofs? At least the few I have read seem to have a fair number of citations compared to their length (if nothing else then to put things in broader perspective). | |
| Nov 18, 2014 at 3:56 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | One place to look might be the American Mathematical Monthly's Notes section (or Mathbits, as they now seem to call it). They often publish very short self-contained papers that may not necessarily need to cite anything. (For example, short clever proofs of well-known results.) | |
| Nov 17, 2014 at 18:13 | comment | added | Austin Henley | The complexity of cutting paper | |
| Nov 17, 2014 at 18:11 | comment | added | Austin Henley | Wasn't there a math paper about "cutting" or "folding" (I don't know the mathematical term!) that had no references? I will try to find it. | |
| Nov 17, 2014 at 18:04 | history | answered | Pete L. Clark | CC BY-SA 3.0 |