Timeline for How to cite earlier work, discovered only at the end, that claims similar results to a recently completed project?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 15, 2015 at 15:00 | comment | added | Massimo Ortolano | And, indeed, if necessary, also part of the other sections... | |
| Mar 15, 2015 at 14:53 | comment | added | Massimo Ortolano | @JeffE: What I considered risky is the idea of writing just an addedum at the end of the introduction: one should take the time to completely rewrite the introduction, if the article to be cited is so closely related to their own. | |
| Mar 15, 2015 at 12:17 | comment | added | JeffE | This is also risky in math and CS. On the other hand, the alternative is to be dishonest. Risky or not, if you know of earlier work that claims the same or similar results, you have to cite it. | |
| Mar 14, 2015 at 17:00 | vote | accept | MaviPranav | ||
| Mar 13, 2015 at 19:20 | comment | added | Massimo Ortolano | In other fields, this approach would be a kind of risky - reviewers might complain, unless you're writing for a conference and running short of time for the deadline. If you're writing for a journal, you have all the time to modify the paper, properly putting in perspective a work which is so closely related to yours. See also peer revu's answer. | |
| Mar 13, 2015 at 15:42 | history | answered | Andreas Blass | CC BY-SA 3.0 |