In my primary research project (not coauthoring with advisor), I got two results, say result A and result B, back in 2020. I wanted to submit it in 2020, but my advisor says that I need a further result, say result C, to be considered for a top journal.
I agreed with him as I find the (hypothetical) result C way more exciting. Now I am half-way through getting result C.
A competing group tried to get result A (with mistakes) and submitted a paper in 2020. The referee rejected their paper because they made a fatal mistake. They corrected the mistake and submitted the corrected version of result A again. They got their paper accepted at a top journal in March 2021.
I don't know how to speak with my advisor about this without offending him. My advisor says it is a good thing as it proves that I was at the right direction and a super active subfield. I think he is just trying to sooth me by saying nice words.
Now I am submitting the results A and B by myself. I do have timestamps on public cloud services to prove that I did get the correct version of result A before them. However, the timestamp is just on a poorly written draft rather than a fully written paper, because my advisor asked me to work on C.
It is my first time dealing with this issue. Shall I also submit the timestamps to prove that I had the result A?
I am thinking about putting result A into appendix and emphasizing result B in my paper. Am I correct? Is it best to submit the paper to the same journal?
I will cite their paper of course. I want to say that I am a concurrent worker work in parallel. I am afraid that the everyone think I am the follower, who falsely and unethically present myself as a concurrent worker.
What shall I say to make clear in my paper what happened?
PS: I was not worrying before March because I thought:
The competing group made mistakes so they are not competent competitors
Result A alone is not enough for top publications. Their paper still contains some technical mistakes and exaggerated claims.
However, facts proved that I underestimated the competing group. The hard lesson learnt.
The field is applied statistics. This is a primarily theoretical work that studies the properties of two widely-adopted statistical methods.