2

I have read a recent paper (actually not published yet but is accepted for publication). In this paper the authors consider two scenarios and discuss performance of the considered scenarios. I am 100% sure that one of the parameters of the performance remains same for both the scenarios but the author provided two lemmas that contain two different mathematical expressions for that parameter. They have stated in the paper that those expressions are one of their main contributions. I can prove that for both the scenarios the performance parameter remains same and my expression is less difficult to compute and more nice looking. So, my question is that should I consider writing a comment paper?

closed as off-topic by jakebeal, scaaahu, Alexander Woo, Brian Tompsett - 汤莱恩, Mad Jack Sep 4 '16 at 20:21

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "The answer to this question strongly depends on individual factors such as a certain person’s preferences, a given institution’s regulations, the exact contents of your work or your personal values. Thus only someone familiar can answer this question and it cannot be generalised to apply to others. (See this discussion for more info.)" – jakebeal, scaaahu, Alexander Woo, Brian Tompsett - 汤莱恩, Mad Jack
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • It depends how interesting that parameter is. One thing you could do is discuss it with the authors of that paper and see how interesting they think it is. – Kimball Aug 11 '16 at 9:47
  • @Kimball the parameter maynot be very interesting in itself but here are a few things interesting about its finding in the paper (i) some earlier papers had already found the parameter and the parameter has same mathematical expression for both the scenarios discussed in the paper while authors provide two different expressions (ii) the authors consumed a whole page to find the expressions which I think should not take more than half a page (iii) the expressions provided by the authors are very complex mathematically and the expressions that already exists are quite simple to comprehend. – Frank Moses Aug 12 '16 at 0:25
  • @Kimball I would like to discuss it with the authors but the problem is that teh email gets bounced back due to RBL restrictions in the destination email server. – Frank Moses Aug 12 '16 at 0:26
0

If your claim is valid, strong and holds for all possible kind of problems that could be supported by the lemmas given by the authors, then you should do the following:

As the paper has been accepted (you should wait. Because, the paper you read is the paper you read might be from author's personal sites or arxiv (as I assume)). So, once the journal/conference publishes the accepted paper online, you could write a comment paper/a short paper based on your claims.

Without online publication by the journal, it is really difficult for you to talk to anyone. I guess.

  • 5
    I don't understand this at all. If a paper has been publicly disseminated then you are free to talk to people about it and write other papers related to it. – Kimball Aug 11 '16 at 14:38

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.