71

I partially disagree with the answer given by astronat, since I think it does not reflect how common it is in mathematics to rediscover existing results (and to publish them without knowing that they already exist). So here is a somewhat different perspective: Terminology. What the OP calls mistakingly publishing existing research is, in my experience, more ...


65

The word "believe" is a very fine word to use in a scientific article. Generally, it's a good practice to separate factual information (data, observations, results) from subjective information (interpretation, speculation). The word "believe" clearly puts a statement in the latter category.


13

It probably isn't a big issue for a reader as they will understand your intent, but I'd rather suggest: Evidence from the results of this study imply that ... benefit ... Make the statement about the study, not about yourselves: what you found, not what you think.


11

In my field (in computer science), posters are usually a "low cost, low benefit" activity. Pro: A small amount of visibility A small but nice CV entry A small opportunity for feedback and input Cons: A small time investment for actually developing the poster and, sometimes, writing up an accompanying paper A small cost for registering at the ...


9

Those words can be ranked in order of strength: believe > think >= suppose > feel A belief is considered true by the believer, it's the strongest (assuming a rational believer). A thought/supposition is an opinion or judgement, allowing for doubt. A feeling is a best guess, the weakest. Use them accordingly.


9

I don't see much downside to this provided that you submit a full paper to a reputable journal at the earliest opportunity. You will be putting ideas out there that a few people might find it worthwhile to follow up with. They need not even have a motive to scoop you but their work could make yours moot for a full publication. I'm not suggesting you withdraw ...


8

Here's a link for the abstract book (p. 41) http://innovation.pub.ro/archive/2017.pdf The easiest thing would be to email the authors. I found the article by searching in Google Scholar (scholar.google.com) for your reference. With more details I searched for some of the author names. I think the accent in the name Bădulescu might confuse the search engines.


7

All authors must agree to publication; any co-author may delay publication, or withdraw, if they aren't satisfied by the results. (Intellectual property law prohibits publication without consent of all authors, in many jurisdictions.) Author ordering should be agreed early to avoid disputes. Renegotiation is possible, especially when circumstances change. No ...


6

Pro: constructing a poster forces you to organize your ideas so that the poster can function as a de facto draft of the paper to follow, speeding up the writing process.


5

For readers here, the question is too abstract. We haven't seen the work. And our opinion is worth exactly nothing if your advisor and the university don't agree. The work might be great, or good, or OK. The "new branch" might be significant or not. "Noteworthy" is a judgement that hasn't been tested yet in the wider world. We can't make ...


5

This is not really a legal question, but one of academic standards and it would never be decided on a legal level. That's as far as the legality issue goes. However, there is a good chance that at least one side here is likely to be acting unethically or at least questionably, but this is outside of the realm of the legal. Either your co-authors wish to ...


5

Pro: You may have some input from and exchange with experts and people interested in it, and this can help you improving a later publication.


4

Should section 3 still be labeled as section 3, given that it will appear in a different issue? No. Since the journal/magazine has decided to publish your work in two parts, you should make each part as self-contained as possible. Number things in a way that will not confuse someone who only has part 2.


4

Considering the COVID-19 pandemic, most people would consider withdrawing from an in-person conference to be a smart and ethical move. In this situation, it should be fine to resubmit. If the conference is peer reviewed, you should draw the conference's attention to the resubmission so they do not waste time re-reviewing a paper. Do not make a habit of ...


4

Additional pros: It's better to share your ideas before publishing. This way you can improve your paper. Additional cons: A talk would give you more time to develop your idea. It could be noisy when a lot of people are on nearby posters and you try to talk with someone.


4

If my mathematics paper mistakenly duplicates existing results, and I submit it to a math journal, it is hoped that the referee will know that it is not new and point that out. The following sometimes happens, though. A physicist (or other scientist) finds a mathematical result, and submits it to a physics journal. The referee for the physics journal does ...


3

Often enough the proof of a theorem is more important than the statement of it. This is especially true when a new proof gives some insight into a problem that the original proof did not. I don't know whether your new proof is different enough or interesting enough or gives new insight, but if it is, then it would be an important thing to publish. An example ...


3

It depends heavily on what field you are in. In a small number of fields (mostly ones adjacent to theoretical computer science), the majority of new work is presented at conferences. Having a paper published at a good conference in those fields is just as good as having it published in a good journal. If you are in one of these fields, the thing you should ...


3

Is the paper wrong in the sense that it is incorrect? Or is it wrong in the sense that it is bogus, to the point where one wonders how the journal could possibly have published such nonsense? In the former scenario: you don't complain. You write a new paper that says the original paper is wrong because [reasons]. You can submit it to the same journal, ...


2

I publish on the topic in question. If you were to write a paper, the first step would be to get a good understanding of the relevant literature. In doing so, you'll end up having a good idea of who publishes work similar to the method you are proposing. I would recommend looking those people up and contacting them: an email stating that you're working on ...


2

The other answers are missing a key point. For you, writing a paper is stupid. It's a big waste of time that will take forever assuming you can find someone to help you, which you probably can't. It will give you academic currency that's basically useless for you because you are not an academic yet. Let's talk about alternatives. You have a new/modified ...


2

Although many marginal notes are made by hand, the term marginalia is also often used for printed ones. There is even a book about "printed marginalia". A definition of marginalia given here states The term "marginalia" generally refers to handwritten or printed text situated at the borders of the page. Depending on the textual content, ...


2

The status that authors see is fully customizable, and depends on the actual workflow employed by the journal. What you are seeing generally indicates that there is at least 1 review task pending, and also a recommendation task pending. This is possible! For instance, let's say the journal assigned 3 reviewers, but only requires 2 to move on to the ...


1

If he says you need more work, do it. If this is a new and significant branch of mathematics, then lots of research should be possible starting with it. Now (before publication) you have a head start on everyone else who will surely jump in to work on it after you publish.


1

Without more details it's obviously impossible to tell from the outside, but in general, the supervisor is usually right. After all they know what their student did intimately, they know what the institution's requirements are, and so on. Note your supervisor isn't saying your discovery isn't significant. They aren't even saying your work isn't at PhD level. ...


1

“Awaiting decision” is not incompatible with “All reviewer report received” or “Editorial Assessment”. It means the editor, an associate editor or a handling editor will have a look and make a decision. Remember that referees can only recommend a course of action: it is the journal through its editor or delegates that takes the decision to publish or not, ...


1

Authors and their reviewers are responsible for research novelty. Authors must distinguish their research from existing works, and reviewers should be convinced by claims of novelty. Authors and reviewers sometimes miss existing works that limit novelty. Ultimately, some novelty will likely remain, since two distinct works will likely have solved a problem ...


1

Assertive communication theory states that you must be precise and speak the truth when you present results. It is not the truth that your results will benefit others. It is the truth that you believe that your results will benefit others. So be precise. Similarly, in most fields you cannot truthfully state "A causes B", because you don't know. ...


1

As stated in the comments. It is totally irrelevant if they are in two languages. If it would be ethical to do this one language then it will be ethical in two. If it is unethical in one language then it will be unethical in two. In my field presenting at a conference and then submitting a paper to a journal is just fine, as long as the conference does not ...


1

I know I am late here, but I would add to the other answers that it depends on where you did this work. You mention that you are writing this paper on your own, but in my field there is a lot of work that goes into a paper before you start writing it. I typically see folks list the affiliation that they completed most of the work with as their affiliation, ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible