6

Is it considered impolite to ask the author of a preprint about the journal to which the paper was submitted? The specific reason why I would be asking is that this would help me gauge how high to aim with my own related preprint.

To give a few more details: I recently run into a preprint by someone, let's call him Smith, who obtained a partial result on a problem that struck me as interesting. After giving it a little thought, I stumbled into some ideas that solve the problem completely* and wrote to Smith to ask him about his thoughts. As it turned out, Smith has independently solved the general case as well, by entirely different methods, and we ended up posting our preprints online days apart. Now, I'm trying to figure out how interesting the new result actually is. As is sometimes the case in (certain combinatorial branches of) mathematics, it's somewhat hard to tell, and a significant part of motivation is that people have been thinking about the problem and didn't come up with a solution. Ideally, if Smith's first preprint had already been published, I would send my work to a journal that's one notch higher, or if I knew where the first preprint is sent I would send my work to a journal of the same caliber. Also, I would probably feel a lot of regret if Smith published his paper in a journal more prestigious than me simply because I didn't aim high enough (if the referees find his argument more interesting than mine that's fine of course, I'd just feel regret about not giving it a shot). On the other hand, I'm worried that asking about where he sent his preprints would be considered impolite - it could be considered too intrusive, and there are good reasons why people don't publicise which journals they have submitted to (some discussed here and here on this SE). Then again, maybe it would not - after all, people are generally willing to share more in private communication than publicly. If it matters, I have met Smith on several occasions before and we talked a bit but not a lot; we're on similar stages of our careers with him being slightly senior.

*) Well, almost completely, depending on how you define the problem.

Jakub Konieczny
  • 6,887
  • 5
  • 31
  • 56
  • 2
    I don't know about maths, but in physics it would be reasonably common to communicate about it, and then coordinate the submission of both manuscripts to the same journal. – Anyon Jun 02 '19 at 16:43
  • 3
    I don't know about math, but in theoretical computer science it would be reasonably common to collaborate on a single joint submission, instead of submitting the same result twice. – JeffE Jun 02 '19 at 18:27
  • 1
    Why would the author be reluctant to reveal this? Maybe: in case the paper is later published in another journal, he does not want it known that it had been rejected by the first journal. – GEdgar Jun 02 '19 at 18:39
  • @JeffE: Sure, that's pretty common in mathematics too when there is a chance to produce a joint paper that's greater than the sum of the parts, so to speak - for instance, if the methods are fairly similar and each of the papers is superior in some aspect. Here, the methods are entirely different and the results are essentially the same so this approach does not apply. – Jakub Konieczny Jun 02 '19 at 20:30
  • @GEdgar: Precisely because of this reason. If Smith's paper does not get accepted and he tells me now where he sent it, I will know that such and such journal rejected his work. He might feel awkward about it. On the other hand, there is nothing for him to gain by revealing this information, so it seems more reasonable for him not to. – Jakub Konieczny Jun 02 '19 at 20:32
  • 7
    You are overthinking this. Your real question is: Which journal should I submit my work to? Just ask Smith's opinion about this. – Anonymous Physicist Jun 03 '19 at 01:28
  • 1
    Even when the methods are entirely different, it's possible to combine them into a joint paper. An example (self-promotion) is at https://www.combinatorics.org/ojs/index.php/eljc/article/view/v12i1r23 . – Andreas Blass Jun 03 '19 at 03:17
  • @JakubKonieczny the methods are entirely different and the results are essentially the same so [collaborating on a single joint submission] does not apply, why not? You can propose two different methods in a single manuscript. – user2768 Jun 03 '19 at 08:18
  • Do not necessarily assume that Smith has submitted his preprint to a journal. – Name Jun 03 '19 at 09:57
  • @AndreasBlass and user2768: Sure, it's possible to combine two independent proofs into a single paper, but personally it seems to me that (in this particular case) there are few benefits and a considerable amount of inconvenience. Basically, it seems to me that the end result of merging the two papers would be two different papers stapled together with a single introduction that me and Smith would have to agree on. Given that in this day and age the other paper is just a click away, I don't see how stapling the two together helps. – Jakub Konieczny Jun 04 '19 at 19:13
  • (Of course, I'm sure that in other situations combining two independent proofs into a single paper is beneficial.) – Jakub Konieczny Jun 04 '19 at 19:16

1 Answers1

3

Yes, I think this question is impolite. The submission history of an article is usually considered a private matter, because if the paper doesn't appear in the journal where it was submitted, one can infer that it was rejected. It's a little like asking about their sex life. If someone I knew well asked me where I had submitted a paper, I might tell them - but if a stranger or casual acquaintance asked me, my reaction would be "That's none of your damn business." (My actual reply might be a more polite version like "I'd rather not discuss that.")

I suppose that, as Anonymous Physicist says, you could ask Smith if he has any advice on where to send such a paper. But since you seem to be competitors, he might not be inclined to help you out in this regard - in fact, if he does offer a suggestion, you may not really want to trust it.

It would also be reasonable to contact Smith and propose a joint paper, though of course he is free to decline.

Nate Eldredge
  • 133,015
  • 44
  • 379
  • 480