Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf sheaves simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorporton
   • CommentTimeMar 14th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: porton
   Format: MarkdownItex<a href="http://www.mathematics21.org/algebraic-general-topology.html">My manuscript</a> (currently freely available on the Web) was rejected by a publisher. They essentially say my theory is unmotivated. (In my own opinion my research is motivated for example as a tool to study less general spaces such as proximity spaces, and by internal beautify of the formulas in my theory.) Could you look into my manuscript and express your opinion whether you'd agree to publish my work? Which publisher to send it to?

   My manuscript (currently freely available on the Web) was rejected by a publisher. They essentially say my theory is unmotivated. (In my own opinion my research is motivated for example as a tool to study less general spaces such as proximity spaces, and by internal beautify of the formulas in my theory.)

   Could you look into my manuscript and express your opinion whether you’d agree to publish my work?

   Which publisher to send it to?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorhilbertthm90
   • CommentTimeMar 14th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: hilbertthm90
   Format: MarkdownItexI didn't read any of it to see what the mathematical content is, but if they say it is "unmotivated" I assume they mean that there is no exposition. Even in short papers there needs to be a lot more than just definitions, statements, and proofs. In a work as long as this, lots of exposition becomes even more important. You can have good mathematics and good motivation, but if there is nothing to guide the reader in understanding what you are doing and why, then it won't get across. Just take Chapter 2 for example. It only contains a couple (maybe 2?) sentences that would qualify as exposition. Even in something like Jacob Lurie's Higher Algebra which has a similar approach to you with labeling everything into a rigorous definition, statement, proof, example, remark, etc format begins with lots of motivating problems and examples. Each section begins with exposition about what is going to happen in the section and why it fits into the overall plan of the book and so on.

   I didn’t read any of it to see what the mathematical content is, but if they say it is “unmotivated” I assume they mean that there is no exposition. Even in short papers there needs to be a lot more than just definitions, statements, and proofs. In a work as long as this, lots of exposition becomes even more important.

   You can have good mathematics and good motivation, but if there is nothing to guide the reader in understanding what you are doing and why, then it won’t get across. Just take Chapter 2 for example. It only contains a couple (maybe 2?) sentences that would qualify as exposition.

   Even in something like Jacob Lurie’s Higher Algebra which has a similar approach to you with labeling everything into a rigorous definition, statement, proof, example, remark, etc format begins with lots of motivating problems and examples. Each section begins with exposition about what is going to happen in the section and why it fits into the overall plan of the book and so on.