Skip to main content

Timeline for answer to How do I fix someone's published error? by Igor Pak

Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5

Post Revisions

10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 11, 2010 at 2:39 comment added Willie Wong @Igor: I confess we misunderstood each other then. I was talking about middle ground in terms of causing potentially dangerous (to one's career) problems, not in terms of mathematical merit. But if you were not ordering them in any particular way, then my question was vacuous anyway.
Jul 11, 2010 at 2:06 history edited Igor Pak CC BY-SA 2.5
minor edit
Jul 11, 2010 at 1:27 history edited Igor Pak CC BY-SA 2.5
update
Jul 11, 2010 at 1:11 comment added Igor Pak @Willie: No, no, no particular order. As for 3 vs 4 - either you know how to fix the error, or you don't. What's the middle ground other than 5, which is "can't fix in full generality, but can do something"...
Jul 11, 2010 at 1:06 comment added Igor Pak @Gerhard: there are no rules on this. I recommend being proactive and giving a reasonable deadline to the author (X), something comparable to the amount of time it takes to referee a paper on this subject (this can vary between fields). If the deadline is missed, it's not your fault. But be nice - as Pete writes below, X is already very upset...
Jul 11, 2010 at 1:02 comment added Willie Wong @Igor: I don't quite understand 5, but I am assuming you are ordering them in terms of what is more socially acceptable. In that case, is there really no middle ground between 3 and 4? 4 sounds already quite extreme to me, and is bound to ruffle a few feathers.
Jul 11, 2010 at 1:02 comment added Igor Pak @Pete: 2)' is both bad and rare, I would like to discourage that and rather not name names (defeating the purpose). As for the MathSciNet linking - this is routine. Try "A. Nilli" for a well known example (of linking not an erratum).
Jul 11, 2010 at 0:45 comment added Gerhard Paseman Thank you for the options. Can you give a relative time scale for some of them? I'd especially like to know about time to wait on X before Y does one of 4,5, or 6. Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2010.07.10
Jul 11, 2010 at 0:43 comment added Pete L. Clark @Igor: 2)' sounds very weird to me, and I have not (knowingly) seen an instance of this. Would you be willing to provide an example?
Jul 11, 2010 at 0:35 history answered Igor Pak CC BY-SA 2.5