What criteria are required for publishing a math paper?

[elfboy]

I'm working on a mathematics paper, and I'm wondering if anyone can tell me what criteria are required to get published? I've gone some googling and found some good information and a journal I want to publish to, but I'm more specifically wondering what type of mathematics tends to get published? Topology and combinatorics seems to get the most attention and is the most advanced, or am I wrong? My concern is that the mathematics I'm working on isn't advanced enough. The Riemann Hypothesis relates to complex analysis and reads like, but most other unsolved or compelling topics are of other fields. Is there a favorism?

 

[tmc]

Are you certain that what you're doing has not been done before?

 

[j93]

There are unsolved topics in every area but if youre thinking of proving Reimann Hypothesis I would bet against you.

 

[qntty]

What exactly do you mean by "advanced"?

 

[elfboy]

What exactly do you mean by "advanced"?

I mean non trivial. Obviously if you solve a quadratic equation by copying the proof from a high school textbook and submitted it as a paper it would be deemed as some sort of prank and rejected. How advanced does it haave to be? I'm done writing it, so I'm going to send it off and see what happens.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's not a matter of "advanced", it's a matter of being new, useful or ideally both.

 

[tmc]

I mean non trivial. Obviously if you solve a quadratic equation by copying the proof from a high school textbook and submitted it as a paper it would be deemed as some sort of prank and rejected. How advanced does it haave to be? I'm done writing it, so I'm going to send it off and see what happens.

If you somehow found a novel way of solving a quadratic equation, it would be publishable.

 

[Choppy]

I'm working on a mathematics paper, and I'm wondering if anyone can tell me what criteria are required to get published? I've gone some googling and found some good information and a journal I want to publish to, but I'm more specifically wondering what type of mathematics tends to get published? Topology and combinatorics seems to get the most attention and is the most advanced, or am I wrong? My concern is that the mathematics I'm working on isn't advanced enough. The Riemann Hypothesis relates to complex analysis and reads like, but most other unsolved or compelling topics are of other fields. Is there a favorism?

I can't speak to mathematics in particular, but in general, you need to present original, unique work that has some kind of relevance to a particular field - and of course it has to be clearly presented and (at least to the satisfaction of the reviewers) correct. Some might argue that particular theories encounter favouritism, but as long as the science is correct, it should get through.

To really know what gets published, you have to read articles in the journal you're submitting to. If you haven't done this, your chances for publication are slim to none. One of the first things that I look for in a manuscript that I review is whether or not the authors have performed a sufficient literature review. This (a) places the work in the proper context, (b) defines what is original about the work presented, and (c) points the reader to other relevant work.

 

[elfboy]

I can't speak to mathematics in particular, but in general, you need to present original, unique work that has some kind of relevance to a particular field - and of course it has to be clearly presented and (at least to the satisfaction of the reviewers) correct. Some might argue that particular theories encounter favouritism, but as long as the science is correct, it should get through.

To really know what gets published, you have to read articles in the journal you're submitting to. If you haven't done this, your chances for publication are slim to none. One of the first things that I look for in a manuscript that I review is whether or not the authors have performed a sufficient literature review. This (a) places the work in the proper context, (b) defines what is original about the work presented, and (c) points the reader to other relevant work.

thanks for the advice. I went though my paper and referenced other sources to contextualize it.

 

[whybother]

I call ********.