What should I do if I found a paper with same result as mine?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of discovering a published paper that presents similar results to the participant's own research. The focus includes concerns about credit, novelty in research, and the challenges of simultaneous discoveries in the scientific community.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant found a paper with a similar line element derivation to their own work and is uncertain about how to proceed regarding credit and publication.
  • Another participant questions whether the original poster is asking if they should stop their work due to the existence of the other paper.
  • A participant suggests that if the original work provides something different, the poster should cite it and clarify the novelty of their own research.
  • Another participant references Stigler's law of eponymy, suggesting that credit may not always go to the first discoverer.
  • One participant notes the common occurrence of simultaneous discoveries in research and emphasizes that independent confirmation of results can still hold value.
  • The discussion includes references to principles regarding the naming of discoveries, indicating a broader context of how credit is assigned in academia.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on how to handle the situation of overlapping research results. There is no consensus on whether the original poster should continue their work or how credit should be assigned.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexities of novelty in research and the potential for multiple groups to arrive at similar conclusions independently, without resolving the specific implications for the original poster's work.

Bishal Banjara
Messages
93
Reaction score
3
Yesterday, 9/5/2025, when I was surfing, I found an article

The Schwarzschild solution contains three problems, which can be easily solved - Journal of King Saud University - Science
ABUNDANCE ESTIMATION IN AN ARID ENVIRONMENT
https://jksus.org/the-schwarzschild-solution-contains-three-problems-which-can-be-easily-solved/
that has the derivation of a line element as a corrected version of the Schwarzschild solution to Einstein’s field equation. This article's date received is 2022-11-15, while I have the same line element derivation formally with different and more conforming deductions included (still in process for preparation), posted as a preprint on researchgate as a private file in July of 2023 as

https://www.researchgate.net/public...w_type_of_solution_of_Einstein_Field_Equation
. In the meantime, I have asked many questions, and the line element was exposed (differently) before on social media platforms like physicsforum, physicsstackexchange, etc. Now, I'm paused seeing this paper. And I am here to ask what I should do now. Any suggestions, please!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Suggestions about what? Are you asking should you stop working on whatever it is you're working on?
 
Haborix said:
Suggestions about what? Are you asking should you stop working on whatever it is you're working on?
Yes! I found the paper has different motive in comparison. It was published on december on the same year, about 5 month later my preprint was uploaded then, who will be credited for this work?
 
Last edited:
Bishal Banjara said:
who will be credited for this work?
They will.

Does your paper provide something that the first one does not? If so, you should cite the first paper in your introduction, explain what is different, and edit the rest of the paper to focus on what is novel and remove what is not.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier, Orodruin, Choppy and 1 other person
Unfortunately one of the challenges with research is that when you're working on a problem, particularly when it's a problem of significant interest in the scientific community, (a) other groups are also working on it and (b) someone might publish their results before you.

I can't speak to the details of your field and your specific work, but more generally there is some flexibility with respect to novelty when it comes to publication. Referees do look for the results to be novel of course, but if you honestly arrived at the result independent of another group that happened to publish prior to you, it could still be considered an independent confirmation of the result. And that's tremendously important.

If nothing else, as a researcher you can also take comfort in the fact that you're doing good work.
 
Last edited:
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale

Similar threads

Undergrad The standard model from loop quantum gravity via spinors octonions
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K