Return to Answer

I cannot comment on fields other than math, but at least in math, publication of results which have been announced by others is acceptable if 1) the proofs are substantially different 2) it is clear that no publication is forthcoming.

But the most common situation in math is where no announcement occurred, but the result is known to the community. These are so-called folklore results where a result is well known (or at least well known among specialists). In such cases, whether the result is itself publishable seems to vary depending on the journal editors and referees, but mathematicians will publish such results with an explicit statement that they are publishing a proof of a known folklore result. Often when this is done, the folklore result is published along with other novel results. This situation however seems to be very different than the sort of situation with Deepseek and OpenAI that inspired the question.

I cannot comment on fields other than math, but at least in math, publication of results which have been announced by others is acceptable if 1) the proofs are substantially different or 2) it is clear that no publication is forthcoming.

But the most common situation in math is where no announcement occurred, but the result is known to the community. These are so-called folklore results where a result is well known (or at least well known among specialists). In such cases, whether the result is itself publishable seems to vary depending on the journal editors and referees(and also may depend on the difficulty of the proof), but mathematicians will publish such results with an explicit statement that they are publishing a proof of a known folklore result. Often when this is done, the folklore result is published along with other novel results. This situation however seems to be very different than the sort of situation with Deepseek and OpenAI that inspired the question.

I cannot comment on fields other than math, but at least in math, publication of results which have been announced by others is acceptable if 1) the proofs are substantially 2) it is clear that no publication is forthcoming.

But the most common situation in math is where no announcement occurred, but the result is known to the community. These are so-called folklore results where a result is well known (or at least well known among specialists). In such cases, whether the result is itself publishable seems to vary depending on the journal editors and referees, but mathematicians will publish such results with an explicit statement that they are publishing a proof of a known folklore result. Often when this is done, the folklore result is published along with other novel results. This situation however seems to be very different than the sort of situation with Deepseek and OpenAI that inspired the question.

I cannot comment on fields other than math, but at least in math, publication of results which have been announced by others is acceptable if 1) the proofs are substantially different 2) it is clear that no publication is forthcoming.

But the most common situation in math is where no announcement occurred, but the result is known to the community. These are so-called folklore results where a result is well known (or at least well known among specialists). In such cases, whether the result is itself publishable seems to vary depending on the journal editors and referees, but mathematicians will publish such results with an explicit statement that they are publishing a proof of a known folklore result. Often when this is done, the folklore result is published along with other novel results. This situation however seems to be very different than the sort of situation with Deepseek and OpenAI that inspired the question.

I cannot comment on fields other than math, but at least in math, publication of results which have been announced by others is acceptable if 1) the proofs are substantially 2) it is clear that no publication is forthcoming.

But the most common situation in math is where no announcement occurred, but the result is known to the community. These are so-called folklore results where a result is well known (or at least well known among specialists). In such cases, whether the result is itself publishable seems to vary depending on the journal editors and referees, but mathematicians will publish such results with an explicit statement that they are publishing a proof of a known folklore result. Often when this is done, the folklore result result is published along with other novel results. This situation however seems to be very different than the sort of situation with Deepseek and OpenAI that inspired the question.

I cannot comment on fields other than math, but at least in math, publication of results which have been announced by others is acceptable if 1) the proofs are substantially 2) it is clear that no publication is forthcoming.

But the most common situation in math is where no announcement occurred, but the result is known to the community. These are so-called folklore results where a result is well known (or at least well known among specialists). In such cases, whether the result is itself publishable seems to vary depending on the journal editors and referees, but mathematicians will publish such results with an explicit statement that they are publishing a proof of a known folklore result. Often when this is done, the folklore result is published along with other novel results. This situation however seems to be very different than the sort of situation with Deepseek and OpenAI that inspired the question.