{"id":11486,"date":"2020-11-09T22:35:39","date_gmt":"2020-11-10T06:35:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=11486"},"modified":"2020-11-15T22:21:32","modified_gmt":"2020-11-16T06:21:32","slug":"still-in-a-bottleneck","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=11486","title":{"rendered":"Still in a Bottleneck"},"content":{"rendered":"

On 3 September, I received a galley proof of my probability paper<\/a>. Setting aside issues of style<\/em>,[1]<\/span><\/span> there were various minor problems. Of a bit greater importance was that the paper was reported as received<\/em> on 20 Februrary 2020, the date that the publisher received it from the editors, which was months after the editors had received it from me. But the most important matter was the replacement in a citation of 1843<\/q> with 1943<\/q>.[2]<\/span><\/span> I responded on the same day, noting most of these issues.[3]<\/span><\/span> On 10 September, I was queried about which version of the MSC<\/abbr> I'd used for the code that I'd provided, and as to whether there were truly a space in my surname. Again I responded on the same day.<\/p>

On 6 October, I received a new galley proof. I found no new<\/em> problems. All of the minor issues that I'd noted were fixed. However, the paper was still reported as received on 20 Februrary, and the citation still had the wrong year. I decided to ignore the first of these two issues, and simply to note the problem with the citation. Again, I responded on the same day.<\/p>

I have not since received communication from the production office. My paper remains on the accepted manuscripts list<\/a>, and has not appeared in the FirstView list<\/a>.<\/p>

[1]<\/span> I think that I just have to accept things such as punctuation being moved within quotation marks even when it's not part of the quotation, spaces being removed from either side of em-dashes, and artefact<\/q> being respelled artifact<\/q>, though I use the former for a different notion from the latter.<\/p>

[2]<\/span> The first clear frequentist challenge to the classical approach to probability seems to have been made in a paper by Richard Leslie Ellis published in 1843.<\/p>

[3]<\/span> One thing that I decided not to note was my discomfort over the space between left-hand quotation marks and quoted formulæ.<\/p> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"On 3 September, I received a galley proof of my probability paper. Setting aside issues of style,[1] there were various minor problems. Of a bit greater importance was that the paper was reported as received on 20 Februrary 2020, the date that the publisher received it from the editors, which was months after the editors […]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,4],"tags":[445,446],"class_list":["post-11486","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-personal","category-public","tag-papers","tag-writing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11486","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11486"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11486\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11494,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11486\/revisions\/11494"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11486"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11486"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11486"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}