I would like to write a question $$Q$$ asking for advice about what to do with a note which I wrote (itself based on a self-answer on MathOverflow) which was rejected from the arXiv (something I didn't know was even possible) as “unrefereeable”: advice along the lines of “try to improve it”, “upload it somewhere else” or “forget about it”. This meta question is not asking this $$Q$$ directly, however: it's about where that question $$Q$$ should go: MO or academia SE (or neither).

On the one hand, the discussion would need to refer to the actual content of the note, which sounds more appropriate for MO, especially since it's based on an answer that was posted here; on the other hand, I haven't seen many discussions along such lines on MO, so maybe they're considered generally off-topic.

So, where would this be appropriate? (If anywhere.)

• My personal opinion: here would be fine (probably the better fit). – Todd Trimble Apr 8 at 16:53
• For what it's worth, there are other preprint servers that might be relevant (bioRxiv comes to mind, but you'd have to check for mathematical biology), and it might even be reasonable to send to PLOS ONE, which, though a journal rather than a preprint server, it seems like it would fit there. – David Roberts Apr 9 at 23:58
• Your question and answer, that you've linked as a post of the main site MathOverflow, were excellent. I'm an amateur mathematician (I'm not a professor) thus I can not provide you an advice. My view is that it can be potentially useful if this site MathOverflow had a periodic publication, I mean a MathOverflow journal (if it is legitimate) of the best posts with attached remarks and articles build from these (I evoke expansions with the adding the best comments, answers or contributions, and unsolved questions that arose for posts of this site MathOverflow). Isn't required response, good luck! – user142929 Apr 10 at 8:16
• One immediate half-answer I can give you is that your note is lacking references and context. If someone unfamiliar with mathematical epidemiology came across the note, he wouldn't even know what books to read in order to understand the first paragraph. IIRC, the arXiv has a "every preprint must have a bibliography" rule, which yours technically satisfies, but it might help to satisfy it better. – darij grinberg Apr 10 at 9:43
• For ease of reference, the question has been asked here: mathoverflow.net/questions/357077/… – David Roberts Apr 11 at 22:39

I think this Q Is a reasonable exception to the preferred scope of MathOverflow, provided:

A: you've scanned all the relevant questions on MathOverflow (and maybe even Academia) tagged advice or arxiv or publishing or what have you,

B: you've read the relevant questions and answers and found them unsatisfactory, and

C: you phrase the question as something new or different, with reference to the relevant questions and why their resolution does not work for this question. Also,

D: try to frame Q so that it is not too specific, and so the results can be used by others.

If you ask a slightly different advice question without doing a background check, it might be closed as a duplicate (boring is not an option, nor is derivative). If you put in the work of assembling the previous MathOverflow wisdom on the subject, I would see that post as a positive contribution to the forum, even if in the process you answered the question for yourself (irony intended).

Gerhard "Consider Irony As A Tool" Paseman, 2020.04.08.

• Of course it doesn't apply to @Gro-Tsen's question, but I sure do wish sometimes that we had a close reason something along the lines of "the thought process should be (1) think about your problem, and then (2) ask MO if (1) fails, not the other way around". Instead, we have to settle for either "off-topic" or "needs clarity" …. – LSpice Apr 9 at 19:46