[TYPES] Two-tier reviewing process

[Norman Ramsey]

 > Unfortunately journals often require new results. I have tried several
 > times to published coalesced papers with proofs, and invariably I was
 > asked where was the new, unpublished result. But maybe I was unlucky.

I've had similar experiences.  This is another cultural problem: if a
result has already appeared in a workshop, then it is difficult to
publish a closely related paper in a conference.  And if a result has
already appeared in a conference, it is difficult to publish a closely
related paper in a journal.  I'm be unsurprised to learn that any
number of important results have never been validated by the kind of
thorough review that only a refereed journal can provide.
As an author, why should I bother preparing my work for journal
publication when the outcome is uncertain and there is much greater
incentive for me to invest the same effort in the next conference
submission? 


Norman