Are additional unproven observations welcome in a paper intended for publication if not meant as the main subject of the paper?

I’m typing up a short paper I would like to publish on certain sequences I have made some elementary discoveries on, but would like to further supplement my paper with additional patterns/findings I have observed but have not proven. Is it seen as unprofessional or unacceptable to include such things in my paper, perhaps in an ‘additional observations/patterns’ section?

submitted by /u/Quiffyton
[link] [comments]

Published by

Nevin Manimala

Nevin Manimala is interested in blogging and finding new blogs

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *