Sometimes it does not pay to be too clear at that point.

 

Again, in papers I have had accepted for publication a remark or two that is purposely been a little vague have been included. For example, suggesting that "X could be use to get at Y" without saying too much about how. The reason for this is that I don't know the details and the definitions etc may need some suitable adjustments.

 

Being a little loose with comments and remarks is fine. However, they must not be confused with the real science of the paper.

In the paper proper it really depends on the reviewer . What one may perceive as acceptably vague may be an important aspect to another to be verified. Since papers often deal with non-canonical knowledge, reviews include quite a bit of subjectivity.

a more general theoretical consideration of a given problem

Yep.

 

That's what I am doing ... it's a "theoretical thought experiment" and not a "we performed the following actions".

 

I'm asking my reader to consider a possible scenario, rather than expounding on what we/I have physically investigated.

 

 

 

Well spotted.

 

Can I draft you as a sub-editor/proof reader when I've finished my paper ?

 

 

I don't know whether or not you can, but you may.