Timeline for Do peer-reviewers ignore details in complicated mathematical computations and theorems?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 19, 2023 at 19:43 | history | edited | David A. Craven | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1555 characters in body
|
| Jan 19, 2023 at 19:30 | comment | added | David A. Craven | @CGCampbell We are long past the point where a paper being peer reviewed means it is correct. Lots of peer-reviewed papers have errors, most minor, some sink the main result. | |
| Jan 19, 2023 at 15:54 | comment | added | CGCampbell | Oh my, "Peer review decides if the results are original, significant and interesting, that is all." This makes any use of peer-reviewed as a determination of whether a source is acceptable or not... problematic? worthless? | |
| Jan 19, 2023 at 5:32 | comment | added | user71659 | @Cole Not entirely. The editor is not an expert in every single sub-field they cover. A good reviewer is more likely to have read the latest papers and gone to conferences in their specific area of expertise, and therefore should give an opinion on the originality and impact of the work. | |
| Jan 18, 2023 at 23:04 | comment | added | David A. Craven | @Everyone I'm obviously late to the party on this. What referees are usually asked is to decide if they think it's correct. They are not asked to check if it is correct. To do the latter would require a line-by-line check, filling in any ommitted details, rewriting any computer programs that were used if they were not provided, etc. So no, referees do not check correctness. They are asked to comment on the correctness, which is definitely not the same thing. This eliminates any Riemann hypothesis issues, and anything else mentioned. | |
| Jan 18, 2023 at 20:44 | comment | added | Terry Loring | Referees are to check correctness as well. The London math society discusses this in an author guide for their journals. "The referee will be asked to assess the originality, correctness, importance and interest of the paper ..." from lms.ac.uk/sites/lms.ac.uk/files/Publications/AuthorGuide.pdf | |
| Jan 18, 2023 at 20:31 | comment | added | JNS | In addition to original, significant and interesting, I think presented in a way appropriate for the target audience of the journal is a factor. | |
| Jan 18, 2023 at 12:23 | comment | added | Jochen Glueck | @DanRomik: Agreed. | |
| Jan 18, 2023 at 11:01 | comment | added | Cole | What you are describing sounds more like the editor's responsibilities, not that of a reviewer. | |
| Jan 18, 2023 at 8:22 | comment | added | Dan Romik | @JochenGlueck there is room for a difference of opinions on the precise level of effort one can reasonably expect a reviewer to invest in verifying correctness, and on whether it is the reviewer or author who bears ultimate responsibility for the paper being correct. However, OP’s statement that "peer review explicitly states that the validity of the statements is not being checked” sounds factually false to me, and not a matter of opinion. | |
| Jan 18, 2023 at 4:53 | comment | added | N. Virgo | What would it even mean for peer review to explicitly state this? | |
| Jan 18, 2023 at 0:47 | comment | added | Scott Seidman | Where does peer review explicitly state this? | |
| Jan 17, 2023 at 23:41 | comment | added | Jochen Glueck | @DanRomik: Opinions on this matter seem to vary greatly within the mathematical community, as evidenced by the various answers and comments to this question on MathOverflow (although I think that there's less variation of opinions when it comes to extreme cases such as the Riemann hypothesis that you mentioned). | |
| Jan 17, 2023 at 22:59 | comment | added | Ben | This sounds wrong to me; peer review typically check correctness of results/derivations. | |
| Jan 17, 2023 at 22:33 | comment | added | Dan Romik | "peer review explicitly states that the validity of the statements is not being checked": really? So if I submit a purported proof of the Riemann hypothesis to the Annals of Mathematics, they won't check it for correctness, but will only base their decision on whether the Riemann hypothesis is original, significant and interesting? Sorry but I think you're mistaken about that, even in much less extreme situations. Can you provide a source showing that peer review "explicitly states" what you claim it does? | |
| Jan 17, 2023 at 20:23 | vote | accept | Med Med | ||
| Jan 20, 2023 at 20:50 | |||||
| Jan 17, 2023 at 16:29 | history | answered | David A. Craven | CC BY-SA 4.0 |