Timeline for Published papers with incorrect solutions of famous problems: how to raise concerns with editors?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 11, 2016 at 18:57 | comment | added | Corvus | ...at MathSciNet. This is a potentially embarrassing state of affairs for the journal, all the more so because of the prominence of the problem in question. I'd urge the editor to either retract the paper or obtain further review in light of the MathSciNet posting and, based on the outcome of that review, consider retraction at that stage. Most likely the editor will do nothing; "Internat. J. Math. Ed. Sci. Tech. retracts paper that should obviously never have been accepted" is hardly desirable press. But you can try. Likely the editor will do nothing. "Journal of | |
| Sep 11, 2016 at 18:55 | comment | added | Corvus | That makes sense regarding engagement with Goldbach-provers. I suppose I might write the editor and explain that by virtue of its public visibility the Goldbach conjecture attracts a great deal of attention from aspiring mathematicians [that's the nicest phrase I can think of for "crackpot"; you may have something better]. I'd go on to explain that if it had been proven, it would be a massive breakthrough in mathematics and a cause for massive international excitement. But instead, what they've published is a flawed proof; moreover a detailed explication of the flaw has been published... | |
| Sep 11, 2016 at 18:17 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | I have reason to believe the author is deceased. Anyway, in general I hesitate to engage with people who think they have proved the Goldbach conjecture - conventional wisdom is that such interactions are rarely productive and sometimes lead to continuing and unwanted correspondence. I agree that contacting the editor is a good idea; my question is how to phrase it. | |
| Sep 11, 2016 at 18:12 | history | answered | Corvus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |