Timeline for MathScinet reviewing: should I check the proofs?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 5, 2015 at 22:46 | comment | added | André Henriques | As an example of how to deal with the situation of finding a mistake in a published article, I once wrote "The reviewer was unable to follow some of the author's arguments, and suspects that necessary conditions might be missing in some of the statements claimed". I was later contacted by the author, and I explained why I had written that. Unfortunately, it was not possible to write something more informative in the review, for the reason explained by Alain Valette. | |
| Jan 5, 2015 at 22:29 | comment | added | Adam Epstein | @AlexandreEremenko Who said anything about using? | |
| Jan 5, 2015 at 22:21 | comment | added | Alain Valette | I think we all agree that, as a reviewer for MR, you're not supposed to check the proofs. Trouble may arise if you find a mathematical mistake in the paper, because you are supposed to explain why it is false, or provide a counter-example, and this can result in painfully long and not so informative reviews. | |
| Jan 5, 2015 at 18:56 | comment | added | Alexandre Eremenko | @Adam Epstein: It is nobody's responsibility:-) When you use some published result, it is only YOUR responsibility to check that it is correct. | |
| Jan 5, 2015 at 18:55 | comment | added | joro | @AdamEpstein I see very rough analogy with software (with license agreement "No warranty of any kind") and users of said software. | |
| Jan 5, 2015 at 18:51 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Jan 5, 2015 at 18:19 | comment | added | Adam Epstein | Whose responsibility is it to engage with post-publication identification of systemic errors? | |
| Jan 5, 2015 at 18:01 | comment | added | LSpice | So let us say unambiguously that checking the proof is the job of the author, with an optional assist from the referee. :-) | |
| Jan 5, 2015 at 17:19 | comment | added | paul garrett | @YuichiroFujiwara, indeed, in my experience, some reputable journals explicitly say that ensuring "correctness" is not the responsibility of the referee, but of the author. Correctness of proofs is not the same as correctness of conclusions, which potentially adds to the confusion. | |
| Jan 5, 2015 at 17:11 | comment | added | Yuichiro Fujiwara | Regarding the last sentence that it's the job of the referee(s), here are varying opinions found on MO: mathoverflow.net/questions/40729/… | |
| Jan 5, 2015 at 16:55 | history | answered | Alexandre Eremenko | CC BY-SA 3.0 |