Timeline for Rejection of a paper because of not suitable level of rigor without a single example of a mathematical error/imprecision
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 3, 2021 at 7:57 | comment | added | Mikhail Skopenkov | Thank you for your clarification. Notice that this question concerns works rejected 'as being wrong' rather than 'not appealing to the referee'. And writing that a work is wrong just because it does not appeal to one is no-no. Also, you are right that the question will not get any answers - just because it is closed. First let us reopen and then see what happens. | |
| Aug 2, 2021 at 9:23 | comment | added | Roland Bacher | I think there are three roads to publication of a paper: (1) It contains good results, (2) The author is famous (generally well-correlated with (1), (3) The paper is very well written and is interesting to read (the most frequent case, not everyone publishes a correct proof of the Riemann hypothesis every day). | |
| Aug 2, 2021 at 9:10 | comment | added | Roland Bacher | I just wanted to give some positive feedback on rejection. You will probably not get any helpful answers in your case. However, sometimes papers get rejected not because they are wrong but because they do not appeal to the referee (style: a bunch of technical computations leading to a result which does not seem interesting, | |
| Aug 2, 2021 at 5:05 | comment | added | Mikhail Skopenkov | Thank for your answer. It is unclear how your examples are relevant here: as you write, the first rejection was completely justified and the second (experimental) paper did not pretend to be rigorous. This question is not just on rejections but on unjustified assertions on correctness of a work. BTW, in the case in question (users.mccme.ru/mskopenkov/other/lmp.html), a previous version of the work has been rejected by another journal with a clear and convincing report (scirev.org/reviews/…). | |
| Aug 1, 2021 at 9:35 | history | answered | Roland Bacher | CC BY-SA 4.0 |