Timeline for Does a referee have to check carefully the proof ?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 7, 2019 at 12:10 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 7, 2019 at 15:40 | |||||
| Dec 28, 2017 at 18:53 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 28, 2017 at 23:40 | |||||
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| May 7, 2016 at 16:28 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by S. Carnahan♦ | ||
| Dec 16, 2014 at 13:42 | comment | added | Benoît Kloeckner | @anon: somewhat late, I would like to point out that it is a reasonable division of labor to consider that it is the author's job to point out any problem with previous arguments. This is part of the "why is my work interesting" job one has to do when writing an article; moreover, it is important that anyone who could think the result was already proven has access to this information. That being said, at least a basic check from the referee is preferable. | |
| Dec 16, 2014 at 12:34 | answer | added | Geoff Robinson | timeline score: 11 | |
| May 3, 2013 at 6:05 | answer | added | Taras Banakh | timeline score: 6 | |
| Dec 12, 2010 at 23:54 | comment | added | anon | This is only somewhat related, so it is a comment. There is clearly some variation of opinion on the extent to which a referee's job is to check proofs, or to which a referee/editor bears responsibility for errors in published work, and so on. But whatever your opinion: if you decide to reject a paper on the grounds that its results are largely contained in previously published work, you should make reasonably sure that the work you refer to is free from error. At the very least, check Mathscinet to see if the journal has posted a retraction. Sadly, I speak from multiple experiences. | |
| Dec 11, 2010 at 23:38 | answer | added | Joël | timeline score: 22 | |
| Dec 11, 2010 at 23:09 | answer | added | David Feldman | timeline score: 74 | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 18:06 | history | edited | mathphysicist |
edited tags
|
|
| Oct 1, 2010 at 11:05 | comment | added | Andrew Stacey | I think that this is actually a bit vague. There's "What ought the job of refereeing be (in an ideal world)?", there's "What is the actual job of a referee?" (which is unanswerable), and "What is the job of a referee for a particular journal?" which has the answer: "If you're not sure, ask the editor who referred it to you.". | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 10:28 | answer | added | Matthew Daws | timeline score: 15 | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 9:52 | answer | added | Sheikraisinrollbank | timeline score: 31 | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 9:42 | history | asked | Hugh J | CC BY-SA 2.5 |