Timeline for Does a referee have to check carefully the proof ?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 7, 2016 at 16:28 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by S. Carnahan♦ | ||
| Dec 16, 2014 at 20:14 | comment | added | Dylan Thurston | I can think offhand of at least 3 different mathematicians who I think do great work, but whose papers and books are extremely unreliable. The ideas are great, but the details are often all wrong. It's a tricky dance figuring out how to cite them. | |
| Jan 27, 2011 at 18:47 | comment | added | David Feldman | If I had the expertise (not to mention the time) to read all the papers and find the mistakes, I would have no qualms. But I don't, sorry. | |
| Jan 27, 2011 at 17:11 | comment | added | Najdorf | You should disclose the name of the "garbage printer" so that we can also ignore him. | |
| Jan 27, 2011 at 16:21 | comment | added | JSE | It's worth saying that I've never heard this kind of story in any area of mathematics I've been connected with, and I believe it to be highly unrepresentative of the current state of publishing in pure math. | |
| Dec 11, 2010 at 23:46 | comment | added | darij grinberg | "I think we should compensate referees for their hard work" IF they do hard work. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case. In my experience, over 50% of mathematical papers in renowned journals have notable flaws (not misprinted letters, but actual holes in proofs, although usually fixable by any expert in the field; also, definitions that don't match the actual later use of the notion defined). Unless I really care about some result, I don't even try to read it up in a research paper - I wait until a book or, at least, a review article, appears. | |
| Dec 11, 2010 at 23:10 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | I am of course very curious now. | |
| Dec 11, 2010 at 23:09 | history | answered | David Feldman | CC BY-SA 2.5 |