Timeline for Does a referee have to check carefully the proof ?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 7, 2016 at 16:28 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by S. Carnahan♦ | ||
| Jan 27, 2011 at 19:46 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @Sheikrainrollbank: you have asked a bunch of nontrivial questions here. It might be worth asking them again in a more prominent place: e.g. editing them into the question, or asking as a new question. Just as a comment on Joël's answer: perhaps he does not mean to imply that judging the context / novelty / significance of the results is less important than reading for correctness, only that the latter task is much more time consuming (hence is "most of the job" in some sense). | |
| Dec 12, 2010 at 17:33 | comment | added | Sheikraisinrollbank | And if the proofs are all flawless, do you always recommend acceptance? How do you decide whether or not to review an article in the first place? Do you really not spend much time deciding whether the results are significantly different from what is currently available? This last task is where an expert referee can really earn her (non-existent) keep. A good graduate student can often provide just as critical a reading of the proofs. | |
| Dec 11, 2010 at 23:38 | history | answered | Joël | CC BY-SA 2.5 |