30
$\begingroup$

I'm refereeing a Banach spaces paper and it looks pretty good. I'm about ready to recommend it for publication.

However, its main result depends crucially on some other results that are in preprints on the arxiv. Is it the referee's responsibility to verify those results too? Or should I just alert the editor that we should wait for publication of those preprints? Or something else?

It's not that I'm trying to be lazy exactly. I'm just super busy with other things, and so want to be efficient with my time.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Related. Also related. $\endgroup$ – Jochen Glueck Aug 6 '20 at 23:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JochenGlueck Interesting link. Yeah, I'm definitely of the opinion that everything should be rigorously checked, and that is what I always do. But this is a little different. Presumably, there is a different referee who is also checking the arxiv preprints. The question is, is that good enough? And if it's good enough, should we wait for them, or is it okay to recommend and just alert the editor so he can withdraw it if the preprint ends up having a flaw? Etc. Either way the proofs will all be double-checked by a careful referee. I'm just wondering what the proper procedure is here. $\endgroup$ – Ben W Aug 6 '20 at 23:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes, I understand the question, of course - I merely added the links for the sake of completeness. $\endgroup$ – Jochen Glueck Aug 6 '20 at 23:34
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ You can explain the situation to the editorial board. I think it's up to the editorial board to deal with the issue, using your feedback, and possibly doing further investigations. $\endgroup$ – YCor Aug 6 '20 at 23:44
  • $\begingroup$ @YCor Okay cool, that's what I'll do then. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – Ben W Aug 7 '20 at 10:19
53
$\begingroup$

I'm going to use the word "I" in this answer since there is no universally agreed-upon standard for what a referee should do.

I feel that the referee's only job is to make an informed recommendation to an editor as to whether or not a paper should be accepted. The extent to which that includes verifying that a paper is correct is a bit subtle -- you want to be able to vouch for the paper's correctness, but ultimately the correctness of the paper is the author's responsibility. My personal interpretation of that mandate is that I should understand and believe all the arguments of the paper, though there have been times when I have not verified things like enormous calculations, in which case I make that caveat in my report. I should also have no good reason to doubt the results of anything that is cited. If I have such a doubt (and I frequently have doubts about the correctness of both the published and the unpublished literature!), then my job is not to go and referee those papers as well. Instead, in my report I give an honest account to the editor of my concerns, and let them decide how they want to handle them.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ +1. Ultimately, the author is trying to make a persuasive argument; if a good-faith referee is not persuaded, the author needs to do more work, not the referee. $\endgroup$ – Greg Martin Aug 9 '20 at 2:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.