Skip to main content
Chris Gerig's user avatar
Chris Gerig's user avatar
Chris Gerig's user avatar
Chris Gerig
  • Member for 13 years, 5 months
  • Last seen this week
Stats
17,285
reputation
398k
reached
146
answers
60
questions
Loading…
About

Family never went to college.

Review system for math publications is flawed and should be replaced by public arXiv comments/checks:

  1. No single reviewer can be sure the proof is flawless and they can easily overlook flaws -- it's only uncovered by continued readings from researchers over time that need to use said results (and in practice it's been word-of-mouth to disseminate knowledge of flaws, which is extremely suboptimal).

  2. Public arXiv comments of the form "I am unsure about step X because of Y" or "I do not see any errors" will allow the community as a whole to assess the work. There is no reason to hide the reviewer w.r.t. journals either, it should be the reviewer working with the authors.

  3. It is ridiculous/disrespectful to have students review papers without compensation nor recognition. Unlike professors, students have no career-security and need to focus on their own work (let alone teach) to achieve that.

  4. Journals for profit with locked subscriptions are parasitic and impedes future research; the above solution removes this.

  5. The arXiv allows versioning so any corrections are coherently documented, whereas a "published paper" does not typically reveal this and you must independently search for errata.

  6. W.r.t. determining one's career, what matters is the assessment/explanation (possible vouching) by the experts themselves without reference to a journal. An administration demanding a number of publications is only amplifying the problem.

2
gold badges
70
silver badges
115
bronze badges
174
Score
40
Posts
19
Posts %
153
Score
65
Posts
32
Posts %
150
Score
54
Posts
26
Posts %
145
Score
36
Posts
17
Posts %
138
Score
24
Posts
12
Posts %
104
Score
26
Posts
13
Posts %
Top posts
View all questions and answers