How should I interpret a promising preprint that was never published in a peer-reviewed journal?What procedures should I follow if my preprint is stolen and published in a journal?Can I challenge a paper already published in a peer reviewed conference/journal?When a journal requires that the work has not been published before except as a “preprint”, is an arXiv publication considered a preprint?Paper published in peer-reviewed student journal that appears to have shut down. How should I present evidence of article publication?Best sites and practices to disseminate research papersCiting a project performed in a previous class that was never published?What license to choose for preprint on OSF (Open Science Framework) when the preprint has been published in a journal?Publishing working paper before submission to peer-reviewed journalHow to modify a final draft to reflect that a conjecture in its preprint was refuted?
Why is SHA-384 more secure than SHA-512?
Is there any point in having more than 6 months' runway in savings?
Can I permanently banish a devil from one layer of the Hells to another using the Banishment spell?
What type of logical fallacy is the offering of a source which is really long and not specifying what part of the source is relevant?
"Chess is 90% tactics" - should a player focus more on tactics in order to improve?
Google just EOLed the original Pixel. How long until it's a brick?
An historical mystery : Poincaré’s silence on Lebesgue integral and measure theory?
Implement the Max-Pooling operation from Convolutional Neural Networks
What is the lowest level at which a human can beat the 100m world record (or: the presumed human limit) without using magic?
What's the name of the role of characters who buff teammates?
Do airplanes need brakes in the air?
Why are Democrats mostly focused on increasing healthcare spending, rarely mentioning any proposals for decreasing the costs of healthcare services?
"Ich habe Durst" vs "Ich bin durstig": Which is more common?
What type of beer is best for beer battered fish?
What is the difference betwwen the older alloctaor::construct and the new one and explicit constructor?
I have stack-exchanged through my undergrad math program. Am I likely to succeed in Mathematics PhD programs?
What happened to Sophie in her last encounter with Arthur?
Would a Schnorr PubKey be a different length than a Taproot PubKey like P2WPKH and P2WSH?
What would make the internet go away?
Best angle to attack
Why does Smaug have 4 legs in the 1st movie but only 2 legs in the 2nd?
Translation Golf XLIX - An Accurate Shot
Passport expiration requirement for Jordan Visa
Which skill would I use for ventriloquism?
How should I interpret a promising preprint that was never published in a peer-reviewed journal?
What procedures should I follow if my preprint is stolen and published in a journal?Can I challenge a paper already published in a peer reviewed conference/journal?When a journal requires that the work has not been published before except as a “preprint”, is an arXiv publication considered a preprint?Paper published in peer-reviewed student journal that appears to have shut down. How should I present evidence of article publication?Best sites and practices to disseminate research papersCiting a project performed in a previous class that was never published?What license to choose for preprint on OSF (Open Science Framework) when the preprint has been published in a journal?Publishing working paper before submission to peer-reviewed journalHow to modify a final draft to reflect that a conjecture in its preprint was refuted?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
There have been a couple of occasions in my research in which I've come across a preprint that is several years old and is very relevant to the work that I'm doing.
Often these preprints have very promising initial results. However, when looking at the CVs or Google Scholar pages of the authors on the preprint, I can't seem to find a version that ended up getting published in a peer-reviewed journal, even if the preprint is several years old already. Why would would a researcher abandon a manuscript that they obviously put a lot of time into?
Do researchers sometimes just abandon lines of inquiry because they get too busy? Or, is this an indication that their promising initial results were not robust enough for peer-review, and I should be wary of attempting a similar study?
publications preprint
edited Jul 20 at 13:33
Peter Mortensen
3342 silver badges7 bronze badges
asked Jul 18 at 14:54
Amadou KoneAmadou Kone
3583 silver badges8 bronze badges
add a comment
|
There have been a couple of occasions in my research in which I've come across a preprint that is several years old and is very relevant to the work that I'm doing.
Often these preprints have very promising initial results. However, when looking at the CVs or Google Scholar pages of the authors on the preprint, I can't seem to find a version that ended up getting published in a peer-reviewed journal, even if the preprint is several years old already. Why would would a researcher abandon a manuscript that they obviously put a lot of time into?
Do researchers sometimes just abandon lines of inquiry because they get too busy? Or, is this an indication that their promising initial results were not robust enough for peer-review, and I should be wary of attempting a similar study?
publications preprint
edited Jul 20 at 13:33
Peter Mortensen
3342 silver badges7 bronze badges
asked Jul 18 at 14:54
Amadou KoneAmadou Kone
3583 silver badges8 bronze badges
add a comment
|
There have been a couple of occasions in my research in which I've come across a preprint that is several years old and is very relevant to the work that I'm doing.
Often these preprints have very promising initial results. However, when looking at the CVs or Google Scholar pages of the authors on the preprint, I can't seem to find a version that ended up getting published in a peer-reviewed journal, even if the preprint is several years old already. Why would would a researcher abandon a manuscript that they obviously put a lot of time into?
Do researchers sometimes just abandon lines of inquiry because they get too busy? Or, is this an indication that their promising initial results were not robust enough for peer-review, and I should be wary of attempting a similar study?
publications preprint
edited Jul 20 at 13:33
Peter Mortensen
3342 silver badges7 bronze badges
asked Jul 18 at 14:54
Amadou KoneAmadou Kone
3583 silver badges8 bronze badges
There have been a couple of occasions in my research in which I've come across a preprint that is several years old and is very relevant to the work that I'm doing.
Often these preprints have very promising initial results. However, when looking at the CVs or Google Scholar pages of the authors on the preprint, I can't seem to find a version that ended up getting published in a peer-reviewed journal, even if the preprint is several years old already. Why would would a researcher abandon a manuscript that they obviously put a lot of time into?
Do researchers sometimes just abandon lines of inquiry because they get too busy? Or, is this an indication that their promising initial results were not robust enough for peer-review, and I should be wary of attempting a similar study?
publications preprint
publications preprint
edited Jul 20 at 13:33
Peter Mortensen
3342 silver badges7 bronze badges
asked Jul 18 at 14:54
Amadou KoneAmadou Kone
3583 silver badges8 bronze badges
edited Jul 20 at 13:33
Peter Mortensen
3342 silver badges7 bronze badges
asked Jul 18 at 14:54
Amadou KoneAmadou Kone
3583 silver badges8 bronze badges
edited Jul 20 at 13:33
Peter Mortensen
3342 silver badges7 bronze badges
edited Jul 20 at 13:33
Peter Mortensen
3342 silver badges7 bronze badges
edited Jul 20 at 13:33
Peter Mortensen
3342 silver badges7 bronze badges
3342 silver badges7 bronze badges
asked Jul 18 at 14:54
Amadou KoneAmadou Kone
3583 silver badges8 bronze badges
asked Jul 18 at 14:54
Amadou KoneAmadou Kone
3583 silver badges8 bronze badges
asked Jul 18 at 14:54
Amadou KoneAmadou Kone
3583 silver badges8 bronze badges
3583 silver badges8 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
There might be any number of reasons. You might try to contact the author(s) to get more information. But... (not all with the same likelihood)
They might have left academia for various reasons and not bothered. Is the CV also old?
They might have incorporated the key ideas into another paper with a very different title. You search is then fruitless.
They might have discovered errors.
Reviewers might have considered the results trivial.
Their attempts to publish might have been rejected by journals for other reasons.
They might have changed sub-fields. (This one less likely, I think.)
But you should be wary, at least, of following up on unpublished work and, at least, be sure that you can verify the claims independently.
answered Jul 18 at 15:12
BuffyBuffy
93.4k24 gold badges288 silver badges403 bronze badges
77
One other important possibility (if it's math), everything with the preprint is basically fine but they submitted to a top journal and the refereeing process took 2 years but the paper was rejected, they then spent a year revising based on those reports and other feedback they'd gotten, spent half a year deciding where to resubmit, then it took another year and a half to get accepted at the second top journal, but their backlog is such that it takes another year and a half for it to be published. So now 6 years have passed and the preprint isn't published anywhere.
– Noah Snyder
Jul 18 at 18:00
27
@NoahSnyder that sounds oddly specific...
– Mark Omo
Jul 18 at 23:20
14
That’s not actually intended to be the exact story of a particular paper (mine or others), but more a realistic amalgam of different stories of mine and others.
– Noah Snyder
Jul 18 at 23:36
4
I second the suggestion to consider contacting the author. You should have a low threshold for doing that.
– Mark Foskey
Jul 19 at 2:14
21
@NoahSnyder this hits home. I think this happens more than people think.
– nimcap
Jul 19 at 7:35
|
show 7 more comments
Not all peer-reviewed papers are solid, and not all non peer-reviewed papers are unsolid.
Judge for yourself.
Seriously, sometimes people cannot be bothered to fight with reviewers about minutia, relevance, impact, significance; worse, sometimes people have a problem to get a paper published in a journal that later proves to be seminal to a field. The story of Schechtman comes to mind (or also some colleague from my own field who wrote an absolutely central paper for my field which took several years to get published in a peer-reviewed journal).
If it is an experimental paper and hard for you to verify, you may tread more carefully, but anything that's theoretical and in your reach to check for yourself is worth consideration if you need it.
answered Jul 19 at 9:30
Captain EmacsCaptain Emacs
25.9k9 gold badges61 silver badges92 bronze badges
add a comment
|
As others mentioned, there can be various reasons.
Perelman only published his proof of the Poincare conjecture as preprints. It was enough for everybody to hear about his proof, so why bother?:-)
Mochizuki only published his proof of the abc conjecture as preprints (to be more precise, he also published it several years later in a journal where he was the editor-in-chief, if I am not mistaken). In this case, the extra reason was the proof was too complicated, so nobody could referee it :-) (I am cutting some corners:-) )
answered Jul 20 at 15:36
akhmeteliakhmeteli
6633 silver badges10 bronze badges
"he also published it several years later in a journal where he was the editor-in-chief, if I am not mistaken" you are mistaken—there was a rumour they had been accepted to appear in such a journal, but it didn't happen. The papers are still not published, and only a small group of people accept Mochizuki's proof as doing what he says it does.
– David Roberts
Jul 22 at 7:09
@DavidRoberts : Thank you. So this is also a "clean" example:-)
– akhmeteli
Jul 22 at 14:01
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f133502%2fhow-should-i-interpret-a-promising-preprint-that-was-never-published-in-a-peer-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There might be any number of reasons. You might try to contact the author(s) to get more information. But... (not all with the same likelihood)
They might have left academia for various reasons and not bothered. Is the CV also old?
They might have incorporated the key ideas into another paper with a very different title. You search is then fruitless.
They might have discovered errors.
Reviewers might have considered the results trivial.
Their attempts to publish might have been rejected by journals for other reasons.
They might have changed sub-fields. (This one less likely, I think.)
But you should be wary, at least, of following up on unpublished work and, at least, be sure that you can verify the claims independently.
answered Jul 18 at 15:12
BuffyBuffy
93.4k24 gold badges288 silver badges403 bronze badges
77
One other important possibility (if it's math), everything with the preprint is basically fine but they submitted to a top journal and the refereeing process took 2 years but the paper was rejected, they then spent a year revising based on those reports and other feedback they'd gotten, spent half a year deciding where to resubmit, then it took another year and a half to get accepted at the second top journal, but their backlog is such that it takes another year and a half for it to be published. So now 6 years have passed and the preprint isn't published anywhere.
– Noah Snyder
Jul 18 at 18:00
27
@NoahSnyder that sounds oddly specific...
– Mark Omo
Jul 18 at 23:20
14
That’s not actually intended to be the exact story of a particular paper (mine or others), but more a realistic amalgam of different stories of mine and others.
– Noah Snyder
Jul 18 at 23:36
4
I second the suggestion to consider contacting the author. You should have a low threshold for doing that.
– Mark Foskey
Jul 19 at 2:14
21
@NoahSnyder this hits home. I think this happens more than people think.
– nimcap
Jul 19 at 7:35
|
show 7 more comments
There might be any number of reasons. You might try to contact the author(s) to get more information. But... (not all with the same likelihood)
They might have left academia for various reasons and not bothered. Is the CV also old?
They might have incorporated the key ideas into another paper with a very different title. You search is then fruitless.
They might have discovered errors.
Reviewers might have considered the results trivial.
Their attempts to publish might have been rejected by journals for other reasons.
They might have changed sub-fields. (This one less likely, I think.)
But you should be wary, at least, of following up on unpublished work and, at least, be sure that you can verify the claims independently.
answered Jul 18 at 15:12
BuffyBuffy
93.4k24 gold badges288 silver badges403 bronze badges
77
One other important possibility (if it's math), everything with the preprint is basically fine but they submitted to a top journal and the refereeing process took 2 years but the paper was rejected, they then spent a year revising based on those reports and other feedback they'd gotten, spent half a year deciding where to resubmit, then it took another year and a half to get accepted at the second top journal, but their backlog is such that it takes another year and a half for it to be published. So now 6 years have passed and the preprint isn't published anywhere.
– Noah Snyder
Jul 18 at 18:00
27
@NoahSnyder that sounds oddly specific...
– Mark Omo
Jul 18 at 23:20
14
That’s not actually intended to be the exact story of a particular paper (mine or others), but more a realistic amalgam of different stories of mine and others.
– Noah Snyder
Jul 18 at 23:36
4
I second the suggestion to consider contacting the author. You should have a low threshold for doing that.
– Mark Foskey
Jul 19 at 2:14
21
@NoahSnyder this hits home. I think this happens more than people think.
– nimcap
Jul 19 at 7:35
|
show 7 more comments
There might be any number of reasons. You might try to contact the author(s) to get more information. But... (not all with the same likelihood)
They might have left academia for various reasons and not bothered. Is the CV also old?
They might have incorporated the key ideas into another paper with a very different title. You search is then fruitless.
They might have discovered errors.
Reviewers might have considered the results trivial.
Their attempts to publish might have been rejected by journals for other reasons.
They might have changed sub-fields. (This one less likely, I think.)
But you should be wary, at least, of following up on unpublished work and, at least, be sure that you can verify the claims independently.
answered Jul 18 at 15:12
BuffyBuffy
93.4k24 gold badges288 silver badges403 bronze badges
There might be any number of reasons. You might try to contact the author(s) to get more information. But... (not all with the same likelihood)
They might have left academia for various reasons and not bothered. Is the CV also old?
They might have incorporated the key ideas into another paper with a very different title. You search is then fruitless.
They might have discovered errors.
Reviewers might have considered the results trivial.
Their attempts to publish might have been rejected by journals for other reasons.
They might have changed sub-fields. (This one less likely, I think.)
But you should be wary, at least, of following up on unpublished work and, at least, be sure that you can verify the claims independently.
answered Jul 18 at 15:12
BuffyBuffy
93.4k24 gold badges288 silver badges403 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 15:12
BuffyBuffy
93.4k24 gold badges288 silver badges403 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 15:12
BuffyBuffy
93.4k24 gold badges288 silver badges403 bronze badges
answered Jul 18 at 15:12
BuffyBuffy
93.4k24 gold badges288 silver badges403 bronze badges
93.4k24 gold badges288 silver badges403 bronze badges
77
One other important possibility (if it's math), everything with the preprint is basically fine but they submitted to a top journal and the refereeing process took 2 years but the paper was rejected, they then spent a year revising based on those reports and other feedback they'd gotten, spent half a year deciding where to resubmit, then it took another year and a half to get accepted at the second top journal, but their backlog is such that it takes another year and a half for it to be published. So now 6 years have passed and the preprint isn't published anywhere.
– Noah Snyder
Jul 18 at 18:00
27
@NoahSnyder that sounds oddly specific...
– Mark Omo
Jul 18 at 23:20
14
That’s not actually intended to be the exact story of a particular paper (mine or others), but more a realistic amalgam of different stories of mine and others.
– Noah Snyder
Jul 18 at 23:36
4
I second the suggestion to consider contacting the author. You should have a low threshold for doing that.
– Mark Foskey
Jul 19 at 2:14
21
@NoahSnyder this hits home. I think this happens more than people think.
– nimcap
Jul 19 at 7:35
|
show 7 more comments
77
One other important possibility (if it's math), everything with the preprint is basically fine but they submitted to a top journal and the refereeing process took 2 years but the paper was rejected, they then spent a year revising based on those reports and other feedback they'd gotten, spent half a year deciding where to resubmit, then it took another year and a half to get accepted at the second top journal, but their backlog is such that it takes another year and a half for it to be published. So now 6 years have passed and the preprint isn't published anywhere.
– Noah Snyder
Jul 18 at 18:00
27
@NoahSnyder that sounds oddly specific...
– Mark Omo
Jul 18 at 23:20
14
That’s not actually intended to be the exact story of a particular paper (mine or others), but more a realistic amalgam of different stories of mine and others.
– Noah Snyder
Jul 18 at 23:36
4
I second the suggestion to consider contacting the author. You should have a low threshold for doing that.
– Mark Foskey
Jul 19 at 2:14
21
@NoahSnyder this hits home. I think this happens more than people think.
– nimcap
Jul 19 at 7:35
77
77
One other important possibility (if it's math), everything with the preprint is basically fine but they submitted to a top journal and the refereeing process took 2 years but the paper was rejected, they then spent a year revising based on those reports and other feedback they'd gotten, spent half a year deciding where to resubmit, then it took another year and a half to get accepted at the second top journal, but their backlog is such that it takes another year and a half for it to be published. So now 6 years have passed and the preprint isn't published anywhere.
– Noah Snyder
Jul 18 at 18:00
One other important possibility (if it's math), everything with the preprint is basically fine but they submitted to a top journal and the refereeing process took 2 years but the paper was rejected, they then spent a year revising based on those reports and other feedback they'd gotten, spent half a year deciding where to resubmit, then it took another year and a half to get accepted at the second top journal, but their backlog is such that it takes another year and a half for it to be published. So now 6 years have passed and the preprint isn't published anywhere.
– Noah Snyder
Jul 18 at 18:00
27
27
@NoahSnyder that sounds oddly specific...
– Mark Omo
Jul 18 at 23:20
@NoahSnyder that sounds oddly specific...
– Mark Omo
Jul 18 at 23:20
14
14
That’s not actually intended to be the exact story of a particular paper (mine or others), but more a realistic amalgam of different stories of mine and others.
– Noah Snyder
Jul 18 at 23:36
That’s not actually intended to be the exact story of a particular paper (mine or others), but more a realistic amalgam of different stories of mine and others.
– Noah Snyder
Jul 18 at 23:36
4
4
I second the suggestion to consider contacting the author. You should have a low threshold for doing that.
– Mark Foskey
Jul 19 at 2:14
I second the suggestion to consider contacting the author. You should have a low threshold for doing that.
– Mark Foskey
Jul 19 at 2:14
21
21
@NoahSnyder this hits home. I think this happens more than people think.
– nimcap
Jul 19 at 7:35
@NoahSnyder this hits home. I think this happens more than people think.
– nimcap
Jul 19 at 7:35
|
show 7 more comments
Not all peer-reviewed papers are solid, and not all non peer-reviewed papers are unsolid.
Judge for yourself.
Seriously, sometimes people cannot be bothered to fight with reviewers about minutia, relevance, impact, significance; worse, sometimes people have a problem to get a paper published in a journal that later proves to be seminal to a field. The story of Schechtman comes to mind (or also some colleague from my own field who wrote an absolutely central paper for my field which took several years to get published in a peer-reviewed journal).
If it is an experimental paper and hard for you to verify, you may tread more carefully, but anything that's theoretical and in your reach to check for yourself is worth consideration if you need it.
answered Jul 19 at 9:30
Captain EmacsCaptain Emacs
25.9k9 gold badges61 silver badges92 bronze badges
add a comment
|
Not all peer-reviewed papers are solid, and not all non peer-reviewed papers are unsolid.
Judge for yourself.
Seriously, sometimes people cannot be bothered to fight with reviewers about minutia, relevance, impact, significance; worse, sometimes people have a problem to get a paper published in a journal that later proves to be seminal to a field. The story of Schechtman comes to mind (or also some colleague from my own field who wrote an absolutely central paper for my field which took several years to get published in a peer-reviewed journal).
If it is an experimental paper and hard for you to verify, you may tread more carefully, but anything that's theoretical and in your reach to check for yourself is worth consideration if you need it.
answered Jul 19 at 9:30
Captain EmacsCaptain Emacs
25.9k9 gold badges61 silver badges92 bronze badges
add a comment
|
Not all peer-reviewed papers are solid, and not all non peer-reviewed papers are unsolid.
Judge for yourself.
Seriously, sometimes people cannot be bothered to fight with reviewers about minutia, relevance, impact, significance; worse, sometimes people have a problem to get a paper published in a journal that later proves to be seminal to a field. The story of Schechtman comes to mind (or also some colleague from my own field who wrote an absolutely central paper for my field which took several years to get published in a peer-reviewed journal).
If it is an experimental paper and hard for you to verify, you may tread more carefully, but anything that's theoretical and in your reach to check for yourself is worth consideration if you need it.
answered Jul 19 at 9:30
Captain EmacsCaptain Emacs
25.9k9 gold badges61 silver badges92 bronze badges
Not all peer-reviewed papers are solid, and not all non peer-reviewed papers are unsolid.
Judge for yourself.
Seriously, sometimes people cannot be bothered to fight with reviewers about minutia, relevance, impact, significance; worse, sometimes people have a problem to get a paper published in a journal that later proves to be seminal to a field. The story of Schechtman comes to mind (or also some colleague from my own field who wrote an absolutely central paper for my field which took several years to get published in a peer-reviewed journal).
If it is an experimental paper and hard for you to verify, you may tread more carefully, but anything that's theoretical and in your reach to check for yourself is worth consideration if you need it.
answered Jul 19 at 9:30
Captain EmacsCaptain Emacs
25.9k9 gold badges61 silver badges92 bronze badges
edited Jul 21 at 14:07
answered Jul 19 at 9:30
Captain EmacsCaptain Emacs
25.9k9 gold badges61 silver badges92 bronze badges
answered Jul 19 at 9:30
Captain EmacsCaptain Emacs
25.9k9 gold badges61 silver badges92 bronze badges
answered Jul 19 at 9:30
Captain EmacsCaptain Emacs
25.9k9 gold badges61 silver badges92 bronze badges
25.9k9 gold badges61 silver badges92 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
As others mentioned, there can be various reasons.
Perelman only published his proof of the Poincare conjecture as preprints. It was enough for everybody to hear about his proof, so why bother?:-)
Mochizuki only published his proof of the abc conjecture as preprints (to be more precise, he also published it several years later in a journal where he was the editor-in-chief, if I am not mistaken). In this case, the extra reason was the proof was too complicated, so nobody could referee it :-) (I am cutting some corners:-) )
answered Jul 20 at 15:36
akhmeteliakhmeteli
6633 silver badges10 bronze badges
"he also published it several years later in a journal where he was the editor-in-chief, if I am not mistaken" you are mistaken—there was a rumour they had been accepted to appear in such a journal, but it didn't happen. The papers are still not published, and only a small group of people accept Mochizuki's proof as doing what he says it does.
– David Roberts
Jul 22 at 7:09
@DavidRoberts : Thank you. So this is also a "clean" example:-)
– akhmeteli
Jul 22 at 14:01
add a comment
|
As others mentioned, there can be various reasons.
Perelman only published his proof of the Poincare conjecture as preprints. It was enough for everybody to hear about his proof, so why bother?:-)
Mochizuki only published his proof of the abc conjecture as preprints (to be more precise, he also published it several years later in a journal where he was the editor-in-chief, if I am not mistaken). In this case, the extra reason was the proof was too complicated, so nobody could referee it :-) (I am cutting some corners:-) )
answered Jul 20 at 15:36
akhmeteliakhmeteli
6633 silver badges10 bronze badges
"he also published it several years later in a journal where he was the editor-in-chief, if I am not mistaken" you are mistaken—there was a rumour they had been accepted to appear in such a journal, but it didn't happen. The papers are still not published, and only a small group of people accept Mochizuki's proof as doing what he says it does.
– David Roberts
Jul 22 at 7:09
@DavidRoberts : Thank you. So this is also a "clean" example:-)
– akhmeteli
Jul 22 at 14:01
add a comment
|
As others mentioned, there can be various reasons.
Perelman only published his proof of the Poincare conjecture as preprints. It was enough for everybody to hear about his proof, so why bother?:-)
Mochizuki only published his proof of the abc conjecture as preprints (to be more precise, he also published it several years later in a journal where he was the editor-in-chief, if I am not mistaken). In this case, the extra reason was the proof was too complicated, so nobody could referee it :-) (I am cutting some corners:-) )
answered Jul 20 at 15:36
akhmeteliakhmeteli
6633 silver badges10 bronze badges
As others mentioned, there can be various reasons.
Perelman only published his proof of the Poincare conjecture as preprints. It was enough for everybody to hear about his proof, so why bother?:-)
Mochizuki only published his proof of the abc conjecture as preprints (to be more precise, he also published it several years later in a journal where he was the editor-in-chief, if I am not mistaken). In this case, the extra reason was the proof was too complicated, so nobody could referee it :-) (I am cutting some corners:-) )
answered Jul 20 at 15:36
akhmeteliakhmeteli
6633 silver badges10 bronze badges
answered Jul 20 at 15:36
akhmeteliakhmeteli
6633 silver badges10 bronze badges
answered Jul 20 at 15:36
akhmeteliakhmeteli
6633 silver badges10 bronze badges
answered Jul 20 at 15:36
akhmeteliakhmeteli
6633 silver badges10 bronze badges
6633 silver badges10 bronze badges
"he also published it several years later in a journal where he was the editor-in-chief, if I am not mistaken" you are mistaken—there was a rumour they had been accepted to appear in such a journal, but it didn't happen. The papers are still not published, and only a small group of people accept Mochizuki's proof as doing what he says it does.
– David Roberts
Jul 22 at 7:09
@DavidRoberts : Thank you. So this is also a "clean" example:-)
– akhmeteli
Jul 22 at 14:01
add a comment
|
"he also published it several years later in a journal where he was the editor-in-chief, if I am not mistaken" you are mistaken—there was a rumour they had been accepted to appear in such a journal, but it didn't happen. The papers are still not published, and only a small group of people accept Mochizuki's proof as doing what he says it does.
– David Roberts
Jul 22 at 7:09
@DavidRoberts : Thank you. So this is also a "clean" example:-)
– akhmeteli
Jul 22 at 14:01
"he also published it several years later in a journal where he was the editor-in-chief, if I am not mistaken" you are mistaken—there was a rumour they had been accepted to appear in such a journal, but it didn't happen. The papers are still not published, and only a small group of people accept Mochizuki's proof as doing what he says it does.
– David Roberts
Jul 22 at 7:09
"he also published it several years later in a journal where he was the editor-in-chief, if I am not mistaken" you are mistaken—there was a rumour they had been accepted to appear in such a journal, but it didn't happen. The papers are still not published, and only a small group of people accept Mochizuki's proof as doing what he says it does.
– David Roberts
Jul 22 at 7:09
@DavidRoberts : Thank you. So this is also a "clean" example:-)
– akhmeteli
Jul 22 at 14:01
@DavidRoberts : Thank you. So this is also a "clean" example:-)
– akhmeteli
Jul 22 at 14:01
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f133502%2fhow-should-i-interpret-a-promising-preprint-that-was-never-published-in-a-peer-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
