Timeline for On discussion of published papers at MO
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:25 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Jun 26, 2015 at 23:02 | comment | added | Joseph O'Rourke | My cited comment was inartfully phrased. I support quid's proposed standard ("If there is a specific question about a specific step in a proof..., then it is on topic."), and TMA's rephrasing of my comment. | |
| Jun 26, 2015 at 14:10 | history | edited | user9072 |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 26, 2015 at 8:05 | comment | added | user9072 | @WillSawin there is this Selected Paper Network one of whose goals seems to be to evaluate papers. (I did not follow this, as I do not think it is a good idea, but then there are many things on the internet I do not consider a good idea.) On your second remark: perhaps M.V. could just do what he'd have done in the "dark ages" before MO. | |
| Jun 26, 2015 at 7:52 | comment | added | user9072 | IMO the question should be still more focused. "My question is in which way these difficulties have been addressed in the current paper." Is a question I would consider acceptable. In any case, even if the general second question is preserved I consider it as better to ask rather "in which way" than "whether." For on thing yes/no questions are rarely good MO questions. | |
| Jun 26, 2015 at 4:04 | comment | added | Will Sawin | If the question is not appropriate to MO, is there an alternate location that might be more appropriate to discuss it? The arguments Misha Verbitsky gives that it is an important question to discuss seem convincing... | |
| Jun 26, 2015 at 1:47 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | I still think a more focussed approach like you outline above would be more in line with MO practive than currently but I hope @MishaVerbitsky comes here to discuss (I'm certainly not going to unilaterally make changes that major). | |
| Jun 26, 2015 at 1:15 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | @DavidRoberts Seems like a good idea. Thanks for taking the initiative. :-) | |
| Jun 26, 2015 at 1:13 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | Ah well, I did it anyway. Forgiveness rather than permission, etc. | |
| Jun 26, 2015 at 1:09 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | @ToddTrimble I think the format above is better than the question as it currently stands. One should link to the journal version of the article primarily, with the current version of the arXiv paper as a backup, if they are the same, or similar enough. Then one should link to a specific old version of the arXiv paper, not just the generic identifier. I hesitate to edit without some sort of consensus, at least with a moderator such as yourself :-) | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 23:43 | answer | added | Timothy Chow | timeline score: 26 | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 23:27 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | @YoavKallus Thanks for the suggestion. I think I might be more inclined to archive such comments at tea.mathoverflow.net (which still exists but doesn't attract too much attention). | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 22:26 | comment | added | Yoav Kallus | I think it will also be appropriate, if the question stands, to remove the non-math discussion from the question's comment section (perhaps keep those comments on record here). | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 19:11 | answer | added | user9072 | timeline score: 24 | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 17:40 | answer | added | The Masked Avenger | timeline score: 15 | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 16:35 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | @NeilStrickland I think there has been some back-and-forth on this. The consensus might be more about evaluating preprints than about papers in (reputable) peer-reviewed journals (which then become part of established literature). Carl's comment brought me back to an earlier 'tea' discussion where some of this was discussed: tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/973/…. | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 16:29 | comment | added | Todd Trimble Mod | @Carl Thanks for that. As might be obvious, in the present post I was leaning more towards the position that I more explicitly took there, so at least there is some consistency of where I seem to stand personally. | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 15:41 | comment | added | user25199 | Todd, you said that published papers are fair game here: meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1265 | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 14:37 | comment | added | Neil Strickland | It was certainly my impression that we had a settled policy of not accepting questions of this general form. I do not have time at the moment to gather references for that, nor do I claim that that policy is necessarily correct, but I think that it has some consensus behind it. | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 14:30 | answer | added | Boris Bukh | timeline score: 30 | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 14:06 | comment | added | Francesco Polizzi | "It is inappropriate to discuss the flaws in a paper in a public forum". Actually, I am one who is perplexed by this stance: after all, a published paper is a public document (well, let's assume it is open-access), so why avoiding a public discussion on it? Criticizing the paper does not necessarily mean criticizing the author! – | |
| Jun 25, 2015 at 12:47 | history | asked | Todd TrimbleMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |