|
| ▲ | mahogany 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| No, it's not how math works at all. Math is not experimental science. Results take years to formulate and are generally known to be true by colleagues via correspondence and seminars before a paper is even written. Retraction is very rare. I don't know why people are talking about something like this that they are clearly not familiar with. |
|
| ▲ | moregrist an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Most good scientists work hard to prove results to themselves before going public. Peer review is then done _in private_ before publication as a check on quality and significance. Retracting a paper is pretty embarrassing. And not considered science as usual. |
| |
| ▲ | nimonian 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The greatest proof ever written by man, Andrew Wiles' FLT, was published with a flaw before being retracted and reworked. It's _completely_ normal in mathematics to find flaws in the argument. That's what peer review in mathematics is _for_. Besides which it's not clear if these papers are considered published or preprint since they appear in no journal, so it's not really a retraction. It's also very very normal to post preprints on Arxiv before peer review, so it's not the case that mathematics is kept private during review. | |
| ▲ | rpdillon an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Retraction is after publication and peer review, no? |
|
|
| ▲ | dwattttt an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes. A researcher who achieves a reputation of making mistakes carries that reputation. |
|
| ▲ | idiotsecant 37 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| No, scientists check their work before releasing it. Slop is still slop if you wrap it up as an academic result. |
