Remix.run Logo
▲ crimsoneer an hour ago

This is how science is meant to work.

▲mahogany 15 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 21 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.