4 ms·
>> This result isn't even peer-reviewed yet. ArXiv pre-prints are pretty normal in physics and math. >> that doesn't have anything to do with the science, it
by account73466 7y ago
>> This result isn't even peer-reviewed yet.
ArXiv pre-prints are pretty normal in physics and math.
>> that doesn't have anything to do with the science, it does say something about the sloppiness of the researcher, I think.
Interesting. BTW, Krasznahorkay is a highly-cited researchers.
- pintable 7y agoSeconded. We treated ArXiv pre-prints incredibly seriously and only posted things when they were already in review/scheduled to be published.
- particleguy 7y ago>> ArXiv pre-prints are pretty normal in physics and math. Correct, and they are usually followed up by a published, peer-reviewed paper as well. I look forward to the day this one also gets reviewed and published. Higgs boson discovery pre-print: https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214 https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214 Higgs boson discovery paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037026931200857X?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037026931... It's essentially the same text. >> BTW, Krasznahorkay is a highly-cited researchers. Great
- gliese1337 7y agoYes, they are normal... but they also aren't even peer-reviewed yet. Ergo, you can treat it as more significant than a random physics crank posting on his blog, but not as trustworthy as something that has in fact been properly vetted.
- SubiculumCode 7y agoAt least in my field, there is an option during journal submission to submit your work automatically to a similar archive.
- ephimetheus 7y agoIt’s actually two Krasznahorkays on this paper. I know one of them, and he’s very thorough.