3 ms·
Are you talking about math/CS theory or a more empirical field like economics or physics? Peer review is not perfect, but to the best of my knowledge long-stand
by majos 7y ago
Are you talking about math/CS theory or a more empirical field like economics or physics? Peer review is not perfect, but to the best of my knowledge long-standing errors in published work are still pretty rare. Especially because incorrect claims, when used, often generate incorrect results. Whereas the "models" aspect of economics and physics is less amenable to "verifying" things.
- btrettel 7y agoEmpirical. I work in fluid dynamics. While I think purely formal fields like math have their advantages (as you point out), I would not be surprised if that literature is less reliable than most people believe. I know from my own experience that even highly cited papers with theoretical models can have surprisingly obvious major problems. Sometimes no empirical data is needed to know that something isn't right. The exact same reasons one might be suspicious of a pure math result can apply here.
- atq2119 7y agoHaving worked in discrete math and theoretical computer science myself, I agree with you especially when it comes to less well known / niche statements. Results that many other people build on tend to be solid though, because building on those results often requires the users to at least partially "reprove" them.