3 ms·

> Acceptance of the work in Publications of the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences (RIMS) — a journal of which Mochizuki is chief editor, published by

> Acceptance of the work in Publications of the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences (RIMS) — a journal of which Mochizuki is chief editor, published by the institute where he works at Kyoto University That's exceptionally bad optics.

timkam 7y ago
I agree, not necessarily because publishing in a journal one is involved in is uncommon, but rather because putting one's work there although this work is disputed in the community clearly signals that one has not managed to build consensus and does not want/is not able to fight the good fight. If it was an incremental addition to well-established work that hardly anyone in the community can dispute, it would be a different story.
- cwzwarich 7y ago
  It would also be extremely strange to publish a result like a proof of the ABC conjecture in a third-tier journal where you are an editor (actually, the editor-in-chief) rather than a top-tier journal.
battery_cowboy 7y ago
From TFA: > Mathematicians often publish papers in journals where they are editors. As long as the authors recuse themselves from the peer-review process “such a case is not a violation of any rule, and is common”, says Hiraku Nakajima, a mathematician at the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe in Tokyo formerly part of Publications of RIMS’s editorial board. Mehrmann confirms that this would not violate EMS guidelines. > Kashiwara said that Mochizuki had recused himself from the review process, and had not attended any of the editorial board meetings about the paper. The journal has previously published papers from other members of the journals’ editorial board, he said.
- lisper 7y ago
  Speaking as someone who used to make a living by publishing (though not in mathematics): the problem with this is that even though you may have recused yourself, everyone who is still in the room knows that you will be passing judgement on their papers at some point in the future. So recusal does not entirely remove the potential for conflict of interest.
  - jessriedel 7y ago
    The claim isn't that there was no bias, the claim is that this degree of bias is not unusual for the field.

timkam 7y ago

I agree, not necessarily because publishing in a journal one is involved in is uncommon, but rather because putting one's work there although this work is disputed in the community clearly signals that one has not managed to build consensus and does not want/is not able to fight the good fight. If it was an incremental addition to well-established work that hardly anyone in the community can dispute, it would be a different story.

cwzwarich 7y ago
It would also be extremely strange to publish a result like a proof of the ABC conjecture in a third-tier journal where you are an editor (actually, the editor-in-chief) rather than a top-tier journal.

battery_cowboy 7y ago

From TFA: > Mathematicians often publish papers in journals where they are editors. As long as the authors recuse themselves from the peer-review process “such a case is not a violation of any rule, and is common”, says Hiraku Nakajima, a mathematician at the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe in Tokyo formerly part of Publications of RIMS’s editorial board. Mehrmann confirms that this would not violate EMS guidelines. > Kashiwara said that Mochizuki had recused himself from the review process, and had not attended any of the editorial board meetings about the paper. The journal has previously published papers from other members of the journals’ editorial board, he said.

lisper 7y ago
Speaking as someone who used to make a living by publishing (though not in mathematics): the problem with this is that even though you may have recused yourself, everyone who is still in the room knows that you will be passing judgement on their papers at some point in the future. So recusal does not entirely remove the potential for conflict of interest.
- jessriedel 7y ago
  The claim isn't that there was no bias, the claim is that this degree of bias is not unusual for the field.