3 ms·
Our preprints are currently in peer review (for different journals, I should add). Nothing terrible has happened yet.
by jonathan_gorard 6y ago
Our preprints are currently in peer review (for different journals, I should add).
Nothing terrible has happened yet.
- 9q9 6y agoWhy didn't you wait with the announcements until after the pre-prints were accepted by reputable journals?
- airstrike 6y agoBecause they don't need to?
- gowld 6y agoBecause they wanted more peer review? Why didn't you wait for approval of your HN comment?
- SkyMarshal 6y agoWhy rely on narrow peer review when you can put the ideas out in public and receive much broader feedback. Most of that feedback will be noise, but the Wolfram crew are certainly able to find the signal in it and use that to improve or fix their ideas.
- abdullahkhalids 6y agoIn a lot of physics areas, things move very fast, so generally people submit to a journal and arXiv simultaneously, in case someone else posts on arXiv first and goes down in history as first. However, rarely are arxiv publications accompanied by such fan fare.
- jfkebwjsbx 6y agoYes, but press releases are only released after papers have been accepted, not only by journals, but overall by the scientific community. Specially for papers that claim new or bold things.
- jonathan_gorard 6y agoIt's relatively common practice in academia to make announcements about results while they're still in pre-print form (particularly given how slow the peer review process is for some journals).
- knzhou 6y agoIt's common practice to "announce" in the sense that you email colleagues about it and give seminars. It's not common practice to do a press blitz, solely directed at an audience that will be unable to criticize it.
- chrisco255 6y agoThe internet is pretty good at criticizing things.
- knzhou 6y agoWell yeah, but a lot of the criticism is baseless. For example, you have people downthread saying things like "this can't be right because it's discrete", or, "it's inherently impossible for a theory of everything to make predictions", and so on. These aren't true at all. Every physicist knows that if you want good criticism, you need to go to people with relevant expertise. That's what peer review is!
- chrisco255 6y agoBut they're doing that too. Given we live in the information age, why the hell not send it out in both a traditional research publication as well as a forum like this one? A lot of smart people out there in the world and if you can get 10,000 geniuses to look it over, who says it won't lead to either better criticisms or expansion of a potentially sound theory into other discoveries?
- 9q9 6y agoI've never announced my papers before they were accepted by a conference or journal (other than putting them on arXiv). I would certainly not let my university's press office mention my work if it was not fully peer reviewed. I've never seen this from my colleagues either.
- craftinator 6y agoI forget what kind of fallacy you're arguing, but it's definitely a fallacy of some sort.
- mnemonicsloth 6y agoRight. Except for all this fanfare. Why is it necessary to celebrate the writing of two papers like this?