4 ms·

We need a lot more peer review for academic papers.

• Jtsummers 5y ago
  From the tweet linked by gberger, it seems this was rejected but ended up in the publish queue by error. Sounds like a procedural error, I'm curious what their process looks like now.
  • bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    Luckily the AIs we will be able to build now that P = NP means that this kind of error can be caught by the machines in the future.
• 542458 5y ago
  The paper in question was desk rejected. This isn’t a failure of peer review, it’s a clerical error.
  • DrBenCarson 5y ago
    Or the author did solve P=NP, saw the rejection, and then broke the journal’s security to prove it was actually solved.
  • omaranto 5y ago
    Does "desk-rejected" mean it was rejected by an editor who decided the paper was so wrong it wasn't even necessary to get a referee report? (I am familiar with the scientific publication process being a mathematician, but have never seen the term "desk-rejected" before, it may be a CSism.) EDIT: Huh, "desk-rejected" is a common term not just in CS but also in medicine and other fields. It means, as I thought, rejected by an editor without even getting a referee report. I do think even though that thing does happen in math, the term "desk-rejection" is not used.
    • paulddraper 5y ago
      > Does "desk-rejected" mean it was rejected by an editor who decided the paper was so wrong it wasn't even necessary to get a referee report? Yep.
    • shusaku 5y ago
      Just an FYI, desk rejected can happen even for a good paper if the editor doesn’t see it as being in the scope of the journal. But in this case you’re surely right.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]