4 ms·
The paper in question was desk rejected. This isn’t a failure of peer review, it’s a clerical error.
by 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 agoOr the author did solve P=NP, saw the rejection, and then broke the journal’s security to prove it was actually solved.
- omaranto 5y agoDoes "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 agoJust 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.