Quoting from http://www.lib.uni-bonn.de/PhiMSAMP/Data/Book/PhiMSAMP-bk_GeistLoeweVanKerkhove.pdf http://www.lib.uni-bonn.de/PhiMSAMP/Data/Book/PhiMSAMP-bk_Ge...

Quoting from http://www.lib.uni-bonn.de/PhiMSAMP/Data/Book/PhiMSAMP-bk_GeistLoeweVanKerkhove.pdf http://www.lib.uni-bonn.de/PhiMSAMP/Data/Book/PhiMSAMP-bk_Ge... : > Mathematicians disagree about the amount of detail checking that has to be done by the referees. While some (few) mathematicians think that checking the correctness of the proofs is the main task of the referee, others disagree with this and consider mathematical correctness the problem of the author rather than that of the referee. It later quotes an editor: > There are situations where almost nothing needs be checked (e.g., the results come from a seminar where the results were checked, or I see the paper is not too good and then it is useless to check details, or the author is well-known and it is his concern to submit a correct paper). There are situations when I insist to check all the procedures (e.g., when it concerns good results from a less known author). See how it's assumed that the author's reputation is used as a proxy for the quality of the paper? It also quotes an opinion piece by Nathanson: > Many great and important theorems don't actually have proofs. They have sketches of proofs, outlines of arguments, hints and intuitions that were obvious to the author (at least, at the time of writing) and that, hopefully, are understood and believed by some part of the mathematical community. But the community itself is tiny. In most fields of mathematics there are few experts. [. . .] In every field, there are `bosses' who proclaim the correctness or incorrectness of a new result, and its importance or unimportance. Sometimes they disagree, like gang leaders fighting over turf. In any case, there is a web of semi-proved theorems throughout mathematics. and it reports questionnaire results sent to math journal editors asking if they require verification of all of the proof, or only partial verification: "six editors thought that the referee should check all proofs in detail; five thought that the referee should check some proofs in detail", and one of he six actually commented "but to be reasonable, I am happy when I find a referee doing [the latter]." These comments seem to contradict the statement that "peer review is actually where you verify results". Also, not all non-math/science papers involve "verification through experimentation." It's hard to verify through experiment a report of the neutrino interactions observed from supernova 1987A.