Math journal peer review criticized: slow, unqualified, nepotistic; some disagree
roydanroy · x · 2026-08-01
A tweet criticizes the pure math journal system: reviewers take aeons to respond, barely check papers, are often insufficiently knowledgeable, reject based on illegitimate reasons, rubber-stamp friends' papers, have inconsistent standards, and are unpaid. Another user replies that their experience is quite the opposite except for the first part.
More from Fun
- Developer Recreates Musk's Original Blastar Game After Asking Grok for Ideas — Kyrannio · 2026-08-01
- Domingos Jokes: Which AI Will Win the Fields Medal First? — pmddomingos · 2026-08-01
- Obscure Math Theorems Become a Big Deal When Proven by AI — pmddomingos · 2026-08-01
- Developer Builds Collaborative AI Dream Generator with Local Diffusion Models on MacBook — MatthewWSiu · 2026-08-01
- Gary Marcus offers $1M bet against Musk's claim that Optimus will outperform human surgeons by 2029 — anshulkundaje · 2026-08-01
- AI Video Generation Fail: Teardown of a 5-Second Shot Ignoring Prompts — Kyrannio · 2026-08-01