Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to Math2.0
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorMark C. Wilson
    • CommentTimeDec 4th 2012
    • (edited Dec 4th 2012)

    Brian Osserman’s Opinion piece http://www.ams.org/notices/201210/rtx121001383p.pdf recommends the 2-stage refereeing procedure, where the first (evaluation) stage is performed by experienced researchers, allowing for quick rejection and the second (correctness, possibly expository improvements) is performed by more junior people who presumably have more time. I am sure I have seen that somewhere before :)

    Ilya Kapovich’s letter to the editor http://www.ams.org/notices/201210/rtx121001384p.pdf worries that there are more errors in published papers than in the past, and little social pressure for researchers and journals to publish proper errata.

    I agree overall with both.