Hacker News Reader

Comment by 9q9 | Hacker News Reader

Why didn't you wait with the announcements until after the pre-prints were accepted by reputable journals?

It's relatively common practice in academia to make announcements about results while they're still in pre-print form (particularly given how slow the peer review process is for some journals).

It's common practice to "announce" in the sense that you email colleagues about it and give seminars. It's not common practice to do a press blitz, solely directed at an audience that will be unable to criticize it.

The internet is pretty good at criticizing things.

Well yeah, but a lot of the criticism is baseless. For example, you have people downthread saying things like "this can't be right because it's discrete", or, "it's inherently impossible for a theory of everything to make predictions", and so on. These aren't true at all.

Every physicist knows that if you want good criticism, you need to go to people with relevant expertise. That's what peer review is!

But they're doing that too. Given we live in the information age, why the hell not send it out in both a traditional research publication as well as a forum like this one? A lot of smart people out there in the world and if you can get 10,000 geniuses to look it over, who says it won't lead to either better criticisms or expansion of a potentially sound theory into other discoveries?

I've never announced my papers before they were accepted by a conference or journal (other than putting them on arXiv). I would certainly not let my university's press office mention my work if it was not fully peer reviewed. I've never seen this from my colleagues either.

In a lot of physics areas, things move very fast, so generally people submit to a journal and arXiv simultaneously, in case someone else posts on arXiv first and goes down in history as first.

However, rarely are arxiv publications accompanied by such fan fare.

Yes, but press releases are only released after papers have been accepted, not only by journals, but overall by the scientific community.

Specially for papers that claim new or bold things.

Why rely on narrow peer review when you can put the ideas out in public and receive much broader feedback. Most of that feedback will be noise, but the Wolfram crew are certainly able to find the signal in it and use that to improve or fix their ideas.

Because they don't need to?

Because they wanted more peer review?

Why didn't you wait for approval of your HN comment?

I forget what kind of fallacy you're arguing, but it's definitely a fallacy of some sort.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com