Would a new result in pre-print be considered by reviewers? [D]

“`html

A Reddit user posed a question related to the handling of preprints by reviewers. The scenario described involves a paper with an elephant in the room-some significant issue or result that was not addressed initially. However, upon checking the arXiv version, it was discovered that this issue had been resolved in a subsequent update.

For reviewers, this raises questions about how to handle such situations: should they consider the preprint as complete and ignore the elephant due to its inclusion in the final version? Or should they insist on seeing all issues addressed before giving a positive review?

– This question highlights the evolving nature of peer review practices in an era where research is rapidly disseminated through preprints.
– It underscores the importance of transparency and diligence in maintaining rigorous scientific standards despite the speed at which knowledge evolves.
– The debate points to the need for clearer guidelines on how to handle updates or corrections in submitted manuscripts, especially when they occur after initial submission but before final review.