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.

Originally published at reddit.com. Curated by AI Maestro.

Stay ahead of AI. Get the most important stories delivered to your inbox — no spam, no noise.