Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

These students did absolutely nothing wrong.

They submitted their paper to a well known, well regarded preprint service (arXiv), which is pretty normal for a number of fields.

Then, presumably, the paper would go to peer review. Where one would hope the reviewers would point out a few glaring flaws (like that an SIR model without either the creation of new susceptibles or waning immunity must go to 0 and they are 'dooming themselves to success').

The paper would get rejected, or heavily revised, and the world would keep spinning.

They didn't actually do anything wrong. If you want to blame someone, blame an overexcited media that grabbed something off a preprint server and ran with it, knowing full well arXiv has no 'Is this right' quality checks, and isn't peer reviewed.



> These students did absolutely nothing wrong.

> The paper would get rejected, or heavily revised, and the world would keep spinning.

Which means they did something wrong. Sure it might have been just a mistake, not quite the cardinal sin the GP makes it out to be, but you don't have to publish papers with flawed arguments on ArXiv.

It's one thing to write up a silly LaTeX PDF with wild speculations, put it on your webpage, but you don't need to submit every brainfart to ArXiv either, or do you?


Not being correct is not a sin.

Beyond that, the paper isn't pants-on-head crazy. The objections most people have to it can be solved by adding a single term to one of the equations, and some very straightforward sensitivity analysis.

Which is, you know, exactly the kind of thing pointed out in peer review.


Scientific papers are rarely perfect. Papers are often sent back for revision.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: