https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/math_9810162/Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.enMon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMThttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34034491urn:hackerpapers:mention:math_9810162:34034491Sun, 18 Dec 2022 02:25:43 GMT<p>I make no claim to peer reviewed journals being better, I simply noted that the linked article asserted that two thirds of arXiv STEM preprints are latter submitted to such journals. &gt; Previous versions such as https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9810162v1 clearly link to the latest withdrawn version, ... Thanks for that note; that appears to apply to a succession of papers that each replace a prior version. The statement made in the linked article that I quoted suggested that papers that are later withdrawn are NOT annotated to identify that have been withdrawn. If we look to the latest version of…</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/math_9810162/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>math.QAhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34034389urn:hackerpapers:mention:math_9810162:34034389Sun, 18 Dec 2022 02:09:13 GMT<p>Previous versions such as https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9810162v1 clearly link to the latest withdrawn version, with text in red and bold at the top. Researchers accustomed to the arxiv don&#x27;t miss it. Peer reviews don&#x27;t catch some important mistakes. It does not guarantee much by itself.</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/math_9810162/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>math.QA