Steven Krantz, Ph.D., professor of mathematics in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, said that it is becoming more difficult to verify proofs today and that the concept of the proof has undergone serious change over the course of his 30-plus years career....Today, many mathematical papers claiming proof of a solved problem often are posted on a non-peer-reviewed, preprint server called arXiv, located at Cornell University and approved by the American Mathematical Association. "I think that arXiv is a great device for dissemination of mathematical work, " Krantz said. "But it is not good for archiving and validation. The reason that arXiv works so well is that there is no refereeing. You just post your work and that is it. Furthermore, those interested in certain subject areas are automatically notified of new postings. The work gets out there quickly, and it's free. Everybody has access to arXiv. But there is no peer review. "Publishing is a process that involves vetting, editing, and several other important steps. We must keep that issue separate from dissemination. And dissemination is important in its own right. But it's a separate issue."...
Krantz's discussion [at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Annual Meeting, February 16-20 in St. Louis] revolved around an old topology problem, and was titled: The Poincare conjecture: Proved or Not? The Poincare Conjecture, named after French mathematician Henri Poincare (1854-1912), states that a three-dimensional manifold with the homotopy of the sphere is the sphere....Poincare posed the question in 1904, but it has only been in the past three years that any headway has been made on solving it. Krantz referred to the work of Richard Hamilton, Ph.D., of Columbia University, and Grisha Perelman, Ph.D., of the Steklov Institute in St. Petersburg, Russia, especially three of Perelman's papers posted on the preprint server arXiv, though unpublished elsewhere. "The new proof of the Poincare conjecture has proved to be quite robust," said Krantz , who cautioned that he's not primarily a topologist, but a fellow mathematician and interested observer who also has authored more than one hundred peer-reviewed journal articles and numerous books and other writings. "People have been discussing it now for more than two years, and many believe it to be correct. The ICTP News has in fact announced in its 20/6/2005 newsletter, that the Poincare conjecture is now proved. Period." But Krantz went on to note that Perelman has given a series of public lectures on the proof, but that he has not submitted the papers on arXiv for publication anywhere, even after Krantz himself, the editor of The Journal of Geometric Analysis, has offered to publish anything that Perelman would like to say, but he has not responded to Krantz's offer....
Krantz's concern is that a new generation of mathematicians might follow this paradigm for proofs, and that an older generation will become disenfranchised and discouraged. "I can only hope that this program to prove the Poincare conjecture is not a new paradigm for doing mathematics," he said. "I am a great fan of computer proofs, of proofs by modeling, of proofs by simulation, and of proofs by experiment. I like all proofs, but a mathematical proof is a recorded piece of text that others can study and validate. I think that one of the most important aspects of our discipline is verification and archiving. The new program to prove the Poincare conjecture thus far is sorely lacking in this respect. It is counterproductive, it is irresponsible, and in the end it is discouraging for us all. I think that we can do better."
Comment. Krantz is right that arXiv is primarily an access or dissemination service, not a vetting or peer-review service. I'm aware that some physicists and mathematicians believe that the most important kind of vetting takes place independently of journals, and prior to journal submission, in preprint exchanges and their associated discussions. Whether that kind of vetting is adequate or inadequate is a good question. I won't weigh in on that except to point out that it's a question about the adequate or preferable forms of peer review, not the value arXiv or the nature of open access.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 2/19/2006 10:09:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
