Just a word of caution: Non-peer reviewed, non-replicated, rushed-looking preprint, on a topic with a long history of controversy and retractions. So don’t get too excited yet.
In physics, however, using Latex is absolutely the norm, and on the arxiv it’s also absolutely the norm. That they aren’t using it shows at the very least that they’re out of touch with academic practice. I mean, if their extraordinary claim is true it would be one of the most significant discoveries of the century and pretty much a guaranteed Nobel prize. Therefore you might think they would put at least some amount of effort into presenting their results, such as producing nice looking plots, and, well, using Latex like a normal working physicist. The fact that they don’t doesn’t mean that they’re wrong, but it doesn’t exactly increase their credibility either.
PS: I also just noticed that one of their equations (p. 9 in 2307.12008) literally contains the expression “F(00l)”. Again, maybe they’re just oblivious and didn’t realize that could look like they’re calling us fools, but the extraordinary claims together with the rather unorthodox and low-effort presentation make me very skeptical.
This is fair enough…but still seems odd to judge paper solely based on text editor choice…judging paper based on clear errors in presented information is fair game.
Hi. I hold 3 degrees in engineering. 100% of what you said is wrong.
Latex is the norm in any engineering publication I’ve ever been involved with, be it as author, reviewer, or editor. The ones that do take word do so reluctantly and only in a way they can readily convert to latex later.
Judging a quality of a word based on how a paper looks is perfectly valid. I’m disinclined to trust research by people not willing to put in the minuscule effort of typesetting a paper. What else did they cut corners on?
I would also like to know. Apparently there were some proofreading errors etc. Someone in reddit explained that rushing the publish might be explained by wanting to stake the claim and get the ball rolling on reproducing the results as fast as possible.
Honestly as someone who is also in research, that is pretty understandable. Preprint papers are all subject to peer review and editing after the fact, but are a good opportunity to stake your claim on a big discovery before someone else can. Preprints are inherently not final versions and I guarantee that the mistakes will be caught before publication.
As someone that no longer has access to university library’s journal subscriptions, I very much support publishing these in a openly accessible manner.
Just a word of caution: Non-peer reviewed, non-replicated, rushed-looking preprint, on a topic with a long history of controversy and retractions. So don’t get too excited yet.
Okay so I agree that it needs to be peer reviewed and independently verified before we can trust it. But how exactly does the preprint look rushed?
It’s visibly made in word. That’s enough to be rushed.
Exactly. Most papers I’ve seen out there use LaTeX. This is clearly Microsoft Word.
Depends on the discipline, but yeah, engineering would usually be LaTeX
Most engenee fields use word…many don’t even accept latex…judging quality of work bases on how a paper looks is shallow and irresponsible.
In physics, however, using Latex is absolutely the norm, and on the arxiv it’s also absolutely the norm. That they aren’t using it shows at the very least that they’re out of touch with academic practice. I mean, if their extraordinary claim is true it would be one of the most significant discoveries of the century and pretty much a guaranteed Nobel prize. Therefore you might think they would put at least some amount of effort into presenting their results, such as producing nice looking plots, and, well, using Latex like a normal working physicist. The fact that they don’t doesn’t mean that they’re wrong, but it doesn’t exactly increase their credibility either.
PS: I also just noticed that one of their equations (p. 9 in 2307.12008) literally contains the expression “F(00l)”. Again, maybe they’re just oblivious and didn’t realize that could look like they’re calling us fools, but the extraordinary claims together with the rather unorthodox and low-effort presentation make me very skeptical.
This is fair enough…but still seems odd to judge paper solely based on text editor choice…judging paper based on clear errors in presented information is fair game.
Hi. I hold 3 degrees in engineering. 100% of what you said is wrong.
Latex is the norm in any engineering publication I’ve ever been involved with, be it as author, reviewer, or editor. The ones that do take word do so reluctantly and only in a way they can readily convert to latex later.
Judging a quality of a word based on how a paper looks is perfectly valid. I’m disinclined to trust research by people not willing to put in the minuscule effort of typesetting a paper. What else did they cut corners on?
And it definitely looks it. That is, shitty.
I would also like to know. Apparently there were some proofreading errors etc. Someone in reddit explained that rushing the publish might be explained by wanting to stake the claim and get the ball rolling on reproducing the results as fast as possible.
Honestly as someone who is also in research, that is pretty understandable. Preprint papers are all subject to peer review and editing after the fact, but are a good opportunity to stake your claim on a big discovery before someone else can. Preprints are inherently not final versions and I guarantee that the mistakes will be caught before publication.
As someone that no longer has access to university library’s journal subscriptions, I very much support publishing these in a openly accessible manner.
Have you… seen the… figures?!! Also, the Arxiv listing had a spelling mistake. “First” was spelled as “firs”.