>>6475457I guess you didn't need to even read the article to get angry. But for real though, the Math Intelligencer's Viewpoint column should have on no level thrown out this paper. Hill and Tabachnikov were harassed for essentially sharing compiled existing evidence to support their theory. This was not a problem of peer review, since it was being published in the equivalence of an opinion column.
It's a lot easier to argue against the NYJM case, because it is much more prestigious and maybe not an appropriate platform. 2 peers should be fine for an opinion-like piece, but given the scale of what NYJM puts out I would not have expected them to ever accept this paper. It's the fact that both journals were scheduled to publish this article in the first place and were then forced to withdraw their promises that is annoying.
I don't know what steak you have in this fight or if you even read this stuff, but the fact of the matter is that a green-lighted paper was removed from the Intelligencer directly because of its propositions, not validity, was then accepted by a far more prestigious paper because of an angered editor, and then shot down by some even angrier editors. The paper had every reason to be published in the Intelligencer, and a much weaker but still valid case for the NYJM.
There's my little speech. Also, you don't seem like a very agreeable person. Going to go eat lunch now~
