Frontiers of Computer Science published a flawed paper claiming to resolve P vs NP and declined to retract it despite objections from leading theorists. This points to breakdowns in editorial standards and post-publication correction.
— It undermines trust in journal gatekeeping and strengthens the case for alternative credibility systems like preprints and open review.
Scott Alexander
2025.10.13
67% relevant
The grant-backed tool’s early finding—5/92 published papers with irregularities and ensuing corrections—reinforces evidence that journal gatekeeping misses serious problems and that post‑publication, systemic checks may be needed, echoing concerns raised by high‑profile peer‑review failures.
D. Paul Sullins
2025.08.20
50% relevant
By arguing a controversial, widely denounced paper holds up under robustness audits while other celebrated studies do not, it questions journal gatekeeping and strengthens the case for alternative credibility mechanisms like open robustness maps and post‑publication reanalysis.
Scott
2025.08.14
100% relevant
Aaronson reports the paper and the editor-in-chief’s refusal to retract after complaints by Eric Allender and Ryan Williams.
Scott
2025.06.28
65% relevant
Unlike the flawed 'P vs NP' episode, this advance arrives with a Coq-verified proof from the BBchallenge team member 'mxdys,' showing machine checking and open collaboration as a stronger alternative credibility mechanism for complex results.