Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

3
  • Thank you for taking the time to explain incentives behind the reviewer's possible actions. I address one of your points in the comments to David White's question. Commented Apr 18 at 22:47
  • 2
    @mechanodroid it sounds like the reviewer rejected your paper because your proof is too complicated, and said they found a much simpler proof. While that may be disappointing to you, I don't see this as evidence that the reviewer is doing anything wrong or unethical, or that their decision to recommend rejection was not made in good faith. And since your paper is uploaded to arXiv, you don't need to worry about getting scooped. The thing to do in this situation would be to resubmit to another journal, possibly after first using the feedback you got to improve your paper. Good luck!
    – Dan Romik
    Commented Apr 19 at 4:33
  • Indeed, in this particular case the reviewer has not done anything wrong. My original question asked about the probability of them doing something wrong afterwards. You have adequately answered my question, thank you. Commented Apr 19 at 7:56