Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Significant Figures in Calculations

Significant Figures in Calculations

Uncertainty in measurements can be avoided by reporting the results of a calculation with the correct number of significant figures. This can be determined by the following rules for rounding numbers:

Proofreading

Proofreading

Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test

Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test

When one or more data points appear far from the rest of the data, there is a need to determine whether they are outliers and whether they should be eliminated from the data set to ensure an accurate representation of the measured value. In many cases, outliers arise from gross errors (or human errors) and do not accurately reflect the underlying phenomenon. In some cases, however, these apparent outliers reflect true phenomenological differences. In these cases, we can use statistical methods...

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...

Numerical Calculations

Numerical Calculations

In engineering applications, the representation of the numerical value is critical. Presenting or reporting the answer is one of the essential parts of engineering practices. Numerical calculations are performed using handheld calculators or computers since numerically accurate answers are always preferred.
The solution to a problem is obtained using different methods. While manually solving algebraic symbols is one of the most common methods, the graphical method is often preferred. Computers...

Propagation of Uncertainty from Random Error

Propagation of Uncertainty from Random Error

An experiment often consists of more than a single step. In this case, measurements at each step give rise to uncertainty. Because the measurements occur in successive steps, the uncertainty in one step necessarily contributes to that in the subsequent step. As we perform statistical analysis on these types of experiments, we must learn to account for the propagation of uncertainty from one step to the next. The propagation of uncertainty depends on the type of arithmetic operation performed on...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same journal

The Changing Concept of Actionability in Precision Medicine.

Social studies of science·2026

Same journal

Making Microplastics Matter: Classification, Politics and the Lives of Microplastics as Environmental Objects.

Social studies of science·2026

Same journal

Reframing Trust in Citizen Science: Comparative Insights From Two German Initiatives.

Social studies of science·2026

Same journal

The Nine Lives of Trap-Neuter-Return in the Canary Islands.

Social studies of science·2026

Same journal

Money-Work: Science Funding as Relational Socioeconomics.

Social studies of science·2026

Same journal

Attending to 'Computational Universalism': Practices, Frictions, Events.

Social studies of science·2026

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 15, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

Checking correctness in mathematical peer review.

Christian Greiffenhagen^1,2

¹The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.

Social Studies of Science

|September 30, 2023

Summary

Mathematical peer review, while not guaranteeing correctness, is valued by mathematicians for adding certainty to proofs. Acceptance of results also depends on community consensus and time, not just initial publication.

Keywords:

certainty error mathematics peer review proofs replication scientific community

More Related Videos

Multimedia Battery for Assessment of Cognitive and Basic Skills in Mathematics BM-PROMA

Multimedia Battery for Assessment of Cognitive and Basic Skills in Mathematics BM-PROMA

Published on: August 28, 2021

Author Spotlight: Biological Standardization to Ensure Reproducibility and Harmonization in Research

Author Spotlight: Biological Standardization to Ensure Reproducibility and Harmonization in Research

Published on: August 4, 2023

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 15, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

Multimedia Battery for Assessment of Cognitive and Basic Skills in Mathematics BM-PROMA

Multimedia Battery for Assessment of Cognitive and Basic Skills in Mathematics BM-PROMA

Published on: August 28, 2021

Author Spotlight: Biological Standardization to Ensure Reproducibility and Harmonization in Research

Author Spotlight: Biological Standardization to Ensure Reproducibility and Harmonization in Research

Published on: August 4, 2023

Area of Science:

Mathematics
Scholarly Communication

Background:

Mathematics relies on deductive proof, unlike empirical natural sciences.
Despite the ideal of replicability, mathematical literature contains errors.
Verifying mathematical proofs is complex and challenging.

Purpose of the Study:

To investigate the role and perception of peer review in mathematics.
To understand how mathematicians assess the correctness and certainty of published results.

Main Methods:

Analysis of 95 qualitative interviews with mathematics journal editors.
Examination of over 100 referee reports and peer review correspondence.

Main Results:

Mathematicians acknowledge peer review doesn't guarantee correctness but still value it for increased certainty.
Disagreements arise during peer review regarding proof validity and significance.
Community acceptance and time are crucial for validating mathematical results, beyond initial peer review.

Conclusions:

Peer review in mathematics provides a valuable layer of scrutiny, enhancing confidence in results.
The mathematical community plays a vital role in establishing the validity and acceptance of proofs.
Publication in peer-reviewed journals is a necessary but insufficient step for full acceptance of mathematical findings.