From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:48:45 -0700

David,

While you skillfully described the situation, you have used the word
"verification" too lightheartedly.

In fact, a proper academic publication leaves no gaps, so NO
subsequent verification is needed -- though true, there is a little
chance that the referees miss an error (though rarely a blunder!).

So the arxiv publication, without a proper supervision, I repeat, put
Perelman in a precarious situation where any "as it is well-known"
claims became a prey for the competitors - who subsequently claimed
credit for themselves.

Yes, when the "Millennium" prize was assigned to him, Perelman
objected that Hamilton must be credited as well, but his refusal to
accept the Fields medal was unsubstantiated - he did not explain his
refusal properly.

Ari Belenkiy



On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:20 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: David Groenewegen <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 14:30:47 +1100
>
> I'm not a mathematician, but having read a bit  about this case now, I
> would say that this is an example of the benefits of OA and arxiv
> rather than a cautionary tale. As I understand it:
>
> 1. Perelman made his solution available on arxiv without going through
> the publication process, so that people could see it and verify it
> quickly. He attracted a lot of attention in a short time by doing
> this.
>
> 2. This verification process occurred, but one group of researchers
> tried to claim more credit for their verification than was widely
> considered reasonable. They never denied using his work (so there is
> no priority dispute), just how much credit he should get. This was a
> potential risk even if he had gone through the traditional publication
> process.
>
> 3. Pressure within the mathematics community lead to these researchers
> changing their claims within 6 months and leaving the credit with
> Perelman, who was subsequently offered the most prestigious prize in
> his discipline, the Fields medal.
>
> 4. No-one is sure why he turned down the medal, although the fuss
> about credit seems to have played some part. But it also appears he
> wanted some credit to go to a fellow mathematician whose work he built
> on, and that he just didn't like the attention that came with it. He
> turned down several prestigious jobs before any of this happened.
>
> In summary - ground-breaking work available much quicker than might
> otherwise have happened, peer review done openly, proper person got
> credit. Science wins.
>
>
> DAVID GROENEWEGEN
> Director, Research
>
> Library
> Monash University
> Information Services Building
> Wellington Road
> Clayton VIC 3168
> AUSTRALIA
>
> E: [log in to unmask]
> @groenewegendave
> monash.edu