11 found
Order:
See also
Line Edslev Andersen
Aarhus University
  1.  45
    Acceptable Gaps in Mathematical Proofs.Line Edslev Andersen - 2020 - Synthese 197 (1):233-247.
    Mathematicians often intentionally leave gaps in their proofs. Based on interviews with mathematicians about their refereeing practices, this paper examines the character of intentional gaps in published proofs. We observe that mathematicians’ refereeing practices limit the number of certain intentional gaps in published proofs. The results provide some new perspectives on the traditional philosophical questions of the nature of proof and of what grounds mathematical knowledge.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  2.  11
    Mathematicians Writing for Mathematicians.Line Edslev Andersen, Mikkel Willum Johansen & Henrik Kragh Sørensen - forthcoming - Synthese:1-18.
    We present a case study of how mathematicians write for mathematicians. We have conducted interviews with two research mathematicians, the talented PhD student Adam and his experienced supervisor Thomas, about a research paper they wrote together. Over the course of 2 years, Adam and Thomas revised Adam’s very detailed first draft. At the beginning of this collaboration, Adam was very knowledgeable about the subject of the paper and had good presentational skills but, as a new PhD student, did not yet (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3. On the Nature and Role of Peer Review in Mathematics.Line Edslev Andersen - 2017 - Accountability in Research 24 (3):177-192.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  4.  5
    The Role of Testimony in Mathematics.Line Edslev Andersen, Hanne Andersen & Henrik Kragh Sørensen - forthcoming - Synthese:1-12.
    Mathematicians appear to have quite high standards for when they will rely on testimony. Many mathematicians require that a number of experts testify that they have checked the proof of a result p before they will rely on p in their own proofs without checking the proof of p. We examine why this is. We argue that for each expert who testifies that she has checked the proof of p and found no errors, the likelihood that the proof contains no (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  25
    Reporting the discovery of new chemical elements: working in different worlds, only 25 years apart.K. Brad Wray & Line Edslev Andersen - 2020 - Foundations of Chemistry 22 (2):137-146.
    In his account of scientific revolutions, Thomas Kuhn suggests that after a revolutionary change of theory, it is as if scientists are working in a different world. In this paper, we aim to show that the notion of world change is insightful. We contrast the reporting of the discovery of neon in 1898 with the discovery of hafnium in 1923. The one discovery was made when elements were identified by their atomic weight; the other discovery was made after scientists came (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  12
    Detecting Errors That Result in Retractions.Line Edslev Andersen & K. Brad Wray - forthcoming - Social Studies of Science.
    We present a taxonomy of errors in the scientific literature and an account of how the errors are distributed over the categories. We have developed the taxonomy by studying substantial errors in the scientific literature as described in retraction notices published in the journal Science over the past 35 years. We then examine how the sorts of errors that lead to retracted papers can be prevented and detected, considering the perspective of collaborating scientists, journal editors and referees, and readers of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7. Outsiders Enabling Scientific Change: Learning From the Sociohistory of a Mathematical Proof.Line Edslev Andersen - 2017 - Social Epistemology 31 (2):184-191.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8.  2
    Retractions in Science.K. Brad Wray & Line Edslev Andersen - 2018 - Scientometrics 117 (3):2009-2019.
    Retractions are rare in science, but there is growing concern about the impact retracted papers have. We present data on the retractions in the journal Science, between 1983 and 2017. Each year, approximately 2.6 papers are retracted; that is about 0.34% of the papers published in the journal. 30% of the retracted papers are retracted within 1 year of publication. Some papers are retracted almost 12 years after publication. 51% of the retracted papers are retracted due to honest mistakes. Smaller (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9.  1
    The Uneven Space of Scientific Collaboration: Agnieszka Olechnicka, Adam Ploszaj and Dorota Celińska-Janowicz: The Geography of Scientific Collaboration. London and New York: Routledge, 2019, Ix + 226 Pp, £95 HB. [REVIEW]Line Edslev Andersen - 2019 - Metascience 28 (3):459-461.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10. Community Beliefs and Scientific Change: Response to Gilbert.Line Edslev Andersen - 2017 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 6 (10):37-46.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11. Teaching Reader Engagement as an Aspect of Proof.Henrik Kragh Sørensen, Kristian Danielsen & Line Edslev Andersen - 2019 - ZDM 51 (5):835-844.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark