[throwawaygh]

"garbage" and "fraud" are really strong words.

I would give the actual work behind this paper a "strong accept" if the claims were properly scoped, perhaps with a weak/borderline score on "significance/impact" since I'm not really sure why anyone cares about discovering discovering these sorts of identities. Probably a Conditional Accept in its current form because of the mismatch between actual results + reasonable expectation of potential vs. what's claimed.

So, "over-hyped" and "claims wildly out of line with actual results" are definitely more than fair statements. "Fraud" or "garbage" are way too strong.

Re: Nature, I don't really understand it or care. I can say that in my own input to hiring committees I tend to treat Nature papers in CS/Math as red flags unless they're consolidations of a bunch of other work published in top sub-field journals/conferences.

For some reason Nature really loves these "automated discovery of random mathematical facts" type of papers. I don't understand it. I tend to assume it's click-through-rate-driven editorial decision making.

[_8091149529]

I appreciate your views otherwise, but I did not use or imply "fraud" in my comment(s).

[throwawaygh]

No, I know. I was referring to other comments on this story. I think garbage is also strong.