I'm a bit older than most people here. I mention that because it may be relevant.
I'm entirely unfamiliar with the work you mentioned. So, I'm going to use just your description of events and work with that.
I'd say that their work was currently under review. After people have reviewed it and written about it, I'd say it was peer reviewed. Once it had been heavily reviewed, I'd probably say it had been formally peer reviewed.
Had it gone through a journal, I'd simply say it was reviewed prior to publication. After publication would be where I'd call it peer reviewed, after it has been published and commented on. Pre-publication review isn't very rigorous. I really don't put much emphasis on that.
To me, peer review happens post publication. Formal peer review would be when there is enough interest for people to make a concerted effort to replicate and dig deep into the findings to seek flaws. General Relativity would be formally peer reviewed. The paper you mention would be undergoing peer review.
I am not asserting that my thinking is correct. I am mentioning this because I see a difference and I think your use of 'currently' may be very important in understanding this.
In 1970, I would attend a reputable prep school. I would not complete my doctorate until 1991.
So, I suspect you're onto something with your use of 'currently.' If I understand your comment about the proof of the Poincare Theorem correctly, I'd say that it is (likely) being currently peer reviewed.
To try to sum this word salad up, I don't see prepublication review as peer review in the scientific sense. To my mind, that happens after publication and with varied levels of formality.
So, I suspect you're onto something when you mention current usage. Sorry for the novella and rambling nature of my post.
it's ok. Generally if you post a sketchy scientific statement, say, something by an advocate of homeopathy, a common retort will be, "it's not in a peer-reviewed journal". Of course in the vast majority of cases not being in a "peer-reviewed journal" is a sign that the work is shoddy, but those it comes at the expense of elevating the converse statement - that something in a "peer-reviewed journal" is necessarily of good scientific workmanship.
There is a weak connection between being in a "peer-reviewed journal", having undergone sufficient peer review (in the classical sense), and possibly the irony is that the connection is has a negative correlation with profile at the high end. (it's probably positively correlated at the low end).
I'm entirely unfamiliar with the work you mentioned. So, I'm going to use just your description of events and work with that.
I'd say that their work was currently under review. After people have reviewed it and written about it, I'd say it was peer reviewed. Once it had been heavily reviewed, I'd probably say it had been formally peer reviewed.
Had it gone through a journal, I'd simply say it was reviewed prior to publication. After publication would be where I'd call it peer reviewed, after it has been published and commented on. Pre-publication review isn't very rigorous. I really don't put much emphasis on that.
To me, peer review happens post publication. Formal peer review would be when there is enough interest for people to make a concerted effort to replicate and dig deep into the findings to seek flaws. General Relativity would be formally peer reviewed. The paper you mention would be undergoing peer review.
I am not asserting that my thinking is correct. I am mentioning this because I see a difference and I think your use of 'currently' may be very important in understanding this.
In 1970, I would attend a reputable prep school. I would not complete my doctorate until 1991.
So, I suspect you're onto something with your use of 'currently.' If I understand your comment about the proof of the Poincare Theorem correctly, I'd say that it is (likely) being currently peer reviewed.
To try to sum this word salad up, I don't see prepublication review as peer review in the scientific sense. To my mind, that happens after publication and with varied levels of formality.
So, I suspect you're onto something when you mention current usage. Sorry for the novella and rambling nature of my post.