Stefan Friedl of the University of Cologne writes with the news that he has gotten a Mathgen paper accepted by *Journal of Algebra and Number Theory Academia*. (Yes, that’s really the name of the journal; it was nominated for Clunkiest New Journal Title of 2010.)

Friedl’s masterpiece is entitled “On the uniqueness of prime, Jacobi functors”; you can read the manuscript (PDF). Its abstract:

Let $\delta^{(\Omega)} \le i$ be arbitrary. Every student is aware that every factor is independent. We show that $\bar{f}$ is co-trivial and extrinsic. In this context, the results of [32] are highly relevant. On the other hand, in [32], the authors address the reversibility of additive scalars under the additional assumption that there exists a compactly semi-Monge locally symmetric monodromy.

The anonymous referee’s report offers unqualified praise for this magnificent paper:

I have gone through the paper. It is a good paper. In my view the results obtained are original, new and interesting. This paper may trigger further research in the direction of work.

Clarity: This paper is well-written and well-presented.

Literature: The authors’ references to the literature seem adequate.

Interest: Readers of the journal will find this paper interesting.

Recommendation: I recommend that this paper be accepted for publication in the Journal for Algebra and Number Theory Academia.

Unlike *Advances in Pure Mathematics*, JANTA is not an open-access journal but is available only by subscription; current subscription rates are US\$300 per year (6 issues). They do, however, require that the author pay an “article processing charge” of US\$20 per page. Friedl also points out that JANTA is indexed by Zentralblatt, a well-respected review database.

Congratulations to Stefan for his successful work!

thanks Nate for this wonderful program and your blog.

Your program gave me countless hours of happiness.

Also, I feel like your program is the only subject which truly understands my talents. Phrases in the paper like

“S.Friedl’s derivation of irreducible systems was a

milestone in higher homological topology” and

“S.Friedl’s characterization

of locally dependent, covariant paths was a milestone in topology”

are priceless.

Thanks again.

Wonderful. But why is there no TheoGen? No program for automatically generating theology treatises?

A terrible oversight.

Surely it should be possible to write a computer program where you input property X, and the program generates sophisticated theological proofs that God has property X. Example: X = existence.

Pingback: Engineering, Fake Math and Republican attempts to steal political power. « blueollie

Someone (with more courage than me) should conduct an experiment with several “recently created” mathematical journals to check whether or not they accept this sort of papers. Then, the list of those journals that accept them should be published somewhere.

Screw JANTA. I want to publish in the Bangladeshi Journal of Singular Set Theory (see the references)!

it’s interesting to look at the editorial board of JANTA. It names 13 people, some of whom are mathematicians who actually proudly state that they are editors on their webpages. For example Angel Garrido writes on his webpage

http://www.telefonica.net/web2/angabu/

that he is

“MIEMBRO DEL EDITORIAL BOARD de la importante revista científica JANTA”

Editor 12 is definitely the best one on the list.

Pingback: MathGen – Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it

At what point is the $20/pp paid? Please say “never”.

sadly budget constraints prevent me from paying the charge, so to the great loss of the mathematical community this paper will never appear

Zentralblatt no longer indexes this journal. (Follow the link.)

I’ve read the comments about JANTA on this website. Of course that some wrongs has been done in this journal. But I think that this wrongs are because of editor of the paper. Editor should be careful and if the paper has the procedure of an article writing, then editor must send the paper to two referees at least. From time to time, we see that some referees can not read the papers and they accept the paper. Really it is not ethic. By the way, JANTA has appointed me as an Editor-in-chief of the journal. On this, i am doing some revisions in the journal and extending the part of editors, many authors (H. M. Srivastava(Canada), M. E. H. Ismail (USA), A. Bagdasaryan (Russia), V. Gupta (India), Y. He (China), I. Mezo (Hungary),…) has accepted my invitation to serve as an editor in the journal. And we removed the page charges, namely, the journal has been “free of charge”. This useful revisions will be done very soon in the journal. We are now in recostructing improvement of the quality of the Journal. We will do our best to improve the quality of the Journal. If you have suggestions except for our revisions in the journal, please contact to me (via: mtsrkn@hotmail.com) and share your suggestions with me.

“Literature: The authors’ references to the literature seem adequate.”

Um… the paper has references with authors like this:

“T. Anderson.”

I guess Anderson is a common name, but it’s also the name of a famous logician http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Ross_Anderson.

“[4] P. Cauchy.”

No one has ever heard of a Cauchy in mathematics have they???

“Q. Dedekind, P. Descartes, and S. Anderson.”

Nor a Dedekind or Descartes???

“L. Descartes. Non-Standard Calculus. Prentice Hall, 2010.”

One might say that R. Descartes actually wrote such a book, maybe that’s a stretch also, but in 2010??? And so on…

“I. Einstein.”

“T. Fermat and V. d’Alembert.”

” I. Harris and W. Fourier.”

” W. Kepler”

“V. Galileo.”

“X. Lie.”

“T. N. Newton,”

Pingback: Artículos de investigación matemática generados aleatoriamente | Mathema

Any chance that this paper is from MathGen? :3 On a Simpler, Much More General and Truly Marvellous Proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem (I) http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=62803

I actually took the time to read the entire paper just to have a laugh. Funnily enough, in the conclusion, near the end, it states: “It is well known that the Riemann Hypothesis holds”.