# Mathgen paper accepted!

I’m pleased to announce that Mathgen has had its first randomly-generated paper accepted by a ~~reputable~~ journal!

On August 3, 2012, a certain Professor Marcie Rathke of the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople submitted a very interesting article to Advances in Pure Mathematics, one of the many fine journals put out by Scientific Research Publishing. (Your inbox and/or spam trap very likely contains useful information about their publications at this very moment!) This mathematical tour de force was entitled “Independent, Negative, Canonically Turing Arrows of Equations and Problems in Applied Formal PDE”, and I quote here its intriguing abstract:

Let \(\rho = A\). Is it possible to extend isomorphisms? We show that \(D'\) is stochastically orthogonal and trivially affine. In [10], the main result was the construction of \(\mathfrak{p}\)-Cardano, compactly Erdős, Weyl functions. This could shed important light on a conjecture of Conway-d’Alembert.

The full text was kindly provided by the author and is available as PDF.

After a remarkable turnaround time of only 10 days, on August 13, 2012, the editors were pleased to inform Professor Rathke that her submission had been accepted for publication. I reproduce here (with Professor Rathke’s kind permission) the notification, which includes the anonymous referee’s report.

Dear Author,

Thank you for your contribution to the Advances in Pure Mathematics (APM). We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript:

ID : 5300285

TITLE : Independent, negative, canonically Turing arrows of equations and problems in applied formal PDE

AUTHORS :Marcie Rathkehas been accepted. Congratulations!

Anyway, the manuscript has some flaws are required to be revised:

(1) For the abstract, I consider that the author can’t introduce the main idea and work of this topic specifically. We can’t catch the main thought from this abstract. So I suggest that the author can reorganize the descriptions and give the keywords of this paper.

(2) In this paper, we may find that there are so many mathematical expressions and notations. But the author doesn’t give any introduction for them. I consider that for these new expressions and notations, the author can indicate the factual meanings of them.

(3) In part 2, the author gives the main results. On theorem 2.4, I consider that the author should give the corresponding proof.

(4) Also, for proposition 3.3 and 3.4, the author has better to show the specific proving processes.

(5) The format of this paper is not very standard. Please follow the format requirements of this journal strictly.Please revised your paper and send it to us as soon as possible.

The author has asked me to include her responses to the referee’s comments:

- The referee’s objection is well taken; indeed, the abstract has not the slightest thing to do with the content of the paper.
- The paper certainly does contain a plethora of mathematical notation, but it is to be hoped that readers with the appropriate background can infer its meaning (or lack thereof) from context.
- It is indeed customary for a mathematical paper to contain a proof of its main result. This omission admittedly represents a slight flaw in the manuscript.
- The author believes the proofs given for the referenced propositions are entirely sufficient [they read, respectively, “This is obvious” and “This is clear”]. However, she respects the referee’s opinion and would consider adding a few additional details.
- On this point the author must strenuously object. The \(\LaTeX\) formatting of the manuscript is perfectly standard and in accordance with generally accepted practice. The same cannot be said of APM’s required template, which uses Microsoft Word [!].
Professor Rathke is pleased that the referee nevertheless recommends the paper be accepted, since clearly these minor differences of opinion in no way affect the paper’s overall validity and significance.

However, in spite of this good news, there is a mundane difficulty which will apparently prevent the article’s publication. As an open access journal, APM naturally imposes a “processing charge” on its authors, which for this paper would amount to US$500.00. Unfortunately, due to recent budgetary constraints at the U. of S.N.D. at H., Professor Rathke finds that her research funds are insufficient to meet this expense. It therefore appears that APM’s estimable readership, and the mathematical community at large, will sadly be deprived of seeing the fruits of Professor Rathke’s labor in print.

Bummer.