Randomly Generated Math Article Accepted By 'Open-Access' Journal

For all those upholding the/. tradition of not reading the article, here are the concerns voiced by the reviewer in the acceptance letter and the 'authors' responses to them :

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 Rathke

has 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:

1. The referee?s objection is well taken; indeed, the abstract has not the slightest thing to do with the content of the paper.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 [!].

5. 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.

Bummer.

Also it seems that author declined to pay the $500 it would cost to publish the paper, hmmm...

Source: http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotScience/~3/RxRCK3-8I0w/randomly-generated-math-article-accepted-by-open-access-journal

sports illustrated westminster dog show 2012 words with friends words with friends phlebotomy dog show best in show