PAPER: The Mapping of the Main Functions and Different Variations of YH-DIE

I initially wrote this paper as a way to practice $\LaTeX$ and, at the same time, to playfully tease my friend Yuheng.

PDF DRAFT

BACKGROUND STORY

Abstract

YH-DIE must have continuity. Given the basic algebraic clusters of homogeneous configurations, we can get the basic three equations:
$\int_{0}^{{x}_{i}} \frac{G\left({{x}_{i}, s}\right)}{\left({{x}_{i} - s}\right)^{\alpha}} \varphi\left(s\right) ds = f\left({{x}_{i}}\right)$
$\frac{\partial}{\partial {x}_{i}} \left( \frac{{\partial}_{{x}_{i}} G}{\sqrt{1 + \left| \nabla G \right|^2}} \right) = 0$
${i} = \sum_{{x}_{i} = 1}^{\infty} \arccos \varphi\left({{x}_{i}}\right) = f\left(\fbox{${Yuh}$}\right)$
Mapping on multidimensional algebraic clusters or manifolds is very special. The minimal surface equation is a special case. YH-DIE has become a fusion point and access point in the fields of algebraic geometry and partial differential equations.

As Yuanjue Chou, I feel compelled to document this rather extraordinary (and, frankly, absurd) sequence of events surrounding my recent foray into the landscape of predatory journals, an arena often deemed worthy of derision, yet one whose bottom line I recently decided to test—purely for the sake of fulfilling a rather idiosyncratic, year-old 'flag' I had set for myself: to author a paper naming a theorem after a certain peer (a fictional one, naturally, given the context) and submitting it for review. This endeavor, I admit, was initially driven by a capricious impulse to engage in what I termed "playing games with predatory journals" and to puncture their supposed veneer of scholarly rigor.

After a period of, shall we say, extensive and eclectic literature acquisition—a process where inspiration seemed to descend upon me—I successfully concocted the abstract and introduction. My initial attempt at typesetting, regrettably, was performed on a mobile device using verbtex, and due to a failure to save, the work was lost. I subsequently reconstructed the manuscript on a computer, taking the opportunity to experiment with LuaTeX for typesetting. Once finalized, I submitted the work to preprints (as losing access to my edu email precluded an arXiv submission). Those with an interest in this particular exercise in academic parody may view the preprint here: https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202008.0578.v1.

The initial sentiment attached to the preliminary version of this work was, perhaps, best captured by the cryptic French phrase left appended: Il nous montre une correspondance subtile et fine, comme venue du vide (It shows us a subtle and fine correspondence, as if coming from the void).

The Initial Rejection by AMS (A Moment of Clarity)

Driven by the spirit of this amusement, I submitted the manuscript to the American Mathematical Society (AMS), specifically targeting the Proceedings of the AMS. Predictably, I received a rejection, and with astonishing rapidity—less than a day after reaching the editor. The content of this rejection letter, addressed to a Professor Mason (a name I adopted for my persona), is quite instructive:

Dear Professor Mason,

I regret that I must inform you that your manuscript The Mapping of the Main Functions and Different Variations of YH-DIE has not been recommended for publication in the Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society.

It is not clear what problem is addressed in your manuscript. If you are convinced that you are pursuing a real problem and wish to continue to pursue publication, then you should have someone else (for instance a mathematically literate friend or colleague, or perhaps a mathematician at a local university) read your manuscript and give you suggestions for improving the readability. You should submit your manuscript again to a journal only if that person is able to understand your manuscript well enough to certify its correctness.

If you are a first-time mathematics author, you might also try reading online advice such as that available at http://research.microsoft.com/~cohn/Thoughts/advice.html.

There is no need to reply to this message.

Sincerely, Yuan Xu Editor of Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society

Reflecting upon this initial verdict, and comparing it to the subsequent "acceptance" into the predatory realm, I must concede that the AMS editor was being entirely genuine. The critique that the manuscript failed to clearly delineate the addressed problem is precisely what one would expect from a rigorous peer review process. My abstract, I later recognized, was likely too oblique, arguably failing to "introduce the main idea" as robustly as required.

The Unforeseen "Success" and Its Aftermath

Following this, I submitted the work to a publication styling itself as Advances in Pure Mathematics (APM)—a journal, I must note, that appears to be associated with SCIRP, a well-known entity in the domain of predatory publishing.

To my profound astonishment, after what was described as a "long" and "meticulous" peer review process, this paper was gloriously accepted by APM. The editorial decision seemed to convey an acceptance without any request for further textual modifications, leading me to surmise that the editors were either themselves uniquely insightful individuals capable of discerning profound meaning where none was explicitly provided, or perhaps, they were simply content with the $699 processing fee.

The comments upon acceptance—which I append here as a testament to the bizarre reality of this engagement—suggested the paper was meaningful, despite its perceived youth as a research object:

The research is meaningful and I recommend it to be published in the journal. However, you should pay more attention to the followings.

1. The "Abstract", it should be rewritten and the following should be included. (1) The purpose of the research; (2) What you have done in the research; (3) Research results.
2. The first section, the “Introduction”, the section should be rewritten and the followings should be included. (Details omitted for brevity, but largely addressing structure, background, and listing problems.)
3. The first section, the “Introduction”, the formula in it should be numbered. ... (Further detailed formatting requirements regarding numbering, figure legends, and equation editing follow.)

This list of required revisions, while pedantic in their formatting strictness, paradoxically validated my initial suspicion that the initial rejection by AMS was due to lack of clarity, not lack of substance (however specious that substance may be). The APM editor, under the guise of "review," was essentially providing a set of instructions for making the paper look like a standard submission, implicitly acknowledging the lack of standard presentation in the initial submission.

The final twist came with the processing fee. Despite the paper's gravitas (or perhaps precisely because of it), APM, as an open-access journal, required a $699 handling fee. Regrettably, the alleged Principal Investigator, Dr. Gilbert Mason, discovered that his research funds were inadequate to cover this expense. Thus, the entire mathematical community, and indeed, the readership of APM, were apparently deprived of the right to peruse this 'masterful' achievement. Such a pity.

A Subsequent Revelation and Final Polish

The situation took another turn many months later. In February 2022, I revisited this entire farce, primarily to apply the requested formatting changes, now that I had access to the necessary funds (or rather, was exploiting external resources for this purpose, including a temporarily available edu email for potential re-submission elsewhere).

The published result, which appeared in Advances in Pathological Mathematics (a deliberate editorial modification evident in the document's header, changing from Pure to Pathological Mathematics, and the adoption of a DOI from the preprint server), was a spectacular indictment of the publishing landscape:

• The journal logo was altered from the SCIRP emblem to something more fittingly "pathological" (Figure 1, page 12).
• The structure of authorship was refined to include my persona (Mason, Chou, and Pind), with the fictitious Princeton addresses becoming appropriately dubious.
• The paper itself contained glaring internal inconsistencies and outright fabricated mathematical objects, such as the "Yuheng Operator" (YHO) and the titular "YH-DIE."

This entire episode serves as a stark illustration of the precarious state of scholarly validation today. One begins with an act of satire, aiming at the lax standards of predatory publishing, only to have the effort technically "succeed" in that venue, necessitating a return to the editorial comments to impose the very structure that genuine scholarship requires—and then being thwarted by an administrative fee. It is a Sisyphean task conducted entirely for amusement. My apologies to the editor at the AMS for the initial insult of a poorly written abstract; I realize now that even in absurdity, clarity demands a certain level of presentation.