« | Home | »

Stochastically Orthogonal

Tags: |

When Alan Sokal tricked Social Text into publishing a nonsensical parody of postmodernist criticism, he thought the journal’s failure to spot that the article was a hoax revealed a shocking lack of intellectual rigour. John Sturrock, writing about it in the LRB, noted that Social Text exists in a different realm of discourse from Nature and that Sokal’s contribution, for all its faults, was a ‘jauntily expressed’ piece of ‘extreme provocation’, and as Sokal knew, the kind of thing that Social Text existed to promote. Well yes, but, as legions of letter writers responded, don’t things you publish sort of have to make sense?

Last month That’s Mathematics! reported another landmark event in the history of academic publishing. A paper by Marcie Rathke of the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople had been provisionally accepted for publication in Advances in Pure Mathematics. ‘Independent, Negative, Canonically Turing Arrows of Equations and Problems in Applied Formal PDE’ concludes:

Now unfortunately, we cannot assume that

It is difficult, as a non-specialist, to judge the weight of that ‘unfortunately’. Thankfully, the abstract is a model of concision:

Let ρ = A. Is it possible to extend isomorphisms? We show that D&#180 is stochastically orthogonal and trivially affine. In [10], the main result was the construction of p-Cardano, compactly Erdős, Weyl functions. This could shed important light on a conjecture of Conway–d’Alembert.

Baffled? You should be. Each of these sentences contains mathematical nouns linked by the verbs mathematicians use, but the sentences scarcely connect with each other. The paper was created using Mathgen, an online random maths paper generator. Mathgen has a set of rules that define how papers are arranged in sections and what kinds of sentence make up a section and how those sentences are made up from different categories of technical and non-technical words. It creates beautifully formatted papers with the conventional structure, complete with equations and citations but, alas, totally devoid of meaning. Nate Eldredge – the blogger behind That’s Mathematics! – wrote Mathgen by adapting SCIgen, which does something similar for computer science. Papers generated by SCIgen have been accepted for publication at academic conferences and journals that claim to carry out peer review.

Eldredge reprints the acceptance letter from Advances in Pure Mathematics, including the comments of the anonymous peer reviewer, who tried to come up with ways in which the paper could be improved before publication. The result is another kind of nonsense, not much worse than the standard bureaucratic crap academics routinely churn out:

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 reorganise the descriptions and give the keywords of this paper.

The paper justifies one of its propositions with the assertion that ‘this is clear.’ The reviewer complains: ‘The author has better to show the specific proving processes.’

Neither Marcie Rathke nor the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople is willing to pay the ‘processing charges’ levied by Advances in Pure Mathematics, so we will never know if the work would actually have made it to publication. Academic journals depend on peer review to ensure the rigour and value of submissions. The less prestigious the journal, the harder it is to find competent reviewers and the lower they will have to set the threshold, until at some point we arrive at, essentially, accept-all-comers vanity publishing. The murkier the business model and the lower the standards outside the mainstream, the harder it is for academics to challenge the status of the prestige journals, locking academics into the situation Glen Newey describes.

Comments on “Stochastically Orthogonal”

  1. zaslav says:

    Thank you for providing this story and the link to the original post, as I’m a mathematician who gets e-mails from “Advances in Pure Mathematics” and its sister publications, requesting submissions. I’m now confident I know how reputable those journals are. If I’m asked for editorial assistance, I’ll know how to reply.

  2. DrDavidTaylor says:

    “Advances in Pure Mathematics” is published by a shadowy outfit called Scientific Research Publishing that uses a U.S. post office box address, but has a web site registered in China. Among its other bizarre features, it seems to have published issues of journals that contain little more than articles that have already been published elsewhere, just one among a number of features that have led commentators to label this a scam. The trick is, of course, that they charge you a packet for publication, well beyond what legitimate ‘paper’ journals sometimes charge.

    • masomenos says:

      Having co-authored and edited many legitimate papers with Chinese colleagues, I coould tell from the syntax and word choice of the “reviewer” quoted above that he/she is Chinese!

  3. geoffrey.frasz says:

    Readers of this article should have been tipped off to the parodic nature of the piece by the academic home of the author. The USND@H is also the home of “Professor” Peter Schickele, The “discoverer” of the works of PDQ Bach.

  4. James Savik says:

    I think that it is telling that higher mathematics has become so complex that it takes some very serious knowledge of the subject matter to sort out the fakes. I read a lot of journal articles from the Astronomical Journal and the Astrophysical Review and honestly, outside my area of interest, I wouldn’t know whether an article was simply out of my field or a fake.

    I can’t blame the editors of these publications. The material presented is so complex that only a few hundred people on the planet can actually follow them.

    I wonder how many iterations of the bogus paper generator it would take to create a real breakthrough completely by accident and whether anyone would know it or not.

  5. Thomas Jones says:

    Ten days on, the LRB blog has just received its first dodgy call for papers from a ‘broad-base open access journal publisher. We cover all areas of scientific researches and we welcome the submission of manuscript(s) with a significance and scientific excellence.’

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • deano on Stoke and Copeland: Neoliberal economic policies were designed to benefit the very richest alone, at the expense of everybody else. This latest justification being put ar...
    • Rikkeh on Stoke and Copeland: Exactly. The elephant curve shows us that neoliberalism has, in economic terms, been fairly benign for the world's poorest 10%, been hugely benefi...
    • suetonius on Stoke and Copeland: A few thoughts. One, the left needs to go back to it's roots. "One Big Union." No more defense of Western privilege. We're all in this together. ...
    • wearytruth on Stoke and Copeland: "Corbyn’s stated mission in leading Labour is to offer a break with the past and create an economy for the many, not the few." That was MY stated...
    • Ouessante on Stoke and Copeland: Stoke: Cons+UKIP 49.1%, Lab 37.1%. Saved only by a split vote. Hardly cause for Lab rejoicing I think. They should be very worried.

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

Advertisement Advertisement