"Collatz 3x+1 Conjecture Proved!" Publication
Submissions History
1) The
manuscript "Collatz
3x+1 Conjecture Proved!" at
http://www.oocities.org/collatz_conjecture_proved/submitted_to_ams_bulletin.pdf
was first submitted to the Bulletin of the American Mathematical
Society on 29 March 2007
and got this immediate rejection:
Lesson
#1: To aspiring authors, before
submitting your manuscript to some
journal for possible publication, read their publication policy first
— what types of papers they accept for publication — to avoid
immediate rejection for being "not suitable for publication in the
journal".
2) The
manuscript "Collatz
3x+1 Conjecture Proved!" at
http://www.oocities.org/collatz_conjecture_proved/submitted_to_maa_amm.pdf
was next submitted to the Mathematical
Association of America's American
Mathematical
Monthly on 25 April 2007.
Acknowledgment of receipt by American
Mathematical Monthly:
Rejection e-Mail by American Mathematical Monthly:
Lesson
#2: It is particularly important to
distinguish between a research or
expository manuscript. Some journals accept for publication
both types of paper.
3) The
manuscript "Collatz
3x+1 Conjecture Proved!" at
http://www.oocities.org/collatz_conjecture_proved/submitted_to_ams_transactions.pdf
was next submitted online to the Transactions
of the American Mathematical Monthly on
5 May 2007.
Acknowledgment of receipt by Transactions of the American
Mathematical Society:
Rejection e-Mail by
Transactions of the American Mathematical Society:
Motion for Reconsideration (no response from Transactions of AMS):
Lesson
#3: At the time of this writing,
the Transactions of AMS journal has a
backlog of 12 issues — indubitably, this is a reflection of the lack
of competence and the very poor efficiency of its present editors.
Since these incompetent and inefficient editors will not voluntarily
resign their elated positions so that capable ones can take their
place, just choose other journals to submit your papers.
4) The
manuscript "Collatz
3x+1 Conjecture Proved!" at
http://www.oocities.org/collatz_conjecture_proved/submitted_to_lms_jcm.pdf
was next submitted online to the London
Mathematical Society's Journal of
Computation
and Mathematics on 6 May 2007.
Rejection
e-Mail by Journal
of Computation and Mathematics:
The
LMS-JCM's referee's
report is at
http://www.oocities.org/collatz_conjecture_proved/lms_jcm_referee_report.pdf.
Motion for
Reconsideration to LMS-JCM:
The
"Author's
Refutation of Reviewer's Objections" is at http://www.oocities.org/collatz_conjecture_proved/author_refutation_of_reviewer_objections.pdf.
Rejection e-Mail
by LMS-JCM to Motion for Reconsideration:
Response to
Rejection by LMS-JCM of Motion for Reconsideration:
Lesson
#4: Be aware that a journal would
protect their anonymous referee
at all costs — without priority-regard
for a fair and accurate peer
review process. The analysis (even though blatantly flawed) of
their "expert" anonymous
reviewer is accepted just like a pope's
infallible dogma.
The use of anonymous
referee is an inherent flaw in the current
practice of peer review by distinguished journals. The absolute
reliance and blind acceptance by the journal editors to whatever
evaluation their so-called "expert"
anonymous referee declares
truthfully reflects the editors' lack of self-confidence — taking
into consideration that the simple arguments in the submitted
paper involves only elementary mathematics that is suitably
understandable by even just a good high school student (that
is, the reasoning requires no "expertise" higher than proficiency
in high school mathematics for its approval or refutation).
5) The manuscript "Collatz 3x+1
Conjecture Proved!" at
http://www.oocities.org/collatz_conjecture_proved/submitted_to_aims_erams.pdf
was next submitted online to the
American Institute of Mathematical Sciences' Electronic
Research Announcements in Mathematical Sciences on 24 May 2007 and got this
immediate acknowledgment:
Rejection e-Mail by Electronic Research Announcements in Mathematical Sciences:
Response to AIMS-ERAMS Rejection:
Appeal to AIMS-ERAMS Editors Barry Mazur and Timothy Gowers:
Lesson
#5: An editorial board is a
collegial (mutually respectful) body
— it is
to be expected that other members of the board will not respond
to an author's appeal of the motu propio rejection by one of its
editorial board members.
Response by (Anonymous Referee) Professor Jeffrey Lagarias:
Lesson
#6: A truly respectable anonymous referee
will not hesitate — in the
interest of "mathematical justice"
— to come out in the open to
reveal his "secret"
identity and admit "reviewer's
confusion".
Clarification of the AIMS-ERAMS editorial process:
Thanks for Clarification of the AIMS-ERAMS editorial process:
Lesson
#7: It is not sensible to further
argue with a "clarification"
by an editor
who rejected your submitted paper.
However, in the online Web
Submission Form of AIMS-ERAMS, the author is provided with the
choice of editor to whom the paper would be submitted. From the
AIMS-ERAMS Initial Submission webpage, it is declared that
"All
papers are reviewed, and recommendations by the
editor are put before the editorial board for final approval."
The recommendation of an editor might
be to accept or to reject
some submitted paper — in any case, it is put before the editorial
board for final approval [that is, either rejection or acceptance
(the latter requires concurrence by
all of the editorial board
members but the former does not)].
Rejection e-Mail by AIMS-ERAMS of Motion for Reconsideration:
Professor Doron Zeilberger of Rutgers University
mathematics journals and anonymous referees in his Opinions Nos. 3, 61 and 77.Well, dear readers, YOU DECIDE!
My research paper
Collatz 3x+1 Conjecture Proved!
has been submitted to the Journal of Integer Sequences.
You might also want to read the following work-in-progress manuscripts:
Collatz 3x+1 Conjecture Proof in
Detail
(Appendix: The Collatz 3x+1 Syndrome and
Flimflams in the Foundations of Mathematics)
BenCawaling@Yahoo.com [19 June 2007]