Пришел ответ из Canadian Journal of Math.
Feb. 17th, 2020 06:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
posicСтатья про матлисовские эквивалентности категорий для эпиморфизма колец отвергнута. Два главных редактора пишут:
We received brief comments from an external expert, as well as the two attached reports. As you'll see, the referees had differing views on the paper, and one of them recommended acceptance.
It was hard to come to a decision on the paper, particularly as the referee who provided more context for and discussion of your results was more positive, and the negative report is rather terse. However, in the end, after discussions between ourselves and with our editorial board, we have decided that the paper is not suitable for CJM. We receive a lot of strong papers these days and find ourselves faced with such difficult choices.
Краткий рецензент пишет:
The main results in this article are interesting. <...>
The article is well written and contains many technical results. However, I think these results are still not strong enough to fulfill the standard of the Canadian Journal of Mathematics. The article may be publishable and suitable for a more specialized journal.
Подробный рецензент пишет:
<...>
Although rather technical in general, the results of the paper are interesting for specialists in Ring Theory, Representation of Algebras and Homological Algebra and, as far as I could check, the mentioned results are correct and non-trivial. In addition, the paper is well-written and only needs a minor revision. I recommend its publication in Canad. J. Math. once the authors take into account the following comments: <...>
We received brief comments from an external expert, as well as the two attached reports. As you'll see, the referees had differing views on the paper, and one of them recommended acceptance.
It was hard to come to a decision on the paper, particularly as the referee who provided more context for and discussion of your results was more positive, and the negative report is rather terse. However, in the end, after discussions between ourselves and with our editorial board, we have decided that the paper is not suitable for CJM. We receive a lot of strong papers these days and find ourselves faced with such difficult choices.
Краткий рецензент пишет:
The main results in this article are interesting. <...>
The article is well written and contains many technical results. However, I think these results are still not strong enough to fulfill the standard of the Canadian Journal of Mathematics. The article may be publishable and suitable for a more specialized journal.
Подробный рецензент пишет:
<...>
Although rather technical in general, the results of the paper are interesting for specialists in Ring Theory, Representation of Algebras and Homological Algebra and, as far as I could check, the mentioned results are correct and non-trivial. In addition, the paper is well-written and only needs a minor revision. I recommend its publication in Canad. J. Math. once the authors take into account the following comments: <...>
