[bmm6o]

It sounds like an interesting result, I look forward to reading the paper more carefully. That said, it's clearly not written for an academic journal. Section 2.4.3 is entitled "The Importance of Code Size", and explains why shorter code is better. I think you can argue that some academic papers are excessively concise, but this is a 58-page paper about an RNG. It is clearly not a journal paper and has a ton of extraneous content. I have to sympathize with the commenter that the author has made a trade-off and written a paper that's less rigorous than it should be (for peer review). I wonder why she didn't write 2 versions.

[wadkar]

> I wonder why she didn't write [two] versions.

Because the reviewers took over 10 months to respond with a rejection mainly citing the length of the paper. And more importantly, "By that point, everyone who might have wanted to read it had almost certainly found it here and done so, so I saw little merit in drastically shortening the paper."[1]

She has updated the blog post which discusses all the nuanced details of the whole affair last month (2017-07-25)[2].

[1] http://www.pcg-random.org/paper.html [2] http://www.pcg-random.org/posts/history-of-the-pcg-paper.htm...

[bmm6o]

There is no excuse for the journal to take so long to provide a response. At the same time, it seems to me that their response was entirely predictable. Or does the journal usually post such long articles directed at a general audience?