Modern mathematical journals—and many academic publications—have adopted stringent, highly structured editorial policies that some may perceive as overly bureaucratic or overly formal. However, there are several reasons behind these developments:

1. Ensuring High Standards and Fairness: As the volume of submissions increases and research becomes increasingly specialized, journals are compelled to establish robust processes that guarantee quality. Detailed guidelines help ensure that manuscripts are reviewed fairly, that ethical issues (such as plagiarism and conflicts of interest) are minimized, and that every submission meets defined standards. This drive for consistency often leads to a proliferation of detailed administrative rules.

2. Enhancing Transparency and Accountability: Academic communities, institutions, and even funding bodies constantly scrutinize the modern publishing landscape. Clear, structured policies lend transparency to the review and decision-making processes. While such rules may appear bureaucratic, they are designed to make reproducible decisions and protect authors and reviewers by articulating expectations at every stage—from submission and review to revision and eventual publication.

3. Adapting to Digital and Global Contexts: With the shift to digital submissions and online peer-review systems, journals have had to adopt standardized procedures that efficiently handle manuscripts across disparate regions and time zones. The digital infrastructure requires precise formatting, accurate metadata, and adherence to international standards. While sometimes burdensome, these technical requirements help streamline the flow of information and ensure that the papers are accessible to the global research community.

4. Responding to the Evolving Academic Climate: There is growing awareness of issues such as bias, research misconduct, and the need for reproducibility in science. In mathematics—where clarity and rigor are highly valued—editors often implement detailed protocols to ensure that reviews are constructive and that published results maintain the highest standards of scholarship. In this context, what may seem like excessive bureaucracy is often considered a necessary safeguard in a more challenging and competitive publishing environment.

5. Publisher and Institutional Pressures: Many editors operate within larger publishing houses or academic institutions that impose their own corporate guidelines. These overarching regulations are sometimes designed with a one-size-fits-all approach, applying equally to fields as different as experimental biology and pure mathematics. As a result, editors in mathematical journals might inherit bureaucratic practices that, while well-intentioned, seem particularly ill-suited when compared to the traditionally more flexible and exploratory nature of mathematical research.

In addition to what has been said above, there are some highly questionable rules. These are:

1) High fees and publication processing charges: Some journals charge high fees and publication processing charges, making it difficult for authors to afford them.

2) Wrong decision by editors: There is a mistaken tendency among some editors to reject articles based on the opinions of reviewers without hearing the authors' views on the reviewers' assessments, who often possess qualifications and experience higher than those of the reviewers.

Dear Prof. Pedraza,

Thank you very much for your detailed explanations.

Because of my poor English, I cannot write such a nice things.

However, at a later time I should like to collect and list the most

irritating features about publication procedures.

Now, I shall only mention that in 2019 a Consent to Publish

form (to print out, fill in, and scanned back) was only 2 pages

long.

While, nowadays a Publishing Agreement form

is 10 pages long, for a Chapters in an Edited Book at the same

world famous publisher.

With best regards,

Arpad Szaz