> I think she should have resubmitted it, but I think it says volumes about the problems of peer review that PCG is a widely known algorithm, widely discussed

> I think she should have resubmitted it, but I think it says volumes about the problems of peer review that PCG is a widely known algorithm, widely discussed PCG is only "widely discussed" because its inventor has personally and very heavily promoted it. We only have the author's side of the story regarding the review. That it wasn't resubmitted for peer review is a huge red flag. The author has also publicly dismissed (what appears to me to be) valid and well-founded criticism of the algorithm, and made some unsubstantiated and one-sided charges about the academic peer review process. This has more than a faint odor of quackery about it, and that's not good about something as fundamentally important as a PRNG.