The referees at a top field offered an R&R and asked me to do an extension which really challenged my math skills. I pulled it off though, at least I thought so. The second round report is another R&R, saying something like:
"The author invokes unknown and probably wrong results from real analysis. I seriously doubt (s)he ever passed it and if so, it most certainly was with a B. Given this, the author has no business submitting to a top field journal. I will accept a revision only under the condition that the author takes a real analysis course and gives proof in the updated version of the paper of having passed it with an A"
Can this be the work of the RA troll?
