### New Physics and old mentality

Dec. 8th, 2016 01:31 pm**anton_lipovka**

Dear colleagues and friends,

I regret to inform you that some scientific journals do not correspond to real needs of scientific community and humanity in general. Actually the system does not work properly. This situation can not be accepted in our complicate epoch because the cost of such unprofessional “work” will be very high for all of us.

I suggest to your kind attention the referee’s and editor response on my submission. Right now I do not mention the real names, but if you decide that I should do it, I will.

Brief history.

25 October of 2016 I submit my paper to journal XXX .

The paper can be downloaded from ArXiv here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.04596

Five weeks later, I got a response from the journal supplied with reviewer comments.

I would be grateful for any kind of comments and advise.

Editor’s letter:

29-Nov-2016

THE XXX (XXX)

Editor in chief Prof. XXX

Editorial Office, XXX

Dear Prof. Lipovka:

The manuscript ID XXX-16-10-100 entitled "Physics on the adiabatically changed Finslerian manifold and cosmology" which you have submitted to the XXX, has been reviewed. The referee report is enclosed. In view of this report, we very much regret that we cannot publish your paper in "XXX (XXX)".

Thank you for considering XXX for the publication of your research. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts.

Sincerely,

Prof. XXX

Editor in Chief,XXX

Note: If you wish to appeal against this decision, this can be done via your Corresponding Author Dashboard in Manuscript Central. Please note that the appeal procedure is not encouraged and an overturn of the original editorial decision happen very rarely. In their appeal the authors must give detailed reasons for why they believe the original editorial decision was unjustified, addressing explicitly the points raised by the referee(s) and/or the editor(s) in the rejection letter.

If you submit an appeal you have also the option to submit at the same time a revised version of your paper via your Corresponding Author XXX. If no appeal is received by the Editorial Office within two months after this letter has been issued, this file will be closed.

-------------------------------------------------------

Associate Editor's Comments to Author:

Associate Editor

Comments to the Author: (There are no comments.)

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author (if there no comments below, please check the attachments):

Referee: 1

Comments to the Author (see report attached)

Reviewer(s)' Comments:

In the present manuscript the author attempts to give some improved computational approaches for the Planck constant using geometrical elements that he defines i.e. ’’adiabatically changed Finslerian manifold and static Finsler manifold.’’

The complete definition of Finsler geometry and it’s geometrical elements that are necessary for the study of these subjects which are recommended by the author they do not appear in text .In addition to the Maxwell equations in Finsler geometry that are given by the author they are satisfied only under restricted conditions.

Overall the calculations that are given in text for the various constants i.e Planck constant and fine structure constant based on’’ Finsler geometry ‘’ they do not have a competitive advantage compared to other methods. In addition I point out some comments that are listed bellow.

1. It is not justified with a convincing manner the necessity of Finslerian geometrical structure. In the previous paper ref[4] he used the Einstein-Cartan manifold in his approach.It is mentioned in the present text two times firstly in the abstact and secondly on page.2 that he used ‘’adiabatically Finsler manifolds’’ ,paper{4}.

2. In several parts of the text the author does not use the necessary citations to justify his considerations i.e from ‘’On the one hand... until all observational data’’

3. On page 3 In the text is written ‘’....the right hand term contains some adiabatically changed parameters...’’.He does not indicate to which equation he refers.

4. On page 4 It is written after the relation ‘’One can see that due to the expansion of the universe...’’, In that point and later in the text he omits to take into account the FRW equations that are necessary for the study of the evolution of the universe.

5. There are errors in indices of equations which lead to wrong conclusions i.e rel.(55) In its entirety and based on the above mentioned comments the text is inadequate with many mistakes and vague points that are not justified sufficiently with the proper citations Therefore in the present form of the manuscript Ican not give my approval for publication to XXX

*******************************************************************************

My answer to the Editor in chief:

Dear Prof. XXX

Editor in Chief, XXX

I am disappointed with the quality reviewer's work. In my opinion the level of response of the reviewer does not corresponds to the level of the journal and harms its reputation. I am deeply convinced that you (as the editor of the journal) should be more careful in choosing of the reviewers. Moreover I do not understand why there was only one reviewer’s comments are available.

The reviewers’ comments clearly point out his incompetence and carelessness in reading. Below, I will respond in detail in its comments, but right now, let me make some general remarks.

First of all I would like to indicate that the half-page review written for 5 weeks can not be considered as a good result. Let me remind you that my last review in your journal, I have written within two weeks, and it consisted of two pages of justified text.

Secondly as you can see the reviewers’ comments do not contain any argument against the actual scientific results presented in my paper. One gets the impression that the reviewer agree with the results (but then it is unclear why he does not recommend the manuscript for publication with minor corrections), or he simply do not understand the text written by me. I am sure this kind of mistakes could be avoided by using of two independent referees and more attention paid by editor to referees comments.

******************************************************

Now I answer the Reviewer’s Comments.

>>>Rev>>>In the present manuscript the author attempts to give some improved computational approaches for the Planck constant using geometrical elements that he defines i.e. ’’adiabatically changed Finslerian manifold and static Finsler manifold.’’

_________My_answer_________

a) It is not actually “improved” and is not “computational”. It is not an approach. It is theory in which the geometry (gravity) is unified with quantum physics, in which we obtain general equations, explain nature of the cosmological constant. Finally we prove the correctness of the theory, by calculating of the Planck constant from the first principles. It is clearly stated even in the abstract and it is strange that the reviewer did not bother to read it.

b) In our paper we DO NOT consider “static Finsler manifold”. The reviewer should read paper more carefully.

>>>Rev >>>The complete definition of Finsler geometry and it’s geometrical elements that are necessary for the study of these subjects which are recommended by the author they do not appear in text .

_________My_answer_________

The complete definition of Finsler geometry one can find in many textbooks. This geometry was suggested in the beginning of the XX century, more than 100 years ago, and since then it has been written a lot of very good textbooks, (in particular textbook of Rund published in 1959 which I quote in my article). I am deeply convinced that it makes no sense to duplicate the well-known material of available textbooks in the scientific article. You will never find in the papers on quantum field theory some explanations of linear algebra.

>>>Rev >>>In addition to the Maxwell equations in Finsler geometry that are given by the author they are satisfied only under restricted conditions.

_________My_answer_________

I would like to inform the distinguished reviewer that all the equations in physics are sure to be under restricted conditions, or have boundary conditions. Such is the nature. Without boundary or initial conditions equations make no sense.

>>>Rev >>>Overall the calculations that are given in text for the various constants i.e Planck constant and fine structure constant based on’’ Finsler geometry ‘’ they do not have a competitive advantage compared to other methods.

_________My_answer_________

Could distinguished referee be so kind to let me know about “other methods” which permits us to calculate the Planck constant from the first principles up to second significant digit? Or at least up to the order of magnitude?

I think we can safely say that such methods (theories) do not exist.

>>>Rev >>>In addition I point out some comments that are listed bellow.

>>>Rev >>>1. It is not justified with a convincing manner the necessity of Finslerian geometrical structure. In the previous paper ref[4] he used the Einstein-Cartan manifold in his approach.It is mentioned in the present text two times firstly in the abstact and secondly on page.2 that he used ‘’adiabatically Finsler manifolds’’ ,paper{4}.

_________My_answer_________

a) It is justified by calculation of the Planck constant up to second digit.

b) Einstein-Cartan (more precisely Einstein-Riemann-Cartan) manifold is a particular case of the more general Finsler manifold. So, this is the same geometry.

>>>Rev >>>2. In several parts of the text the author does not use the necessary citations to justify his considerations i.e from ‘’On the one hand... until all observational data’’

_________My_answer_________

This comment is very vague and unclear. In his actual form it is impossible to respond it. In my point of view all approaches and considerations used in the paper are justified, clear and reduced to trivial facts. If referee consider some points to be unclear, we should discuss every place. Anyway this comment can not be used as reason to reject my paper.

>>>Rev >>>3. On page 3 In the text is written ‘’....the right hand term contains some adiabatically changed parameters...’’.He does not indicate to which equation he refers.

_________My_answer_________

This text refer to the nearest equation (1) and textbook [7].

This comment also can not be used as reason to reject my paper.

>>>Rev >>>4. On page 4 It is written after the relation ‘’One can see that due to the expansion of the universe...’’, In that point and later in the text he omits to take into account the FRW equations that are necessary for the study of the evolution of the universe.

_________My_answer_________

Referee did not understand what we do in the paper. We do not interested in the evolution of the universe and we do not need FRW equations. We build the theory for terrestrial laboratory! The expansion of the universe takes place at present time. This is an observational fact. No matter what happened in the early universe.

>>>Rev >>>5. There are errors in indices of equations which lead to wrong conclusions i.e rel.(55) In its entirety and based on the above mentioned comments the text is inadequate with many mistakes and vague points that are not justified sufficiently with the proper citations

_________My_answer_________

Referee should clearly point out every error. Instead of this the referee did not justify his statements. In which equations there are errors in indices? Why rel. (55) is wrong? Where are “many mistakes”? All this statements are dangling in the air.

Therefore in the present form of the manuscript Ican not give my approval for publication to XXX

******************************************************

As you have seen the quality of the reviewer's comment leaves much to be desired. In this case I kindly ask you for professional reconsideration of this case.

Until receipt from the journal a professional, reasonable and justified explanation and decision, I regret to inform you that I will not submit any future manuscript to the journal, and will suspend my contribution as referee in your journal. Besides that I believe it is my civil duty to improve the journal quality and value of XXX science in general. For this reason, I intend to publish these comments of the referee and my answers on it in my scientific blog.

Sincerely yours,

Anton Lipovka

________________One week later (07 October 2016)_____________

07 October 2016

Dear XXX

Please let me know if you have received my response on the referee's comments which I have sent to you by 2 of November. I am speaking in respect to the Manuscript ID XXX-16-10-100. I urgently need to know your decision on this issue.

Besides that, I would be very grateful to you for any information about my second manuscript (Manuscript ID XXX-16-10-099), currently under reviewing since 25 of October.

Sincerely yours,

Anton Lipovka

_________________Update 09 December 2016___________________

XXX - Our decision on your Manuscript ID XXX-16-10-100

Today, 3:30Anton Lipovka Kostko;

Dear Prof. Lipovka,

Your response to the referee's comments on XXX-16-10-100, which you send us on 2 December, was forwarded to the attention of the Editor in Chief and of the Associate Editor. Please note that it was not registered as a formal appeal: please let me know if, instead, it should be uploaded to our system as a formal appeal.

As for your other manuscript, XXX-16-10-099, we have received the referee's report today. The responsible Editor will make a decision as soon as possible.

Kind regards,

I regret to inform you that some scientific journals do not correspond to real needs of scientific community and humanity in general. Actually the system does not work properly. This situation can not be accepted in our complicate epoch because the cost of such unprofessional “work” will be very high for all of us.

I suggest to your kind attention the referee’s and editor response on my submission. Right now I do not mention the real names, but if you decide that I should do it, I will.

Brief history.

25 October of 2016 I submit my paper to journal XXX .

The paper can be downloaded from ArXiv here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.04596

Five weeks later, I got a response from the journal supplied with reviewer comments.

I would be grateful for any kind of comments and advise.

Editor’s letter:

29-Nov-2016

THE XXX (XXX)

Editor in chief Prof. XXX

Editorial Office, XXX

Dear Prof. Lipovka:

The manuscript ID XXX-16-10-100 entitled "Physics on the adiabatically changed Finslerian manifold and cosmology" which you have submitted to the XXX, has been reviewed. The referee report is enclosed. In view of this report, we very much regret that we cannot publish your paper in "XXX (XXX)".

Thank you for considering XXX for the publication of your research. I hope the outcome of this specific submission will not discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts.

Sincerely,

Prof. XXX

Editor in Chief,XXX

Note: If you wish to appeal against this decision, this can be done via your Corresponding Author Dashboard in Manuscript Central. Please note that the appeal procedure is not encouraged and an overturn of the original editorial decision happen very rarely. In their appeal the authors must give detailed reasons for why they believe the original editorial decision was unjustified, addressing explicitly the points raised by the referee(s) and/or the editor(s) in the rejection letter.

If you submit an appeal you have also the option to submit at the same time a revised version of your paper via your Corresponding Author XXX. If no appeal is received by the Editorial Office within two months after this letter has been issued, this file will be closed.

----------------------------------------

Associate Editor's Comments to Author:

Associate Editor

Comments to the Author: (There are no comments.)

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author (if there no comments below, please check the attachments):

Referee: 1

Comments to the Author (see report attached)

Reviewer(s)' Comments:

In the present manuscript the author attempts to give some improved computational approaches for the Planck constant using geometrical elements that he defines i.e. ’’adiabatically changed Finslerian manifold and static Finsler manifold.’’

The complete definition of Finsler geometry and it’s geometrical elements that are necessary for the study of these subjects which are recommended by the author they do not appear in text .In addition to the Maxwell equations in Finsler geometry that are given by the author they are satisfied only under restricted conditions.

Overall the calculations that are given in text for the various constants i.e Planck constant and fine structure constant based on’’ Finsler geometry ‘’ they do not have a competitive advantage compared to other methods. In addition I point out some comments that are listed bellow.

1. It is not justified with a convincing manner the necessity of Finslerian geometrical structure. In the previous paper ref[4] he used the Einstein-Cartan manifold in his approach.It is mentioned in the present text two times firstly in the abstact and secondly on page.2 that he used ‘’adiabatically Finsler manifolds’’ ,paper{4}.

2. In several parts of the text the author does not use the necessary citations to justify his considerations i.e from ‘’On the one hand... until all observational data’’

3. On page 3 In the text is written ‘’....the right hand term contains some adiabatically changed parameters...’’.He does not indicate to which equation he refers.

4. On page 4 It is written after the relation ‘’One can see that due to the expansion of the universe...’’, In that point and later in the text he omits to take into account the FRW equations that are necessary for the study of the evolution of the universe.

5. There are errors in indices of equations which lead to wrong conclusions i.e rel.(55) In its entirety and based on the above mentioned comments the text is inadequate with many mistakes and vague points that are not justified sufficiently with the proper citations Therefore in the present form of the manuscript Ican not give my approval for publication to XXX

****************************************

My answer to the Editor in chief:

Dear Prof. XXX

Editor in Chief, XXX

I am disappointed with the quality reviewer's work. In my opinion the level of response of the reviewer does not corresponds to the level of the journal and harms its reputation. I am deeply convinced that you (as the editor of the journal) should be more careful in choosing of the reviewers. Moreover I do not understand why there was only one reviewer’s comments are available.

The reviewers’ comments clearly point out his incompetence and carelessness in reading. Below, I will respond in detail in its comments, but right now, let me make some general remarks.

First of all I would like to indicate that the half-page review written for 5 weeks can not be considered as a good result. Let me remind you that my last review in your journal, I have written within two weeks, and it consisted of two pages of justified text.

Secondly as you can see the reviewers’ comments do not contain any argument against the actual scientific results presented in my paper. One gets the impression that the reviewer agree with the results (but then it is unclear why he does not recommend the manuscript for publication with minor corrections), or he simply do not understand the text written by me. I am sure this kind of mistakes could be avoided by using of two independent referees and more attention paid by editor to referees comments.

****************************************

Now I answer the Reviewer’s Comments.

>>>Rev>>>In the present manuscript the author attempts to give some improved computational approaches for the Planck constant using geometrical elements that he defines i.e. ’’adiabatically changed Finslerian manifold and static Finsler manifold.’’

_________My_answer_________

a) It is not actually “improved” and is not “computational”. It is not an approach. It is theory in which the geometry (gravity) is unified with quantum physics, in which we obtain general equations, explain nature of the cosmological constant. Finally we prove the correctness of the theory, by calculating of the Planck constant from the first principles. It is clearly stated even in the abstract and it is strange that the reviewer did not bother to read it.

b) In our paper we DO NOT consider “static Finsler manifold”. The reviewer should read paper more carefully.

>>>Rev >>>The complete definition of Finsler geometry and it’s geometrical elements that are necessary for the study of these subjects which are recommended by the author they do not appear in text .

_________My_answer_________

The complete definition of Finsler geometry one can find in many textbooks. This geometry was suggested in the beginning of the XX century, more than 100 years ago, and since then it has been written a lot of very good textbooks, (in particular textbook of Rund published in 1959 which I quote in my article). I am deeply convinced that it makes no sense to duplicate the well-known material of available textbooks in the scientific article. You will never find in the papers on quantum field theory some explanations of linear algebra.

>>>Rev >>>In addition to the Maxwell equations in Finsler geometry that are given by the author they are satisfied only under restricted conditions.

_________My_answer_________

I would like to inform the distinguished reviewer that all the equations in physics are sure to be under restricted conditions, or have boundary conditions. Such is the nature. Without boundary or initial conditions equations make no sense.

>>>Rev >>>Overall the calculations that are given in text for the various constants i.e Planck constant and fine structure constant based on’’ Finsler geometry ‘’ they do not have a competitive advantage compared to other methods.

_________My_answer_________

Could distinguished referee be so kind to let me know about “other methods” which permits us to calculate the Planck constant from the first principles up to second significant digit? Or at least up to the order of magnitude?

I think we can safely say that such methods (theories) do not exist.

>>>Rev >>>In addition I point out some comments that are listed bellow.

>>>Rev >>>1. It is not justified with a convincing manner the necessity of Finslerian geometrical structure. In the previous paper ref[4] he used the Einstein-Cartan manifold in his approach.It is mentioned in the present text two times firstly in the abstact and secondly on page.2 that he used ‘’adiabatically Finsler manifolds’’ ,paper{4}.

_________My_answer_________

a) It is justified by calculation of the Planck constant up to second digit.

b) Einstein-Cartan (more precisely Einstein-Riemann-Cartan) manifold is a particular case of the more general Finsler manifold. So, this is the same geometry.

>>>Rev >>>2. In several parts of the text the author does not use the necessary citations to justify his considerations i.e from ‘’On the one hand... until all observational data’’

_________My_answer_________

This comment is very vague and unclear. In his actual form it is impossible to respond it. In my point of view all approaches and considerations used in the paper are justified, clear and reduced to trivial facts. If referee consider some points to be unclear, we should discuss every place. Anyway this comment can not be used as reason to reject my paper.

>>>Rev >>>3. On page 3 In the text is written ‘’....the right hand term contains some adiabatically changed parameters...’’.He does not indicate to which equation he refers.

_________My_answer_________

This text refer to the nearest equation (1) and textbook [7].

This comment also can not be used as reason to reject my paper.

>>>Rev >>>4. On page 4 It is written after the relation ‘’One can see that due to the expansion of the universe...’’, In that point and later in the text he omits to take into account the FRW equations that are necessary for the study of the evolution of the universe.

_________My_answer_________

Referee did not understand what we do in the paper. We do not interested in the evolution of the universe and we do not need FRW equations. We build the theory for terrestrial laboratory! The expansion of the universe takes place at present time. This is an observational fact. No matter what happened in the early universe.

>>>Rev >>>5. There are errors in indices of equations which lead to wrong conclusions i.e rel.(55) In its entirety and based on the above mentioned comments the text is inadequate with many mistakes and vague points that are not justified sufficiently with the proper citations

_________My_answer_________

Referee should clearly point out every error. Instead of this the referee did not justify his statements. In which equations there are errors in indices? Why rel. (55) is wrong? Where are “many mistakes”? All this statements are dangling in the air.

Therefore in the present form of the manuscript Ican not give my approval for publication to XXX

****************************************

As you have seen the quality of the reviewer's comment leaves much to be desired. In this case I kindly ask you for professional reconsideration of this case.

Until receipt from the journal a professional, reasonable and justified explanation and decision, I regret to inform you that I will not submit any future manuscript to the journal, and will suspend my contribution as referee in your journal. Besides that I believe it is my civil duty to improve the journal quality and value of XXX science in general. For this reason, I intend to publish these comments of the referee and my answers on it in my scientific blog.

Sincerely yours,

Anton Lipovka

________________One week later (07 October 2016)_____________

07 October 2016

Dear XXX

Please let me know if you have received my response on the referee's comments which I have sent to you by 2 of November. I am speaking in respect to the Manuscript ID XXX-16-10-100. I urgently need to know your decision on this issue.

Besides that, I would be very grateful to you for any information about my second manuscript (Manuscript ID XXX-16-10-099), currently under reviewing since 25 of October.

Sincerely yours,

Anton Lipovka

_________________Update 09 December 2016___________________

XXX - Our decision on your Manuscript ID XXX-16-10-100

Today, 3:30Anton Lipovka Kostko;

Dear Prof. Lipovka,

Your response to the referee's comments on XXX-16-10-100, which you send us on 2 December, was forwarded to the attention of the Editor in Chief and of the Associate Editor. Please note that it was not registered as a formal appeal: please let me know if, instead, it should be uploaded to our system as a formal appeal.

As for your other manuscript, XXX-16-10-099, we have received the referee's report today. The responsible Editor will make a decision as soon as possible.

Kind regards,