anton_lipovka: (мачо)
[personal profile] 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 is not acceptable 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 and my letters. Right now I do not mention the real names, but if all move the same manner, I will.

Brief history.
25 October of 2016 I submit my paper to journal XXX .
The paper can be downloaded from ArXiv here:
Six weeks later, I got a response from the journal, supplied with reviewer comments.

__________Letter from Editor in chief received by 11-Dec-2016_________
XXX - Our decision on your Manuscript ID XXX-16-10-099
Today, 1:32Anton Lipovka Kostko
Editor in chief
Prof. XXX

Dear Prof. Lipovka:

The manuscript ID XXX-16-10-099 entitled "Variation of the fine structure constant" 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".

Thank you for considering the 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.
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 Dashboard in Manuscript Central. 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
In this paper, the authors consider the variation of the fine structure constant due to the expansion of the universe. In particular, they argue that the bound estimated here is only a few times smaller than the actual observational bound.

Unfortunately, I do not think this paper is based upon correct arguments. Firstly, to incorporate the effect of a non-zero spacetime curvature or the Hubble expansion within a length scale of an atom of a few Angstrom, one must first take into account the other strong interaction forces. Secondly, on a laboratory on the earth or the Solar system, the Schwarzschild metric should be relevant instead of an FRW one. Thirdly in Eq. 1, which leads to the later numerical estimation, the authors take into account of the variation of the volume due to the universe's expansion, but they do not consider any variation of the energy density confined within that volume.

Putting these all in together, I do not think this manuscript should be recommended for publication in XXX.

>>>>>>>>>>>>My response dated by 11 December 2016<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Dear Prof. XXX
Editor in Chief, XXX

First of all, please accept my sincere assurances of deep respect to you and my best esteem. I would hope that the lapse with the reviewer will not affect our future relations.
I want to be understood correctly: I do not want scandals or problems; I am looking for the truth, the same scientific truth, which we all are looking for. In fact, to solve the problem announced in my submitted manuscripts I have spent my entire life. Moreover, this success was prepared also by my teachers. So I have no other way but to go to the end and I intend to get to the end that I would at any cost.
The correctness of the obtained results I can be sure, because I have calculated the Planck constant in three different ways (two of which are in my manuscripts XXX-16-10-099 and XXX-16-10-100 and one was published in JAMP by 2014). In addition, my colleague from the United States (Ryan Rankin) sent me this November the manuscript of his article (which will soon be announced) in which he suggests the fourth independent method to calculate the Planck constant from the geometry. I refer also to the recently announced an article in which, while not obtained the estimates made by me, but is planned the right way to obtain my result.

All this allows me to say with confidence that there was a revolution in physics, and it is already impossible to stop it. Now we are talking about the priority and the timing of the recognition of the results. I have already done on this topic a number of seminars to colleagues and met a favorable understanding and approval of my results.
You can publish a work that (I'm sure) will get a huge impact. It is difficult to suppose that you do not understand what is at stake. Therefore, I kindly ask you to give an adequate consideration to the reviewer’s comments on both manuscripts, and to take urgent steps to repair the unfortunate misunderstanding.
I am looking forward to a long-term and fruitful cooperation with your journal.
Now consider the reviewer’s comments on the manuscript XXX-16-10-099. First of all, let me say a few general words about this opus.

Tell to truth I was 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 as well as reputation of the XXX Publishing group. Moreover I do not understand why there were the only one reviewer’s comments available.
Within the 6 weeks the referee has write just 6 lines of baseless, unjustified text which actually contains only 3 observations, every of which is incorrect and clearly show misunderstanding of the manuscript by the referee. Again: only three arrogations (one per two weeks) were suggested to reject my paper.
Let’s consider all them step by step.
My response to the referee’s comments.

>>> Referee >>>Unfortunately, I do not think this paper is based upon correct arguments. Firstly, to incorporate the effect of a non-zero spacetime curvature or the Hubble expansion within a length scale of an atom of a few Angstrom, one must first take into account the other strong interaction forces.
__________My answer__________
On the one hand, other strong interaction forces are significant only at distances less than 10^(-13) cm. Remember that we speak in our paper about Angstroms = 10^(-8) cm, i.e. the difference is more than 5 orders of magnitude.
On the other hand the referee should take it in mind that all measurements of the variation of fine structure constant were made with electromagnetic field, without paying attention to any “strong interaction forces” (see references in my paper). The reason is the same I have mentioned before: weak and strong interactions manifest themselves within the scales which are 5 orders of magnitude smaller and disappear exponentially at the large scales. So it would be a little bit strange to consider them. Let me make here the work of the referee (realize his strange idea) and roughly evaluate this “strong interaction forces”. These forces are decaying exponentially on the distance, and their relative contribution should be estimated as proportional to exp(-100000). By taking into account the value we are interesting in consist da/a=10(-18) , it became clear absurdness of this referee’s comment. Besides that the correct value of the Planck constant calculated in our paper, directly argue on the correctness of our approach.

>>> Referee >>>Secondly, on a laboratory on the earth or the Solar system, the Schwarzschild metric should be relevant instead of an FRW one.
__________My answer__________
If the reviewer read the manuscript more carefully, he would have seen that variation of the fine structure constant and existence of non-zero Planck constant is possible only in the case when the metric tensor is _changed_ (adiabatically) on time (see equations 3, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16). In the case of the Earth, the Schwarzschild metric is static and do not produce any significant effects.
Beside this the honored referee should remember first Solvay conference. At the conference, the pendulum problem with _adiabatically_ _changed_ thread has been considered and exact solution was obtained that an adiabatic invariant in this case is the product of ET (energy and period). In our case (when we consider variation of the electromagnetic field resonator due to variation of metric), this invariant becomes ET=h , that we successfully have shown in our paper.

>>> Referee >>>Thirdly in Eq. 1, which leads to the later numerical estimation, the authors take into account of the variation of the volume due to the universe's expansion, but they do not consider any variation of the energy density confined within that volume.
__________My answer__________
It looks as if the reviewer did not read the article at all. Let me quote my manuscript to show this.

  1. Three lines before the equation (1) one can read clearly in our manuscript:

of the classical field and characterized by energy E distributed over volume V (we can put V = 1cm^3)

  1. The fact that we consider exactly the variation of energy _density_ is follow directly from the dimension of the equation (18). But beside this we note this fact clearly right before equation (18). One can read: “…by substituting δP obtained before into this expression we can write finally for energy in 1 cm^3 : (eqn.18)

This comment of the reviewer clearly indicates that he did not read the manuscript at all. I am deeply convinced that such a review does not match the level of the journal and should be rejected.

>>> Referee >>>Putting these all in together, I do not think this manuscript should be recommended for publication in XXX.
__________My answer__________
It is difficult to agree with the decision of the reviewer if he not only did not understand the manuscript, but even did not read it.

To conclude, I would like to stress that the scientific journals (by definition) established to conduct discussions, to discuss the results (often incorrect). The fact that the reviewers were unable to understand the article, argue for not only that the article should be urgently published for public discussion by the scientific community, but also point the fact that the manuscripts under discussion are at the crossroads of several branches of sciences, which hinders their understanding by narrow specialists and there needs a wide discussion. It should be emphasized as well that the unjustified censorship is unacceptable in science, because the censorship will have the direst consequences for science and for society as a whole.
I appreciate the XXX, so I do not doubt that you will find the professionals able to evaluate my work quickly and professionally. In any case, I am ready to discuss the manuscripts with them and explain the details by e-mail or Skype.
 Sincerely yours,
Prof. Anton Lipovka

Date: 2016-12-12 03:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Антон, давите на них, похоже, что они не совсем понимают, как себя вести в новой ситуации. Они, похоже, думали, что у них уже не без лабрадора и можно расслабиться на остаток жизни, а тут их думать заставляют и, более того (страшно подумать!), принимать ответственные решения.

11 лет назад у них жизнь была много легче. "Рецензия" на мою многостраничную статью о новом механизме роста углеродных нанотрубок (УНТ) в электрической дуге, основанной на данных моих многочисленных экспериментов (с кучей экспериментальных графиков) выглядела откровенным издевательством. После почти двух месяцев рецензирования некто выдал:
"я целых два часа пытался вчитаться, но так ничего и не понял. Считаю, что работу не следует публиковать, так как есть другие, понятные, модели роста углеродных нанотрубок в дуге". Английский был ОК - перед посылкой дал прочитать американскому зицпредседателю нашей кипрской компании и светилу в теории квантовых расчетов в области нанотрубок одновременно, который и порекомендовал послать статью в журнал, редактируемый его другом (Carbon) со ссылкой на себя. Редактор журнала (лукаво) спросил, не могу ли я что возразить на "рецензию" - я ответил, что не могу отвечать за проблемы с пониманием новой научной модели у неизвестного мне рецензента. На том и закончил общение с Carbon. За полгода до отправки статьи я делал приглашенную презентацию/экзаменацию в DARPA по итогам разработки своего метода и своих УНТ, где и методу (вместе с моделью) и продукту дали добро на продвижение в США перед лицом представителей потенциальных инвесторов. Это был один из самых тяжёлых моих экзаменов: ведущий спец от DARPA задавал вопросы в самую суть, а раскрывать до конца в то время было ещё рано, впрочем, я заранее подготовился и в презентации ввёл и оперировал "basic parameter'ом", который в научной статье, через полгода, уже раскрыл. Так вот, даже с "секретным" "basic parameter" хороший спец понял, что в модели всё правильно и она работает на достижение заявленной цели, а тут, в разжёванном виде, его превосходительство "рецезент" не соблаговолили напрячь мозги, чтобы увидеть безупречность предложенного механизма роста УНТ. И не постеснялись в этом признаться: "лень мне думать, а потому иди лесом, не мешай"

Date: 2016-12-13 10:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Спасибо за Ваш комменатрий и извините за задержку с ответом. Со временем совсем туго.
Да, они "берега потеряли", но вариантов у них нет потому что от них уже ничего не зависит. Надвигается такое, о чём они даже не подозревают. Наша жизнь, наша цивилизация радикально изменится, причём из-за того, что мы оттягивали этот переход, он произойдёт очень быстро и, возможно, болезненно.

Date: 2016-12-13 02:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Мне кажется, что они вывернутся, т.к. лучше всех приспособлены к всевозможным переворотам.

Date: 2016-12-12 03:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Был я рецензентом в этом журнале, но в части AP (прикладная ф.), в 2008-2009. Это было какое-то китайское сумашествие, но и британские учёные изредка доставляли. В конце-концов моё терпение лопнуло, когда один клоун из UK с целью экономии веса спутников на полном серьёзе предлагал отказаться от конструкционных материалов, выдав "блестящую", как ему и им показалось, идею о замене их материалами с промежуточными свойствами, т.е., например, твердый электролит литиевых батарей выступает не просто самоподдерживающимся материалом, но и частью конструкционного для всей батареи. На этот феерический звиздец я прямо спросил ассистирующего редактора все ли у него дома, коли он на полном серьёзе рассматривает подобные статьи, а он почему-то обиделся, чему я был рад - больше статей мне оттуда не присылали.

Date: 2016-12-13 10:53 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
С 2009 года там ничего не изменилось. Я, честно говоря, не очень понимаю каким образом они себе такой импакт-фактор накрутили.
Спасибо за замечательную историю про аккумулятор. Порадовался. Как же это всё знакомо из повседневной жизни! Складывается такое ощущение, что среди инженеров - сплошные диверсанты.


Date: 2016-12-17 10:24 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
It is unfortunate that in physics exists the loss of curiosity of what could be relevant in the scientific community, only to remember to Copernicus, Galileo, etc. I believe that there are arguments necessary and sufficient for the scientific community to judge them in due analysis and time.

What has happened to scientific journals today?

Date: 2016-12-18 02:43 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)


anton_lipovka: (Default)

March 2017


Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 19th, 2017 05:14 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios