Популярно о конечной математике и ее интересных применениях в квантовой теории - Феликс Лев

paper shows that a known problem can be tackled from a fully different approach. I believe that for the readers it would be extremely interesting to know that the result of General Relativity on cosmological acceleration obtained from dS space can be obtained from semiclassical approximation of dS quantum mechanics without using dS space at all (i.e. its metric, connection etc.). This result is obviously more general than the result of General Relativity because any classical result should be a consequence of quantum theory in semiclassical approximation. As I note in my explanations, while in [9] this result has been obtained after lengthy mathematical calculations, in the present paper I give a short description on three pages such that the reader will understand the necessary steps.

Let me also note that my paper is fully in the scope of Physics of the Dark Universe because the editorial policy contains "cosmic acceleration and its alternative explanations". At the same time, Reviewer 3 does not allow alternative explanations and accepts only those approaches which are in the spirit of his/her mentality.

The report cannot be treated as a scientific recommendation because: 1) it contains no sign that Reviewer 3 understands what is done in the paper; 2) scientific ethics implies that all negative statements in the report should be substantiated but all of them are made without any substantiation; 3) the report contains no specific statement on why anything in my paper is incorrect or unacceptable, my only “fault” is that my statements contradict known dogmas which have no physical justification. For those reasons I would appreciate if the editorial decision is reconsidered. I am also grateful to Reviewer 2 for the recommendation to publish the paper and for important remarks which will be taken into account in the next version of the paper.

Кроме того, написал ей такое письмо:

Dear Professor Silvestri,

Thank you for the info about your decision on my paper. Of course I believe that the decision is not fair. Please find my appeal attached. I think that the main problem is not that Reviewer 3 understands nothing in my paper and obviously cannot refute my derivations. Everybody knows something and does not know something, and it is impossible to know everything. In my opinion, if a scientist is proposed to review a paper which he/she does not understand then he/she should either decline from being a reviewer or say that different approaches have a right to exist. However, Reviewer 3 believes that only papers done in the spirit of his/her mentality can be published and all other papers should be prohibited such that the readers even should not know about their existence. Reviewer 3 does not understand that it is disgraceful to make negative statements without any substantiation. As explained in the appeal, I believe that my results will be extremely interesting for the readers of Physics of the Dark Universe, and my paper is fully in the scope of the journal. However, if your final decision is that my paper cannot be published in the usual way, I would be grateful if you consider the following possibility. My paper is published but along with the paper you or any reviewer writes a paper or comments explaining why my approach is unacceptable. In particular, the report of Reviewer 3 can be published. I believe this will be extremely important for the readers because they will be given an opportunity to make a judgment and will understand pros and cons of different approaches. Maybe my understanding of Reviewer 3’s intentions is not correct and he/she will appreciate the opportunity to express his/her opinion.

Thank you. Sincerely, Felix Lev.

Но сразу получил такой ответ:

Dear Dr. Lev,

I understand your disappointment, every decision if of course questionable, but our decision is final.

Kind regards,

Т.е., она даже не хочет играть в игру, что, якобы, она честно пытается разобраться. Она начальник группы, которая пишет, якобы, высоконаучные статьи по dark energy. В этих статьях никакой квантовой теории нет и в помине, все основано на классической ОТО, статьи печатает Phys. Rev. и другие журналы, так что видимость большой науки соблюдается.

Все это заняло три месяца и теперь ясно, что с самого начала она искала только повод, чтобы отфутболить. После этого я написал главному редактору журнала:

Dear Professor Tait,

I regret that you decided not to respond to my seminar proposal. The proposal had nothing to do with the fact that my paper was rejected. I believe the results are fundamental and my hope was that physicists at UCI would be interested. In this situation I decided to describe my experience with your journal. For the first time in my practice the editor even did not try to make an appearance of fair treatment.

First the paper was rejected because Reviewer 1 wrote a short (and meaningless) review stating that the paper contains nothing new. According to the editorial policy, a paper should be reviewed by at least two reviewers but this requirement was ignored. When I pointed out to this requirement the editor changed her opinion and proposed me to revise the paper.

After revision the editor found two reviewers. The report of Reviewer 2 was positive and the report of Reviewer 3 was negative. Then the editor found the pretext for rejecting the paper that two of three reviews were negative. The pretext obviously is not reasonable for the following reasons. First, it is quite probable that Reviewer 1 is the same person as Reviewer 3. But regardless whether or not this is the case, for the current version there were two reviewer reports, positive and negative. In that case the paper is usually sent to adjudicator or a board member writes a report. But in this case, in contrast to standard practice, the editor immediately rejected the paper without any additional reports.

The report of Reviewer 3 had no sign that he/she