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

When JPCO was created I was impressed by its editorial policy. The policy says that JPCO differs from other journals, that it «does not make a subjective assessment on the potential future significance of a paper, instead providing a rapid platform for communicating research that meets high standards of scientific rigour and contributes to the development of knowledge in physics». However, my experience with two papers shows that at least in my case the editors do not feel obliged to follow the editorial policy. They do not understand that my papers give FUNDAMENTAL contributions to the knowledge in physics. Therefore, the papers not only fully satisfy the JPCO policy but should be welcome by the editors. The most plausible explanation of such a situation is that when they see the words «finite mathematics» then their intention is to reject the paper right away and probably for them a strong argument in favor of their belief is that I am not from a university. It seems to me that the mentality of all editors should be such that they should welcome nonstandard approaches because this will make their journals more attractive. Especially, in view of the JPCO policy, this should be the case for the editors of JPCO. However, I see that the editors of JPCO have the same mentality as the editors of many other journals and if a submitted paper is not in mainstream then the paper has no chances to be published.

You acknowledged that the treatment of my paper was not fair because it had been commissioned. However, even if it had not been commissioned your response contradicts your policy and scientific ethics. So the fact that you have reconsidered your decision does not mean that mentality of the editors has been changed. In view of this situation, I think that if I agree that you continue processing my paper then the most probable scenario is the following. Probably you will not find referees who have even very basic knowledge in finite math and the mentality of majority of physicists is that if they do not understand something (e.g., if the words "finite mathematics" contradict their dogmas) then probably they will write a meaningless referee report with the advice to reject the paper. They will not care that their treatment of the paper contradicts the editorial policy and scientific ethics. In view of my experience, for editors this will be a good pretext to reject the paper. According to your policy, the authors have a right to appeal the decision. However, my experience with the first paper shows that all my arguments that the reports contradict the editorial policy and scientific ethics will not be taken into account and the appeal will not be considered. Since I am not young and do not want to have additional negative emotions, I have decided not to try to publish my paper in JPCO.

Sincerely, Felix Lev.

Следующая попытка: Taiwanese Journal of Mathematics. Их ответ был такой:

We do not have a full referee report, but quick opinions gathered suggest that it would be difficult to convince the editorial board to accept the article. Therefore, rather than begin a refereeing process that could take months, I am returning your manuscript to you now so that you have the chance to submit it elsewhere without delay.

Не буду комментировать этот ответ, но, во всяком случае, ответили через два дня и на том спасибо.

Еще одна попытка: Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic. Ответа не было больше месяца и спросил о статусе:

Dear Professor Pillay,

The status of my paper is “With Editor” from November 6th, i.e. the paper is with the Editor for more than a month. I understand that the Editor is very busy. On the other hand, the paper is short (10 pages) and in my understanding rather simple. My understanding is that the paper is under review, right? Could you, please tell me when (even very approximately) the referee reports are expected.

Thank you. Sincerely, Felix Lev.

Т.е., по наивности я думал, что раз назначен редактор, который держит статью больше месяца, то статья на рецензии. Но в течение менее часа получил такие ответы от главного редактора:

Dear Felix,

The Editor-in-Chief on the philosophy side (Mic Detlefsen) died in October. We have appointed a replacement who will take over his papers. There are papers submitted in July which have not been dealt with yet.

Anand Pillay (Editor-in-Chief)

Dear Felix,

Actually I took the opportunity to look at your paper myself, and I can say quickly that it is not suitable for the Notre Dame Journal. The statement about $Z$ and the $Z/pZ$ (i.e. $F_p$) is obvious. (Also if you are interested there is a big literature about «pseudofinite» structures in logic. Easily found on google.)

So I will reject the paper.

Regards,

Anand Pillay

Dear Felix,

As I said in the email to you I am rejecting the paper. Sorry.

Anand Pillay

Editor-in-Chief

Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic

Т.е. в первом ответе он как бы оправдывается, что из-за того, что бывший главный редактор, отвечающий за философию, умер, многие статьи задерживаются. Во-первых непонятно, почему он решил, что моя статья относится к философии. И непонятно, если статус был “With Editor”, то какому редактору послали. Ведь явно не тому, который умер, а тогда непонятно зачем он оправдывается. Но второй ответ пришел через 40 минут. Т.е., за эти 40 минут он посмотрел статью и решил отвергнуть. Из его ответа ясно, что до этого никто статью не смотрел, несмотря на статус “With Editor”. А третий ответ пришел через 5 минут.

Из его ответа ясно, что он статью не понял и не пытался понять, и, скорее всего, он не в состоянии понять. Я послал ему такое письмо:

Thank