ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 72 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events
  • (July 7, 2017 - July 9, 2017) Energy Science & Technology Conference
  • (July 28, 2017 - July 29, 2017) COFE-9

  • Hot Links
    Aetherometry

    American Antigravity

    Chava Energy

    Closeminded Science

    EarthTech

    Energy Science

    Energy21

    Innoplaza

    Integrity Research Institute

    Interstellar Technologies

    JLN Labs

    KeelyNet

    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    The Orion Proj.

    Panacea-BOCAF

    QVac_Eng

    RexResearch

    Science Hobbyist

    Tom Bearden's Page

    Unlimited electric energy

    USPTO

    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    AER_Network
    Alternative Energy News
    KeelyNet_News
    NextEnergyNews
    PESWiki/News
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    Energy2000
    Free_Energy
    Greenglow
    JLNLabs
    KeelyNet
    NuEnergy
    OverUnity
    Sarfatti_Physics
    Sweet-VTA
    Tapten
    Tomorrow-energy
    Vortex
    Magazine Sites
    Distributed Energy
    Electrifying Times
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine
    radioioAmbient

    Quality of Elsevier's Author Support
    Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2017 @ 22:54:18 EST by vlad

    Science WGUGLINSKI writes: Yesterday, 1st March 2017, I received from Elsevier the following email:

    ============================================================
    From: Elsevier Author Feedback
    Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 11:07 AM
    To: wladimirguglinski@_
    Subject: Quality of Elsevier's Author Support

    Dear Dr. Guglinski,

    I am contacting you because you recently received a final decision on your article submitted to Annals of Physics

    We are conducting a short research study to see how satisfied you are with the way your article was managed. Your responses will be used to help improve the publication services we currently offer.

    It will only take about 10 minutes to complete the survey online, and your feedback is very important to ensure the accuracy of the research.

    If you encounter any problems during the survey, please contact surveys@elsevier.com
     
    Yours sincerely,
    Louise Hall
    Market Research


    I wrote a series of 8 papers in partnership with Dr. Claudio Nassif, and in the beginning
    of 2017 we had submitted the first one to Annals of Physics.

    The papers are the following:

    Paper Nr. 1: On the reasons why Fermi's theory of beta-decay must be reevaluated

    Paper Nr.2: Lorentz factor violation by neutrinos moving with the speed of light

    Paper Nr.3: On the origin of mass of the elementary particles

    Paper Nr. 4: On how Bohr model of hydrogen atom is connected to nuclear physics

    Paper Nr. 5: On how proton radius shrinkage can be connected with Lorentz Factor violation

    Paper Nr. 6: Calculation of magnetic moments of light nuclei with number of protons between Z=8 and Z=30

    Paper Nr 7: Nuclear spins and calculation of magnetic moments of the isotopes of lithium

    Paper Nr 8: Calculation of proton radius to be measured in the Project MUSE



    Dr. Claudio Nassif is the author of the Symmetric Special Relativity (SSR), which together with my Quantum Ring Theory compose a Grand Unified Theory. He has several papers published in the most reputable journals of Physics worldwide, and his last paper is rated as the second of the Most Read papers of the International Journal of Modern Physics, since 1996:
    http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscinet/ijmpd?null&journalTabs=read



    The first question of the "Quality of Elsevier's Author Support" was concerning my satisfaction with the way my last article in Annals of Physics was managed.

    I wrote the following answer:


    ==================================================
    “My work is in the brench of Fundametal Physics. From the arguments used by the Editor for rejecting my paper, I have realized that he has a personal view on what must be the way for the development of Fundamental Physics. He neglects the most important experimental findings of the last 10 years, which deny the some of the fundamental principles of the Standard Model (SM) and the Standard Nuclear Physics (SNP) , and thereby he has adopted the strategy of protecting SM and SNP from threatening experiences which require the reevaluation of some fundamental principles of those two pillars of Theoretical Physics. Therefore, any author whose theoretical work does not fit to the personal views of the Editor, have no chance to be published in Annals of Physics, because the Editor neglects experimental findings. This procedure of revising and rejecting articles, based on personal convictions, instead of based on news experimental findings, is not in agreement with the scientific method.
    Theoretical Physics advancement cannot be subjected to personal convictions of editors. Theoretical Physics must advance parallel to the advancement of Experimental Physics.”
    ==================================================



    Other question was concerning whether my paper was previously submitted to another journal.

    My response was “Yes, it was submitted to International Journal of Modern Physics”.


    And the next question asked the reasons why my paper was rejected by IJMP.


    My response was the following:

    ==================================================
    “My paper was analyzed by ONLY ONE reviewer. And he used the following anti-scientific argument for rejecting the paper:

    <<“Therefore, the failure of their udd model does not mean we need to abandon completely the current theoretical paradigm of the nucleon structure, which is built upon QCD. In other words, they are attacking a theory that nobody thought was correct”.>>

    Then, according to the referee, the researchers need to continue using the wrong neutron model ddu, in their search for the discovery of the structure of the universe, and we have to trust blindly in the discoveries obtained from such a method of investigation, developed from a model which everybody know to be wrong.

    The criterion used by the referee makes no sence, because, when we know that a theoretical model is wrong, then according to the scientifc criterion the theorists have to undertake efforts in order to discover a better model.
    ==================================================



    Finally, Elsevier asked me to give any suggestion, for the aim of improving the quality of their publications.

    And I sent the following reply:

    The Editors must respect the scientific method. The scientific experiments are more important than their personal opinions”.


     
    Login
    Nickname

    Password

    Security Code: Security Code
    Type Security Code

    Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

    Related Links
    · More about Science
    · News by vlad


    Most read story about Science:
    100 miles on 4 ounces of water?


    Article Rating
    Average Score: 1
    Votes: 1


    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Excellent
    Very Good
    Good
    Regular
    Bad


    Options

     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


    "Quality of Elsevier's Author Support" | Login/Create an Account | 0 comments
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

     

    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
    Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.