Report of the Nature’s editor:

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:24:08 -0500
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: NATURE: Thank you for your submission to Nature
CC: wlasdki
From: decisions@nature.com

13th February 2013

Dear Mr GUGLINSKI,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript, which we are
regretfully unable to offer to publish.

It is Nature’s policy to return a substantial proportion of
manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be
sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this kind are made by
the editorial staff when it appears that papers are unlikely to
succeed in the competition for limited space.

In the present case, while your findings may well prove
stimulating to others’ thinking about such questions, I regret
that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of
firm advance in general understanding that would warrant
publication in Nature. We therefore feel that the paper would
find a more suitable outlet in a specialist journal.

I am sorry that we cannot respond more positively on this
occasion, but I hope that you will rapidly receive a more
favourable response elsewhere.

Yours sincerely,

Manuscript Administration, Nature

This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System NY-610A-NPG&MTS

Confidentiality Statement:

This e-mail is confidential and subject to copyright. Any unauthorised use or disclosure of its contents is prohibited.

=========================================
My first reply to Nature:

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: peter.hewitt@nature.com
Subject: RE: Plagiarism in the Journal Nature
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:18:29 -0200

Dear Peter,
I have received the decision on my paper.

However, the decision is very strange, because of the following:

1- First the editor says:
Decisions of this kind are made by
the editorial staff when it appears that papers are unlikely to
succeed in the competition for limited space

COMMENT: Such argument is very strange. Because if the new nuclear model proposed in my theory is correct, it can change the way of the theoretical way in which the Nuclear Physics has been developed up to the present days. Then if makes no sense to claim that my paper is “unlikely to succeed in competition for limited space“. A paper with the magnitude of changing some principles of Nuclear Physics merits to have any space at its disposal.

2- The second argument of the editor is:
In the present case, while your findings may well prove
stimulating to others’ thinking about such questions, I regret
that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of
firm advance in general understanding that would warrant
publication in Nature

COMMENT 1: First of all, the findings are not of mine. The findings were obtained by EXPERIMENTS, made in the last five years. If the editor is afraid that my paper is threatening the Classical Theoretical Nuclear Physics, he is wrong. Because the Classical Nuclear Physics is being threatened by the recent EXPERIMENTS published between 2008 and 2012. The experiments are only corroborating my new nuclear model.
So, if the Standard Nuclear Physics needs to be changed, the changing is required because of the EXPERIMENTS require it, and not because my theory is suggesting it. My theory is only pointing out a possible theoretical way.

COMMENT 2: The paper provices equations, it proposes a Lagrangian for the light nuclei, and it shows how to calculate magnetic moments. Then, with the publication of the paper, other nuclear theorists can undertake the enterprise of submitting the new nuclear model to more and more calculations. From such work, they will be able to conclude if the nuclear cohesion of light nuclei is indeed promoted by the magnetic and spin-interactions, as calculated in the paper.
The editor confesses that “we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding…”.
Well but the experiments published in the last five years are very firm when they point out to us that the current models of the Standard Nuclear Physics do not give any advance for us in understanding the behavior of the light nuclei. There is not any theory capable to explain the distance of 7fm between the halo neutron and the cluster in 4Be11. And now the editor decides to decline the unique theory which proposes a coherent explanation for the phenomenon. This makes no sense.
Probably the editor is afraid because my theory proposes new principles different of those considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics. However his fear makes no sence, because the need of changing some principles of the current Nuclear Physics is not decurrent of my paper. Such need is decurrent of the last experiments published in the last five years.

3- Finally, the editor says:
We therefore feel that the paper would
find a more suitable outlet in a specialist journal.

COMMENT: this is no true. The paper How Atomic Nuclei Cluster has been published by Nature in July 2012. If the argument of the editor should be true, that paper would never be published by Nature.

CONCLUSION: the arguments used by the editor are not supported by the facts, and therefore the paper cannot be declined by such sort of reasoing.

So, I would like to ask to submit the paper to another editor.

Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
===========================================

===========================================
Second reply to Nature:

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: peter.hewitt@nature.com
Subject: FW: Plagiarism in the Journal Nature
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:44:36 -0200

Dear Peter,
what I had disliked in the criterion for rejection of my paper is the incoherence of the arguments.

I could accept the rejection of the paper if the editor had used coherent arguments.
For instance, he could say:

1- I regret that we are unable to conclude that the work developed along 80 years of research in the field of the Standard Nuclear Physics provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding of the light isotopes, because the experiments in the last 5 years are showing us that some principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics are wrong.
However I regret to say that it’s hard to me to reject 80 years of research, and so I confess that I preffer to keep my trust in what we believed along those 80 years.

2- I know that current nuclear models are wrong, because the experiments published in the last 5 years are proving that the Standard Nuclear Physics cannot explain the nuclear properties of the light isotopes. I know that strong nuclear force cannot promote the cohesion of the light nuclei, as we used to believe along 80 years, because the halo neutron far away 7fm from the nuclear core in 4Be11 cannot be linked by the strong nuclear force. However I cannot reject 80 years of theoretical work, along which we believed that the nuclei have their cohesion thanks to the strong force.

3- I know that some principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics must be replaced. For instance, I know that we need to find a model in which the nucleons are not linked by the strong force. However I cannot reject the Standard Nuclear Physics. Instead of, I prefer to betray the scientific method, by rejecting the experiments published in the last 5 years (some of them published in the own Journal Nature).

Therefore, we are regretfully unable to offer to publish Guglinski’s paper.
Yours sincerely,
Manuscript Administration, Nature

Dear Peter,
This is a coherent argument, and it is acceptable. But not that nonsense with which the editor declined my paper.

Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
==============================================