Quality of Elsevier's Author Support
Date: Thursday, March 02, 2017 @ 23:54:18 MST
Yesterday, 1st March 2017, I received from Elsevier the following email:
From: Elsevier Author Feedback
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 11:07 AM
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
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
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:
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:
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
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:
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”.