Re: publishing problems (physics)

Thus spake Malcolm <Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

As you say, it is supposed to promote the advancement of physics.
Unification is the major scientific goal at the moment. Theoretical
physics can only be advanced through peer review and publication, so I
would think there is an implicit obligation to carry out that process
diligently.

And I'm confident that the people involved would say that they are
doing this.

What they say is this:

We make use of a streamlined refereeing system that aims to be both
fair
and consistent. For every submission that falls within the scope of one

of our journals, we normally select two independent experts in the
subject of the article who normally act as referees and advise the
Editors on whether the article should be accepted or rejected. We ask
our referees to take into account the content of the article, its
quality and presentation when reaching their recommendations. As a
result we may ask you to revise your article in the light of the
referees' comments which you will be able to access via your IOP Author

homepage. If the referees give conflicting advice, a senior referee
acts
as an adjudicator. If the referees recommend rejection of your article,

you can appeal to the Editorial Board for further consideration. You
should note, however, that an article rejected by one IOP journal on
quality grounds is essentially rejected by all of them.

This has simply not happened.

But at the same time they would say that they have to filter what they
receive by whatever method they have selected.

Yes, but the papers had already passed through the preliminary
filtration process and been recommended to move on to the next step.
The
preliminary process allows them to reject "overly speculative" papers
without review, but this is really a catchall for crank submissions,
which are either mathematically and logically absurd or clearly
inconsistent with observation. To apply it to an axiomatic development
from well established foundations due to Einstein and Von Neumann,
which
resolves serious observational problems in cosmology is just insulting.

I don't know. Either way one would think they would keep looking for a
reviewer.

Well, if they have gone to the four people who they thought were best
placed to referee the paper and all four have come back and said
"unable to report", there may not be any others who would be suitable.

In fact there may be very few people in the world who are suitable. The

papers depend on a study of foundations which is not commonly
undertaken
and apply it in a general relativistic and cosmological context where
they displace fundamental unwritten assumptions. Not many people are
familiar with all these areas.

And at least the Board member did give a reason for his recommendation
of rejection. He said that they were "too speculative" and that they
therefore weren't suitable for CQG.


Actually that is not a reason. First because it is a catchall for
rejecting unscientific papers, and second because CQG exists largely to

publish speculative papers on unification theories, notably string
theory and loop quantum gravity. In fact neither of those models has
any
empirical basis at all.

Also, the papers had already been to a board member who had recommended

they move on to the next step.

This is the latest editorial statement on the remit:

"Classical and Quantum Gravity (CQG) welcomes articles on experimental
gravitation including,
....

You obvious think your papers fit the above criteria.

No, but actually that was just an addendum applying to experimental
papers. The full remit is described under "scope". It includes a number

of areas which are distinctly speculative, notably Supergravity and all

the areas described in that paragraph.


Classical and Quantum Gravity welcomes original research articles on
all
branches of gravitational physics and the theory of spacetime. The
readership of the journal is broad, comprising gravitational theorists
and experimentalists in physics, mathematics and cosmology. All
articles
should be of interest to this broad readership and should contain a
summary that places the findings in the wider context of gravitational
physics.

The detailed coverage of the journal includes, but is not limited to:

All aspects of Classical General Relativity including initial-value
problems, techniques and applications of numerical relativity, exact
solutions, topology and causal structure, singularities, canonical and
other formalisms, Regge calculus, twistors, dynamical triangulation and

other simulation methods.

Applications of Relativity including relativistic astrophysics,
gravitational radiation, gravitational lenses, black holes and
collapsed
objects, and physical processes in their vicinity.

Experimental Gravitation including gravitational wave detection, tests
of gravitational theories, and articles on data analysis and
instrumentation with a clear relevance to gravitation. Further details
Cosmology and the Early Universe including particle physics, grand
unified theories and phase transitions, inflationary cosmology,
theories
of galaxy formation and large-scale structure, cosmic microwave
background radiation, cosmic strings and topological defects, and
cosmic
topology.

All aspects of Quantum Gravity including canonical and covariant
quantization, quantum field theory in curved spacetime, semiclassical
quantization, topological effects, gauge and gravitational anomalies,
quantum cosmology and the quantum theory of black holes and information

loss.

Supergravity, superstrings and supersymmetry including the structure of

string theory, M-theory and its ramifications, conformal field theory,
world*** symmetries, string vacua, compactifications and
phenomenological applications, p-brane dynamics, nonperturbative
aspects
of string theory and M-theory.

Mathematical Physics relevant to Gravitation, specifically gauge-
covariant systems, strings and extended objects, constrained
Hamiltonian
systems, BRST quantization, geometric quantization, renormalization,
path integrals, geometry and topology of field theories, instantons and

non-linear sigma models, and differential geometry relevant to
gravitation


However, it seems you have failed to convince the editor and the board
member.

These things happen.

Indeed. There is regular discussion to the effect that Einstein would
never have got his special relativity paper past a modern editorial
policy. In fact Einstein objected to journals with a refereeing
procedure - he considered it insulting.


Is there another journal that you might consider? It is so far outside
my field that I've no knowledge on that matter.

There are a few journals of mathematical physics, but this one
concentrates on theories of gravity. I have no reason to think any of
them would find it easier to find referees. Probably the reverse.

It would not be out of order to write back to the editor and say that
as the board member has recommended sending the papers to another
journal, does he have any recommendations :-)

I am thinking in terms of writing and appealing. Since they have a
split
view on the preliminary filtration process, I think they have a duty to

science to give them a better look.

One of the board members, Carlo Rovelli, describes the purpose of
Relational Quantum Mechanics: "... to do for the formalism of quantum
mechanics what Einstein did for the Lorentz transformations: i. Find a
set of simple assertions about the world, with clear physical meaning,
that we know are experimentally true (postulates); ii. Analyze these
postulates, and show that from their conjunction it follows that
certain common assumptions about the world are incorrect; iii. Derive
the full formalism of quantum mechanics from these postulates. I expect
that if this program could be completed, we would at long last begin to
agree that we have understood quantum mechanics".

This is essentially the program I have followed. Not unnaturally when
you carry out ii) and come into conflict with common assumptions you
also come into conflict with people who adhere to those assumptions.
However to describe this as "speculative" is highly unscientific, imv.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

.