| The “internationally recognized physics journals” – examples of rejection.


Abstract

In this section are shown the arguments of some of the renowned physics journals and magazines with high impact factor, which have rejected manuscripts concerning the reality about „the constancy” of the velocity of light or the theory of relativity – without a possibility for discussion.
The author believes that the arguments will be scientific, without the use of the “logical circular reference” – in other words, according to Kurt Gödel’s statement that “the truth-value of a statement cannot be evaluated, if the statement refers to the truth-value of itself”.
The doors will be opened for all scientists, who wish to participate in the discussions, who wish the physics to escape from the blind alley, where the relativity and cosmology is at present.


1. Some of the answers after submitting the manuscript “The Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein – Awareness of the Physical Reality”.

Note: The content of the manuscript “The Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein – Awareness of the Physical Reality” is almost the same as “The Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein & the Physical Society – Part I” and corresponds to presented in this website Analysis of the article “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.


American Journal of Physics:

“it is not appropriate for publication in the American Journal of Physics. Such a manuscript is completely outside the purview of AJP.”


Annalen der Physik:

“As we receive more manuscripts than we can possibly publish, we are forced to adopt a stringent selection process. We can only select those manuscripts we believe will interest the broadest possible section of our readership and represent a significant topic of general interest. Therefore, we do not want to delay this decision and wish you success in submission of the manuscript to another journal.”


Annals of Physics:

“The editorial board finds your paper, referenced above, not appropriate for our journal. Their comments were “This manuscript does not meet the scientific standards of Annals.””


European Physical Journal H:

“Your manuscript has been carefully considered by our Editorial Board. Our review is dedicated to the publication of original research articles in Historical Perspectives on Contemporary Physics and it appears that your manuscript does not belong to the Aims and Scopes of EPJH.”


General Relativity and Gravitation:

“Reviewers’ comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they are advising against publication of your work. Therefore I must reject it. Reviewers’ comments: “This article is not appropriate for GRG. The author should submit to a more philosophical or historical journal.””


International Journal of Modern Physics D:

“International Journal of Modern Physics D currently receives many more submissions than it can publish. As such, we can only consider for publication papers at that significantly advance physics. We make no judgement about the validity or correctness of your paper”.


Journal of the Physical Society of Japan:

Requirements: “The Journal of Physical Society of Japan (JPSJ) is intended to facilitate the fast publication of significant new discoveries in physics. The manuscript has to be carefully documented so that the readers of the paper can understand the new points and their impacts in comparison with existing knowledge and understandings in the related research field.”

“The present manuscript was reviewed by members of Editorial Board. According to their reports, it does not meet the above-mentioned requirements. In fact, it is not written in such a way that it attracts interest of the general reader of JPSJ.”


Nature:

“The Editor thanks you for your communication but regrets that he is unable to publish it. He regrets also that he cannot enter into further correspondence on this matter.”


Nature Physics:

“It is Nature Physics’ policy to return a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees. Decisions of this kind are made by the editors of Nature Physics according to the demanding editorial criteria of the journal.”


Physics Today:

“A committee of our editors recently met to discuss several article proposals that we had received, including yours. The committee determined that it does not meet our editorial needs at this time.”

Reviews of Modern Physics:

Journal Manager: “I am sorry to report that your article is not suitable for Reviews of Modern Physics.”


Royal Society Open Science:

“In light of the appropriateness of your manuscript for our journal, your manuscript has been denied publication in Royal Society Open Science.”


Science:

“Thank you for submitting your manuscript “The Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein – Awareness of the Physical Reality” to Science. Unfortunately, this is not the sort of work that we publish and we are thus not considering it for publication. We appreciate your interest in Science.”


2. Some of the answers after submitting manuscripts concerning the constancy of the speed of light for all inertial frames of reference.

Note: The contents of the submitted manuscripts correspond to the analyses of the experiments presented in this website – see the web page “Problem 1: The constancy of the speed of light and its sub-pages where are analyzed:


Annalen der Physik – The argument of the Editor-in-Chief about the submitted manuscript “On the speed of light postulate – a different vision”:

“I must regretfully inform you that your manuscript will not be considered further for publication in Annalen der Physik. As we are currently receiving many more manuscripts than we can possibly publish, we have had to be much more selective than we would prefer.”


European Physical Journal C – about the submitted manuscript “The Speed of Light –Awareness of the Physical Reality”. After the appeal:

Associate Editor’s Comments to Author: “No experimental result contradicting SRT has been published in internationally recognized physics journals (or could withhold subsequent reproduction). There is simply no experimental or theoretical basis for the claims of the author. We cannot recommend the article for publication.”


European Physical Journal H – about the submitted manuscript “The Speed of Light –Awareness of the Physical Reality”:

“The article does not contain enough historical material to justify a publication in EPJ H.”


Nature – about the submitted manuscript “The Speed of Light –Awareness of the Physical Reality”:

“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.”


Royal Society Open Science – Editorial comments: about the submitted manuscript “The Speed of Light Postulate – Awareness of the Physical Reality.”:

“Unfortunately we are unable to consider your manuscript further. The models proposed are not based on sufficient data to support the conclusions drawn. Furthermore, the methods presented do not contain sufficient detail as required for a scientific article.”


Royal Society Open Science – about the submitted manuscript “The Special Relativity – Awareness of the Physical Reality”:

“In light of the appropriateness of your manuscript for our journal, your manuscript has been denied publication in Royal Society Open Science.”


=> to the parent webpage