| The answers of some well-known physics and astronomy publishers

This site shows the answers of some academic book publishers on the proposed for publishing the monograph The Special Theory of Relativity – a Classical Review.



1. Springer

The book “The Special Theory of Relativity – a Classical Review” was sent to all Springer editors in Physics for Europe:

The essential questions are two:

1. Do you have any scientific arguments against the evidence presented in the book?
2. Will you accept to be the Editor of Springer publication of this book?

The answer, however, was “SILENCE” – the publication of the book was refused. The only answer was by Dr. Angela Lahi (obviously, the answer is on behalf of all editors, including Vice President Dr. Lisbeth Mol), with the main argument that

“this book proposal is not suited to our publishing program”.

The most important fact, however, was that

the all Springer Nature publishing editors in Physics for Europe did not find any scientific argument against the evidence presented in the proposed for publication book The Special Theory of Relativity – a Classical Review, which undoubtedly proves both the invalidity of the special theory of relativity and the invalidity of the “fundamental tests”, which “prove?” the special theory of relativity.


2. Cambridge University Press

The proposal to publish at Cambridge University Press the monograph “The Special Theory of Relativity – a Classical Analysis” was sent to Dr. Vince Higgs (Physics and astronomy Senior Commissioning Editor). As early as 2012, when I visited the Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, I had a request to discuss the topics that are being discussed in the book proposed for publication – see (http://talks.cam.ac.uk/search/Sharlanov). Unfortunately, this talk did not take place, because I was not a student at Oxford.

Dr. Vince Higgs was actually the first scientist to honestly say how things are:

“While I’m sympathetic to your situation, a scientific publisher cannot (and arguably, should not) publish a work that does not have appreciable support from within the scientific community: they are both our authors and our customers. Our job therefore is to publish the best science; it is for scientists to decide which theories to follow and which to discard. The primary literature for discussing new theories and ideas, and for arguing against existing ones, is in refereed journals, not to publish a book.”

My answer was information about what I had done so far:

1. I tried to publish the ideas presented in the book in a number of internationally recognized physics journals (about 15). You can see the list of the answers in the attached file. (The list is published here.)

2. I presented an article at the 3rd Annual International Conference on Physics, 20-23 July 2015, Athens – ISSN: 2241-2891. No: PHY2015-1895.  The article was rated – it was one of five articles published among more than 70 articles. However –SILENCE of the physical society again!

3. I published an e-book with the content of the monograph at Amazon and at Smashwords. Nobody wanted to read the book (at a price of $6). That is why I increased the price 10 times two month ago.

4. I published a printed book in Bulgaria. The owner of the publishing house is a nuclear physicist. He appreciated the scientific value of the book. However, he was right that the book would not be taken seriously by ordinary readers, and the scientists will be silent.

5. I decided to publish the book in an internationally recognized publishing house (Springer and Cambridge University Press). You are right – “it is for scientists to decide which theories to follow and which to discard”.

But all this is, however, another artificially scientific “circular reference” …

Actually, I sent to Dr. Higgs the examples of rejection (with all “the scientific arguments”) of the “internationally recognized physics journals” that are published in web page: https://physics.bg/home/scientific-arguments/recognized-physics-journals/

The book publishing was rejected, but the important fact, however, was that Cambridge University Press did not find any scientific argument against the evidence presented in the proposed for publication monographThe Special Theory of Relativity – a Classical Review”, which undoubtedly proves both the invalidity of the special theory of relativity and the invalidity of the “fundamental tests”, which “prove?” the special theory of relativity.


3. Elsevier publishing house

The third attempt to publish the monograph “The Special Theory of Relativity – a Classical Review” in a worldwide academic publishing house was at Elsevier. The rejection sent was:

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your proposal.    We have reviewed it and find that it falls outside the current editorial focus of our program at Elsevier Science Books.

This decision is based principally on editorial and marketing priorities and is not intended to be a reflection on the quality of the work.  We wish you all the best in finding a publisher and we thank you for considering Elsevier Science Books.
Best regards,
ELSEVIER | Education, Research and Continuity, Research and Reference, Content

The book publishing was rejected, but the important fact was again that

Elsevier Science Books did not find any scientific argument against the evidence presented in the proposed for publication monograph The Special Theory of Relativity – a Classical Review, which undoubtedly proves both the invalidity of the special theory of relativity and the invalidity of the “fundamental tests”, which “prove” that theory.

My conclusion: Maybe my fault is my own opinion “on the role of publishers in accelerating data sharing” !!!


4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press

At the moment, the monograph is submitted to MIT Press – it is a university press affiliated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Massachusetts (United States).

The submission for publication of the book “The Special Theory of Relativity – a Classical Review”  was made on 01 March to Dr. Jermey Matthews (the Acquisitions Editor – Physical Sciences, Engineering, and Mathematics – Email: jnamatt@mit.edu.

Four emails after the submission were sent with a request for an answer. The following email was sent and to the editorial assistant Gabriela Bueno Gibbs -Email: ggibbs@mit.edu.

May 8 at 12:32 PM

Dear Dr. Matthews,

This is the fourth letter I am sending you. So far, I have no answer from you about the monograph “The Special Theory of Relativity – a Classical Analysis” submitted for publication at MIT Press (submitted on March 1st).
1. Can I expect that you do not want the monograph to be published?
2. If so, would you send me all the scientific arguments (if any) which someone has against the evidence presented in the monograph?
3. In fact, the failure to submit such scientific arguments means that you agree with everything in the monograph!
4. Maybe, you agree that this monograph means “breakthrough in relativity and cosmology”?
If so, I am very glad that silently, you actually agree!

(the attached pgf-file is the complete monograph “The Special Theory of Relativity – a Classical Analysis”).

p.s.: Can I post this letter in https://physics.bg/home/scientific-arguments/some-physics-and-astronomy-publishers/?

Thank you,
Best Regards,

Gocho Sharlanov

No response until today! In the Home page of Dr. Jermey Matthews (https://mitpress.mit.edu/Jermey-Matthews), can be read that among the Notable Acquisitions of Dr. Jermey Matthews is:
“Science Not Silence…”.  

The question is, “What does this silence mean?

Maybe fear or shame…?


5. Oxford University Press

Submitting a Proposal – June 10, 2019

All the necessary materials needed for the publication of the book were sent to Dr. Jeremy Lewis, who is responsible for: Earth science, life sciences, and physics.

The answer of Dr. Jeremy Levis was:

Thank you for your note, and for sending those materials. While they are interesting, the book is just not right for OUP at this time.

At my request to give scientific arguments for the refusal to publish the book:

Dear Dr. Jeremy Lewis,
Can you say clearly with dignity what “the book is just not right for OUP at this time” means? This is not a scientific argument that you should answer …

The answer is again SILENCE!!!


6. Princeton University Press

On 14 July, the following letter, as a proposal to publish a book in Princeton University Press, was sent to Ingrid Gnerlich – the responsible senior editor in physical sciences for Europe:

Dear Managing Editor,
My name is Gocho V. Sharlanov. I am Bulgarian. The attached files are according to the requirements of Princeton University Press, and it is my proposal for a book publication.
The title of the book is “The Special Theory of Relativity – a Classical Analysis”, the subtitle is “Special Theory of Relativity – an Analysis Based on Classical Mechanics and the Relativity of Galileo“. The book is a monograph based mainly on the embodied ideas into the article “The Speed of Light Postulate and Uncertainty Principle of the Macro-world in the General Relativity” presented at the 3rd Annual International Conference on Physics, 20-23 July 2015, Athens, as well as into other 3 articles published by the author in the open-access journal “Applied Physics Research” published by the Canadian Center of Science and Education.

“The Special Theory of Relativity – a Classical Analysis” is a monograph (with a bibliography included). The first edition was published in the Republic of Bulgaria last year as a printed book –  ISBN 978-954-651-308-3. The presented ideas can be found in the published last year e-book in the USA (US Copyright) – ISBN 9781370029372, ASIN B07DZGCFDC (Amazon Edition), as well as, and at the webpage https://physics.bg . The evidence presented has been submitted for discussion on various forums and to scientific journals. Up to now, it is no scientific arguments against the evidence presented.

The book contains 18 figures and 72 equations. The expected length of the book is more than 60 000 words (including Bibliography). The entire book is ready for submission.

The Princeton University Press has the distinct honor of being the publisher for Albert Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity and is co-sponsor and has published The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. In this sense, the Princeton press is bound to the subject of the book and must take a serious scientific attitude!

My polite request is to send me (via e-mail) any scientific argument that you (or the reviewers) have found against the evidence adduced on the invalidity of the Special theory of relativity. If you do not give any scientific arguments against the evidence presented, it actually will mean that you agree with the facts presented!

I implore you, do not reject the publication of the book without giving scientific arguments!

List of the attached files:
1.Brief Description.pdf; 2.Full Description.pdf; 3.Proposed Table of Contents.pdf; 4.Proposed Chapter Outline.pdf; 5.Readership and Comparable Books.pdf; 6.Author Information_CV.pdf.

 Sincerely,
Gocho V. Sharlanov
Academic Member of the Athens Institute for Education and Research
https://physics.bg/
Master of Science in Engineering
“Instrumentation and Control Systems for Nuclear Power Plants”;
“Applied Mathematics”

On 31 July, the following answer, as we see – without any scientific arguments!

(which confirms that such arguments simply do not exist)!

July 31, 2019
To: Gocho V. Sharlanov


And now the scientific arguments follow:

Dear Gocho Sharlanov:

Thank you for sending Princeton University Press your project entitled “The Special Theory of relativity – a Classical Analysis”. Unfortunately, it does not fit our plans for Princeton’s list.  Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work, and we wish you every success in finding a suitable publisher.

Sincerely yours,

Arthur Werneck
Editorial Associate

=> to the parent webpage