Updated March 19, 2009
Here
I present my discussions and my comments to the referee’s reports,
concerning my papers, submitting to different physical and mathematical journals.
Necessity of such a presentation is conditioned by the following circumstances.
Most
scientific journals use the peer review of submitted papers. The peer review
admits one to reject slight, incorrect or trifling papers. Unfortunately, as a rule, the referees are ordinary
scientists, who cannot correctly estimate the paper, if it contains
conceptually new approach, which disagrees with the conventional approach. The
referee can easily produce a correct estimation, if the paper predicts some observable
effect, which can be tested by experiment. In this case it is of no importance,
that the author suggests a new hypothesis, which disagrees with the known
physical principles. Such a paper is of interest and should be published,
because prediction of the paper may be tested experimentally. It is quite
another case, if the author has found a mistake or incorrectness in the
conventional approach, or in the conventional principles. As a rule such
incorrectness has a logical character and cannot be tested directly by
experiment. As a rule the referee considers such a paper skeptically and does
not recommend it to publication, even if
he/she has nothing to argue against it.
I
do not suggest new hypotheses in my papers. My investigation strategy is very
simple. I discover a mistake in the contemporary physical theory and
correct this mistake. Correction of a
mistake is not a new hypothesis. The correction is made on the basis of logical
consideration. It does not need an experimental test. As a rule the referees
dislike such an approach. Firstly, they do not believe, that the conventional
physical theory may contain mistakes.
Secondly, as a rule the referees think, that the mistake should be compensated
by inventing a new hypotheses. They do not believe in the logical reasonings.
Their mistrust to logical reasonings is
founded on the circumstance, that the quantum mechanics developed on basis
of new extravagant hypotheses, but not on the basis of corollaries of
classical physical principles.
Arguments
of the referees against my papers, written on the basis of Newtonian principle: “Hypotheses non fingo”
are the same arguments, which would be adduced by most researchers. I hope that
my comments to arguments of the referees will be useful for understanding of a
very simple statement, that mistakes should be corrected, but not compensated.
Besides, the dialogue form of my comments is perceived easier, than the
conventional monologue of a scientific
paper.
The
referee’s reports are real reports, which were presented to editors of scientific journals. The names of the
journals are coded, to not violate the confidential character of correspondence
between the author and Editor.
·
Rylov
Yu.A. (2009), Discussion with
I.F.Ginzburg about his review article “Unsolved problems of contemporary
physics” (in Russian).
·
Rylov
Yu.A. (2009), Author’s comments to remarks of the
referees, concerning manuscript
"Generalization of relativistic particle dynamics on the case of
non-Riemannian space-time geometry", submitted to a scientific journal,
devoted to conceptual problems of physics.
·
Rylov
Yu. A. (2008) Discussion with Yu.I. Manin
on perspectives of the mathematics development.
·
Rylov
Yu. A. (2006) Author's comments to referee's reports on the
paper by Y. A. Rylov "Dynamical methods of investigation in application to
the Dirac particle", submitted to a scientific journal
Updated December 12, 2009