Well, one has always to try did not work too well. A mere 18 hours after being put in the editorial queue, the article I submitted was rejected. Sigh. The response was laconic:
I have read your paper with interest but regret that it is not suitable for publication in Physics Letters A as it does not satisfy our criterion of urgency and it is too long for a Letter.
This is, of course, extremely disappointing to me. The rejection itself was somewhat expected, honestly. What I did not expect was that it would be so quick, so uninformative, and that I would be so totally unable to believe what was written.
If the editor had written: your paper contradicts well known result X, or your paper is too speculative or it’s definitely worthy of publication, but could you please cut it in 3 independent parts to accomodate our publication format?, I could have believed it. I would actualy have learned something from it. But here, it’s really difficult to believe there was any genuine “interest”…
Seriously… not urgent, a paper that purports to solve not one, but three decade old problems (unification, quantum measurement problem and interpretation of quantum mechanics), with a few other tidbits like explaining the mathematical shape of the wave function, physically justifying scale relativity, or explaining why the annoying hypothesis of dark matter may be unnecessary? Too long when this publication prides itself on its front page for its flexible length restrictions and explicitly sets no formal limit to the length of the paper? Sorry if I vent here, but “give me a break” sounds about right.
Unfortunately, the most likely explanation is that the editor saw serious scientific flaws in my work. I just wish he had told me what they are. Ridiculing myself with various physics journals if this is really flawed beyond repair is definitely a non-objective. The problem is that there are really only two logical alternatives:
- I know about something that nobody else knows yet (and the flaw I see in quantum mechanics is genuine and worth talking about), or
- Everybody else knows something I don’t know (and that’s why I don’t see the flaw in my work).
Well, option #1 definitely sounds preposterous, but to the extent where I believe that I understand what research physicists write on the topic, that I understand the underlying math, that I see a flaw in the reasoning, that I can fix the flaw and that I can reconstruct the original math with an interesting twist that solves several problems in one shot, I’m afraid it still remains the most reasonable option to me.
Until proven wrong, that is…