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.
Updated December 12, 2009