Популярно о конечной математике и ее интересных применениях в квантовой теории - Феликс Лев

и через 13 минут получил такой ответ:

Уважаемый Профессор Лев.

РК ТМФ рассмотрела ваши письма от 2019–02–21 и 2019–02–25 и осталась при своем мнении – статью отклонить по тематике.

В.В. Жаринов

Итак, даже цитируя правила ТМФ, я пытался объяснить В.В. Жаринову, что статья полностью по тематике журнала. Но он не опустился до того, чтобы объяснить мне в чем я неправ. В своем первом ответе В.В. Жаринов даже не написал, что это мнение РК, да и вряд ли оно могло быть т. к. первый ответ был получен через 4 часа после отправки статьи. Так что с вероятностью почти 100 % это просто мнение Жаринова. А после моих нескольких вопросов окончательный ответ, полученный через 13 минут говорит, что это решение РК. Но тогда непонятно, почему об этом решении мне не написали раньше, а только в ответ на мои просьбы. Т. е. очень похоже, что никакого заседания РК по моей статье не было, а все это только решение В.В. Жаринова. Когда меня отражали другие журналы, то все же главред опускался до того, чтобы подписать решение редакции. Т.е., решение об отклонении статьи принято только ответственным секретарем. Какой бы он ни был великий ученый, но это ни в какие ворота.

Следующая попытка – Journal of Mathematical Physics и получил такой ответ:

Dear Dr. Lev,

I regret to inform you that we do not find your manuscript 19–0323, «A Simple Proof That Finite Quantum Theory And Finite Mathematics Are More Fundamental Than Standard Quantum Theory And Classical Mathematics, Respectively,» suitable for publication in the Journal of Mathematical Physics. The Associate Editor’s comments are enclosed.

Sincerely, Jan Philip Solovej

Editor…

Editor Decision: Reject without review

Associate Editor Decision: Reject without review

Associate Editor Comments to the Author:

The paper is not of sufficient mathematical quality to warrant publication in Journal of Mathematical Physics.

И чтобы написать такой глубокомысленный ответ, понадобилось 23 дня. То есть говорится, что качество математики недостаточное для опубликования в таком великом журнале, но опять не опускаются до того чтобы объяснить почему. Конечно, я послал appeal:

Manuscript 19–0323 "A Simple Proof That Finite Quantum Theory And Finite Mathematics Are More Fundamental Than Standard Quantum Theory And Classical Mathematics, Respectively" by Felix Lev

Author’s appeal on editorial decision

The only reason for rejection is the statement of Associate Editor that «The paper is not of sufficient mathematical quality to warrant publication in Journal of Mathematical Physics». If this the real reason then it is not clear why it took 23 days to inform me about this decision. Such an attitude to the author fully contradicts scientific ethics.

The decision contradicts scientific ethics also from the formal point of the view. The decision does not say that my paper is out of the scope of JMP. The editorial policy of JMP states that «Specifically, the articles focus on areas of research that illustrate the application of mathematics to problems in physics», and my paper fully satisfies this requirement. In science it is treated as fully unacceptable when official negative conclusions about a paper are given without any substantiation. If such a practice is acceptable for JMP then I believe that it would be at least fair to say in the editorial policy that the editors are not obliged to substantiate their decisions even on papers which are in the scope of JMP. In that case scientists sending papers to JMP will be aware that their papers can be rejected without any substantiation. The way how my paper was treated also fully contradicts Prof. Solovej’s statement that JMP «…should publish high-quality papers of interest to both mathematics and physics, and this criterion should be applied vigorously in the review of papers». In my case the paper even has not been sent for a review.

With such an attitude as in the given case any scientific discussions become meaningless because if the editor does not like a paper or is not qualified to understand it then he can claim that “the paper is not of sufficient mathematical quality”. I have papers in many known journals (Annals Phys., Finite Fields and Their Applications, J. Phys. A: Theoretical and Mathematical, Nucl. Phys. A., Phys. Lett., Phys. Rev. C and D, Phys. Rev. Lett., Theor. Math. Phys. and others). In particular I have two rather long papers published in JMP when the editor was Prof. Biedenharn and those papers are done in the framework of the approach used in the present paper. Typically my papers were accepted, in some cases they were rejected but this is for the first time when the “motivation” for rejection was that “the paper is not of sufficient mathematical quality”. With this “motivation” the editor in fact says that my mathematical level is low, his level is high and he considers it beneath his dignity to explain why he thinks so. Meanwhile his approach to the mathematical level in JMP is very important in view of the following. One of the requirements of the JMP editorial policy is

1) JMP welcomes original research of the highest quality in all active areas of mathematical physics.

Probably highest quality implies that the level of mathematics in JMP papers also should be of highest quality, right? At the same time, the policy also contains the requirement that

2) The mathematics featured in the articles are written so that theoretical physicists can understand them.

and it is not clear whether 1) and 2) are mutually consistent. For example, in my paper I prove that quantum theory based on finite mathematics is more fundamental than standard quantum theory. Needless to say that this problem is fundamental and is in the scope of JMP. However, the absolute majority of physicists do not have even very basic knowledge in finite mathematics. I tried to satisfy 2) as much as possible. As I note in my cover letter, I believe that for understanding