Main Page
H. Nicolai makes irrelevant to General Relativity statement
H. Nicolai (Former Editor in Chief to Classical and Quantum Gravity) violates the journal's referring rules by himself, sending the submitted paper ([2]) to only one referee (supposedly himself) instead
of to two independent referees. Supports/states that General Relativity also predicts that electromagnetic field is a source for
gravitational one (absolutely irrelevant to General Relativity statement). Refuses to provide answers to the author's comments
For details see full correspondence below
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:54:04 +0100
Subject: IOP - Submission has been received
From: [email protected] Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Your Article 'Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravitation' has been
received. The Submission will be reviewed by our team, and we will get back to
you shortly.
Yours sincerely
Joanne Rowse
Publishing Administrator
Classical and Quantum Gravity
E-mail: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Atom/CQG/167437/PAP/47626
To: [email protected]
Dear Joanne Rowse,
The paper has been submitted more than 60 days ago.
Please let me know when the decision will be made.
Yours sincerely,
Shervgi.
To: [email protected]
Subject: Atom/CQG/167437/PAP/47626
From: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:16:37 +0000
Ref: CQG/167437/PAP/47626
27 October 2003
Dear Dr Shahverdiyev
TITLE: Unification of electromagnetism and gravitation
AUTHORS: Dr E M Shahverdiyev
Thank you for your enquiry about the current status of your Paper,
under consideration by Classical and Quantum Gravity. We have received one
referee's report and we are currently waiting for the second. We hope
to get the second report very soon, and I will let you know the final
decision on your Paper as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely
Joanne Rowse
Publishing Administrator
Classical and Quantum Gravity
E-mail: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Class. Quantum Grav. - CQG/167437/PAP/47626
From: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:29:55 +0000
Ref: CQG/167437/PAP/47626
Dear Dr Shahverdiyev
TITLE: Unification of electromagnetism and gravitation
AUTHORS: Dr E M Shahverdiyev
Your Paper submitted to Classical and Quantum Gravity has now been
refereed
and the referee report is attached.
I am sorry to tell you that the referee has recommended that your Paper
should not be published in Classical and Quantum Gravity, for the
reasons given in their report. Your Paper has therefore been withdrawn from
consideration.
I would like to thank you for your interest in Classical and Quantum
Gravity.
Yours sincerely
Joanne Rowse
Publishing Administrator
Classical and Quantum Gravity
E-mail: [email protected]
Referee's Report on CQG/167437/PAP
The author presents what is claimed to be a new unified theory,
constructed within the framework of a General Geometry based on equation (1),
and the equation given immediately after (1). The first equation seems to be an
unusual definition for the parallel transport of a vector along a curve
in space-time. It involves in the usual way the Christoffel symbols
constructed from the tensor $g_{\mu\nu}$, but with the addition of a
term which according to the first equation in (2) depends on the charge/mass
ratio of a particle. The expression to be used for calculating the
length along a curve also depends on this ratio. The obvious difficulty here
is that particles with different charge/mass ratios would require
different geometries. After a few further steps a fourth rank tensor is
constructed somewhat arbitrarily (the author admits that there are other
possibilities) on the basis of which an action functional $^{eg}S$ for the theory is
defined. An inspection of the formula for $^{eg}S$, taking into account
the expression given in (2) for the field $F_{\mu\nu}$, shows that this
functional does not depend on the charge/mass ratio of any particle. It
is in fact the action functional constructed from the tensor $g_{\mu\nu}$
and the electromagnetic potential vector $A_{\mu}$ from which the standard
Einstein-Maxwell equations of general relativity may be derived. These
are equations (4), when use is made of the formula for $F_{\mu\nu}$ given
in (2). The author's approach has led to nothing new.
I recommend that this paper be rejected
Institute of Physics
Registered charity No. 293851
76 Portland Place, London, W1B 1NT, England
IOP Publishing Limited
Registered in England under Registration No 467514.
Registered Office: Dirac House, Temple Back, Bristol BS1 6BE England
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 18:31:36 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Class. Quantum Grav. - CQG/167437/PAP/47626
To: [email protected]
Dear Joanne Rowse,
In his/her report the referee describes the content of
the paper and simply ignores all the new results of
the paper especially its prediction. Therefore his/her
decision not to publish the paper is not supported.
Attached, please find my comments to the referee's
report.
As far as follows from information on the CQG website,
papers are referred by two independent referees. I do
not see the second referee's report and wonder to know
why my paper get such a special attention.
For some reason the referee nullifies all results
of the paper. This action of the referee shows us that
he/she is not interested in publishing the paper.
I would like to stress that such an attitude is the
violation of my rights for free speech and violation
of the fair refereeing system.
We do know that a group of scientists are interested
in suppressing publication of this paper, because its
results damages reputation of string theory as being a
theory of everything. These scientists write
absolutely irrelevant reports, ignore main results of
the paper and delay its consideration.
Please make sure that my paper be considered
appropriately, according to the fair referring system
(referred by two independent referees, without any
personal attitude) without any violation of rights.
I am sure that Institute of physics supports this kind
of referring and obliges not to violate anyone rights
for free speech.
Thank you in advance.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev.
--------------------------------------------------
Author's comments to the referee's report.
In the beginning of the report the referee correctly
described the content of the paper, except that there
is no wide arbitrariness in constructing the fourth
rank tensor. The arbitrariness include only the
freedom for choosing coefficients.
Close to the end, the referee states that "...
the electromagnetic potential vector $A_{\mu}$ from
which the standard Einstein-Maxwell equations of
general relativity may be derived."
However, general relativity is a theory of the
graviation only and there are no equations called
Einstein-Maxwell equations. See for example W. Pauli,
"Theory of relativity" , Pergamon Press, 1958. or any
book on General Relativity.
I would like to stress that in general relativity
there is no place for electromagnetic field or Maxwell
equations. The so called Einstein-Maxwell equations
(in the literature)are simply sum of Einstein and
Maxwell equations, which is done by hand. And this
thing does not have any foundation unlike the Einstein
equations derived through geometrization. It is
obvious that if the so called Einstein-Maxwell
equations had any foundation then scientists
beginning by Weil, Kaluza, Einstein, Schrodinger, and
etc (see list of references of the paper) did not do
any attempts to find a unified theory of
electromagnetism and graviation.
Through his/her report the referee completely ignores
new result of the paper.
Below, please find a list of
new ideas and results of the paper.
1. a new unified model of electromagnetism and
gravitation is proposed.(new idea)
2. the so called Einstein-Maxwell equations are
derived from geometry, thus establishing their
foundation. (new result)
The proposed model:
3. is formulated in four dimensional spacetime and
does not contain additional fields, unlike the
existing unified models.(new result)
4. reproduces electromagnetism and gravitation
exactly, unlike the Kaluza-Klein theory and etc.
(new result)
5. predicts that electromagnetic field is a source for
gravitational field.(new result)
6. does not have charge/mass problem as in the
Kaluza-Klein theory.(new result-advantage)
7. gives a new understanding of problem of matter and
geometry (new result)
For all of the listed new results of the paper the
referee's decision is not supported.
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:12:02 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Class. Quantum Grav. - CQG/167437/PAP/47626
To: [email protected]
Dear prof. H. Nicolai,
I am writing to let you that the paper
CQG/167437/PAP/47626 was not referred fairly.
I have received only one report instead of two.
For some reason the referee nullifies all results
of the paper. This action of the referee shows us that
he/she is not interested in publishing the paper.
I would like to stress that such an attitude is the
violation of my rights for free speech and violation
of the fair refereeing system.
We do know that a group of scientists are interested
in suppressing publication of this paper, because its
results damage reputation of string theory as being a
theory of everything. These scientists write
absolutely irrelevant reports, ignore main results of
the paper and delay its consideration.
Please make sure that my paper be considered
appropriately, according to the fair referring system
(referred by two independent referees, without any
personal attitude) without any violation of rights.
I am sure that Institute of Physics supports this kind
of referring and obliges not to violate anyone rights
for free speech.
If there is any necessity of informing Institute of
Physics authorities about this incident please let me
know.
Thank you in advance.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev.
Below, please find the report and my comments.
--------------------------------------------------
Author's comments to the referee's report.
In the beginning of the report the referee correctly
described the content of the paper, except that there
is no wide arbitrariness in constructing the fourth
rank tensor. The arbitrariness include only the
freedom for choosing coefficients.
Close to the end, the referee states that "...
the electromagnetic potential vector $A_{\mu}$ from
which the standard Einstein-Maxwell equations of
general relativity may be derived."
However, general relativity is a theory of the
graviation only and there are no equations called
Einstein-Maxwell equations. See for example W. Pauli,
"Theory of relativity" , Pergamon Press, 1958. or any
book on General Relativity.
I would like to stress that in general relativity
there is no place for electromagnetic field or Maxwell
equations. The so called Einstein-Maxwell equations
(in the literature)are simply sum of Einstein and
Maxwell equations, which is done by hand. And this
thing does not have any foundation unlike the Einstein
equations derived through geometrization. It is
obvious that if the so called Einstein-Maxwell
equations had any foundation then scientists
beginning by Weil, Kaluza, Einstein, Schrodinger, and
etc (see list of references of the paper) did not do
any attempts to find a unified theory of
electromagnetism and graviation.
Through his/her report the referee completely ignores
new result of the paper.
Below, please find a list of
new ideas and results of the paper.
1. a new unified model of electromagnetism and
gravitation is proposed.(new idea)
2. the so called Einstein-Maxwell equations are
derived from geometry, thus establishing their
foundation. (new result)
The proposed model:
3. is formulated in four dimensional spacetime and
does not contain additional fields, unlike the
existing unified models.(new result)
4. reproduces electromagnetism and gravitation
exactly, unlike the Kaluza-Klein theory and etc.
(new result)
5. predicts that electromagnetic field is a source for
gravitational field.(new result)
6. does not have charge/mass problem as in the
Kaluza-Klein theory.(new result-advantage)
7. gives a new understanding of problem of matter and
geometry (new result)
For all of the listed new results of the paper the
referee's decision is not supported.
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:16:42 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Fwd: Re: Class. Quantum Grav. - CQG/167437/PAP/47626
To: [email protected]
Dear Joanne Rowse,
Please acknowledge the receipt of the included letter
on Nov 2, 2003.
Sincerely,
S. Shahverdiyev.
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:24:31 +0000
From: "Andrew Wray"
To: [email protected]
Subject: CQG/167437/PAP
Dear Dr Shahverdiyev
Thank you for your email of 2 November to Professor Hermann Nicolai.
Professor Nicolai has asked me to respond on behalf of the journal.
The Editorial Board has reviewed the referee's report on your paper and
your reply. I regret to say that the Board agree with the referee and
therefore the paper is not suitable for publication in Classical and
Quantum Gravity.
I should add that this decision does not affect your rights to free
speech, specifically to post your article on the preprint server at
www.arxiv.org where it can be read by physicists around the world.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Wray
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:22:43 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Fwd: Atom/CQG/167437/PAP/47626
To: "Andrew Wray"
Dear Dr. Andrew Wray,
Thank you for your response.
> The Editorial Board has reviewed the referee's
> report on your paper and your reply. I regret to say
> that the Board agree with the referee and therefore
> the paper is not suitable for publication in
> Classical and Quantum Gravity.
Unfortunately, I did not understand this statement,
because the referee did not write anything about
paper's suitability for CQG. All the referee said was
that there are no new results. All new results were
listed in my comments. Did the editorial board take a
look to those results? If they did, what was their
comments? I appreciate if you let me know.
Can I conclude that the editor who handles the paper
after not finding anything to oppose my comments
decided to make such a controversial decision. If the
paper were not suitable for CQG why did he send it for
referring? Why the referee's opinion is considered as
an absolute truth? It is fair to count the author's
comments too, in order to make fair decision.
Moreover, the simply referring procedure was not
followed. Below please find a letter from
Ms. Rowse, where she clearly informs me that she waits
for the second referee's report. However, I have
received only one report. I have asked her to supply
the second report, but she has not replied me yet.
Please understand me correctly, but such an attitude
compels me to speculate about what happened really.
Maybe the second report was positive and editor
handling the paper, who do not want to publish it
decided to disregard the second report. Maybe the
first report was written by the editor himself and
etc.
The only thing I want to hear from you is the
editorial board's or anyone's decision based on fair
referring of the paper, but not on unfair referring.
> I should add that this decision does not affect your
> rights to free speech,
As far as I know, not publishing a paper on empty
grounds is the violation of rights for free speech of
its author. What is your opinion?
>specifically to post your
> article on the preprint server at www.arxiv.org
> where it can be read by physicists around the world.
Publication on a journal and posting on the Internet
are completely different things.
The paper was withdrawn from arxiv.org on empty
grounds. Some interested people has already put this
news on the Internet at
http:// www.geocities.com/scienews.
On the other hand the paper is accepted to mathematics
preprint server at
http://www.mathpreprints.com/math/Preprint/shervgi/20030829/1/?=&coll=Selection
and Cern document server at
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?p=shahverdiyev&f=&c=.
What do you think what is going on in scientific
community nowadays?. There are a few scientists whose
papers have been withdrawn from arxiv.org (see
www.geocities.com/scienews).
I have heard about a paper, which correctly describes
the current state of our scientific society. It can be
found at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310368.
It is very useful for any publisher.
Please, make sure that the fair referring procedure
followed. Institute of Physics supports fair referring
of any submitted papers and obliges not to violate
anyone rights for free speech.
Why do not you read the referee's report and my
comments and let me know about your opinion? I can not
understand how a fair referrer can nullify all the
seven new results of the paper listed in my comments?
Yours sincerely
S. Shahverdiyev.
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:26:10 +0000
From: "Andrew Wray"
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Atom/CQG/167437/PAP/47626
Dear Dr Shahverdiyev
Our original decision on tour paper was made on the nbasis of only one
referee's report. You are right that we usually seek two reports.
However, on this occasion we had great difficulty finding a second referee
and the first report was sufficiently negative for us to take the
decision not to publish.
Following your appeal a member of our Editorial Board examined the
referee's report, your reply and the paper itself. His conclusion was that
the referee's comments were correct and the paper is not suitable for
publication.
I am sorry that you are not happy with this decision, but can assure
you that it has been made without bias and on the sicentific grounds
given in the first referee's report.
The peer review process for this paper is now completed. I hope it is
possible to publish the paper elsewhere.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Wray
---------------------
Dr Andrew Wray
Senior Publisher
IOP Publishing Ltd
Dirac House, Temple Back
Bristol BS1 6BE, UK
Tel: +44-(0)117-930-1129
Fax: +44-(0)117-920-0715
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.iop.org
---------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:33:41 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Fwd: Atom/CQG/167437/PAP/47626
To: "Andrew Wray"
Dear Dr. Wray,
Your letter did not give answer to a few of my
questions. Nevertheless, I would like to get an answer
to only one of them. Are any of the seven results
listed in my comments new? Could you please let me
know what was the answer to this question of the
editorial board's member.
> Our original decision on tour paper was made on the
> nbasis of only one referee's report. You are right
> that we usually seek two reports. However, on this
> occasion we had great difficulty finding a second
> referee and the first report was sufficiently
> negative for us to take the decision not to publish.
Can I understand you that if one of the reports is
positive and the other one is negative then you decide
not to publish the paper?
> Following your appeal a member of our Editorial
> Board examined the referee's report, your reply and
> the paper itself. His conclusion was that the
> referee's comments were correct and the paper is not
> suitable for publication.
I repeat again, the referee did not write anything
about suitability of the paper for CQG. Then how the
editor states that "according to the referees report
the paper is not suitable for CQG"?
If you compare the subject of the paper and the aim
and scope of CQG you find that it is very suitable.
If it was not suitable for CQG the editor could not
send it for referring.
> I am sorry that you are not happy with this
> decision, but can assure you that it has been made
> without bias and on the sicentific grounds given in
> the first referee's report.
> The peer review process for this paper is now
> completed. I hope it is possible to publish the
> paper elsewhere.
Could you please let me know how can I contact
Institute of physics authorities?
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev.
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:45:31 +0000
From: "Andrew Wray"
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Atom/CQG/167437/PAP/47626
Dear Dr Shahverdiyev
Thank you again for your email. I regret to say that the journal's
decision on this paper is final. We received one negative referee's report
and your appeal against this report was assessed by the Editorial
Board. The Board's decision was not to publish.
This is the standard procedure for all IOP journals and once a paper
has been consideredon appeal by the Editorial Board, then the
correspondence is closed.
I regret that there is no more we can do for this particular article.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Wray
---------------------
Dr Andrew Wray
Senior Publisher
IOP Publishing Ltd
Dirac House, Temple Back
Bristol BS1 6BE, UK
Tel: +44-(0)117-930-1129
Fax: +44-(0)117-920-0715
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.iop.org
---------------------
Main Page