Main Page
A. Vandermerwe publishes papers with wrong results and sabotages papers correcting them
A. Vandermerwe (Editor to Foundation of Physics) sends the same report as a reply to the author's comments. States that he has confidential report
which is not for the favor for publication the paper.
For details see full correspondence below
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:08:48 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: 031202.FP/FPL:SUBMISSION PROCEDURES+REPRINT ORDERS
To: "ALWYN VANDERMERWE"
Dear Prof. Alwyn van der Merwe,
I am submitting paper
Manuscript title:Comments on ``Finsler Geometry and
Relativistic Field Theory"
for publication in FP.
In my opinion this paper must be published in FP
because it is a comment to a paper published in FP.
There is probability that referees will try to
sabotage this paper by writing irrelevant reports or
artificially delaying its consideration.
In view of this fact I would like to know about your
guidelines in the case that a report is irrelevant or
a referee does not give a response timely.
Please make any effort to publish this paper as soon
as possible.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev.
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:25:46 -0700 (MST)
From: "ALWYN VANDERMERWE"
Subject: 031202.SHAHVERDIYEV:Comments on "Finsler geometry and relativistic FT"
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
************
PLEASE RETAIN IN YOUR REPLY THE SUBJECT LINE EXACTLY AS ABOVE,
EXCEPT FOR A POSSIBLE CHANGE IN THE DATE (USING THE YYMMDD ORDER).
MANY THANKS!
************
P.S. With your concurrence, your paper is taken under consideration
for FPLetters, for which it seems more suitable--also because the
pages of FOP are pre-empted for most of 2004 by previously accepted
papers and invited contributions for special issues.
FP(L)ACKN
Dear Author(s): Thank you for your submitted paper(s). In order to
expedite its (their) refereeing (at least 2 favorable reports being
required for publication in FP or FPL; three or more for
controversial papers), please:
(1) Mail us [X]* more HARD copies of your manuscript.
(2) Quote below the names and addresses (including postal zip codes and
e-mail addresses if known) of [Y]* scholars whom you would consider
expert
enough to judge your work; at least [Z]* of these addresses should be
in
North America. (3) List: (A) the telephone number(s) where you can be
reached (with convenient times), (B) your fax number, and (C) your
e-mail
address(es). Thank you very much. Cordially yours, AVDM. *[XYZ]=[063].
P.S. (1) It is of course understood that your list of proposed
referees will be purely advisory and not restricting our final
choice of reviewers in any way.
P.S. (2) Please be sure to supply two printouts of your ms. in DOUBLE
spacing, including the abstract and especially (ALL the lines of) your
References, IF and WHEN your paper is accepted for publication. In the
event that publication is to take place in FPL, a latex e-file would
also be required, along with any figures in the form of pdfs.
P.S. (3) VERY IMPORTANT: Please help me expedite the refereeing process
by ALSO e-mailing us your paper as a pdf (OR, failing that, at
least the ABSTRACT of your paper as UNencoded plain text), along with
the
E-MAIL ADDRESSES of the proposed referees. [In fact, due to our limited
resources, we have no choice, in the face of publication deadlines, but
to
give priority to papers that are submitted ALSO in a pdf format and are
accompanied by the requested E-MAIL ADDRESSES.] But please be sure to
transmit the proposed names and associated e-mail addresses
IN A COVER LETTER SEPARATE FROM YOUR MANUSCRIPT FILE, that is,
in a SECOND, confidential e-mail message.
P.S. (4) In view of our finite storage capacity, manuscripts declined
for publication will be DISCARDED one month after the event!
************************
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 21:47:45 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: 031202.SHAHVERDIYEV:Comments on "Finsler geometry and relativistic FT"
To: "ALWYN VANDERMERWE"
> P.S. With your concurrence, your paper is taken
> under consideration
> for FPLetters, for which it seems more
> suitable--also because the
> pages of FOP are pre-empted for most of 2004 by
> previously accepted
> papers and invited contributions for special issues.
Please, make any effort to publish the paper in
"Foundations of Physics". It is about 1-2 journal
pages only.
> FP(L)ACKN
>
> Dear Author(s): Thank you for your submitted
> paper(s). In order to
> expedite its (their) refereeing (at least 2
> favorable reports being
> required for publication in FP or FPL; three or more
> for
> controversial papers), please:
I would like to let you know that some journal editors
found a way of sabotaging any paper they want not to
publish. A referee writes irrelevant report, then
editor says that according to the report your paper is
rejected. If the author writes his comments, then
reply to the comments is artificially delayed and
finally the referee writes reply by rephrasing
his/her report ignoring the author's comments. Then
the editor says that your case is closed.
If you practice, this kind of consideration of papers,
please let me know. I will submit the paper to another
journal. If not, please consider the paper for
publication. It is attached in pdf format.
> (2) Quote below the names and addresses (including
> postal zip codes and
> e-mail addresses if known) of [Y]* scholars whom you
> would consider expert
> enough to judge your work; at least [Z]* of these
> addresses should be in
> North America.
Please do not send the paper to any of the scientists
whose name is in this web page
http://www.math.iupui.edu/~zshen/Finsler/people.html
From my correspondence with Prof. M. Anastasiei and
from the literature on the so called Finsler geometry
it looks like that those people do not even know how a
geometry is defined.
Thank you in advance.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev
Paper
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:13:03 -0700 (MST)
From: "ALWYN VANDERMERWE"
Subject: 031217.FPL.SHAHVERDIYEV:Comments on "Finsler geometry and relativistic field theory"
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
MESSAGE 1/2
P.S. I regret having been unable to obtain
any countervailing reports to the critical
report that follows in Message 2/2. In view
of this circumstance, the mandatory two or three
favorable reports required for publication in FP(L)
seems UNachievable. I am sorry that our severe
lack of resources will prevent me from pursuing
the matter any further. Sincerely, AV.
REVDEC
FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS (LETTERS)
Editor: Alwyn van der Merwe
University of Denver
Denver, Colorado 80208
United States of America
Fax: + 425.696.8787
[email protected]
Foundations of Physics []
Foundations of Physics Letters[]
[]
Dear Author:
Our referee(s) has (have) studied your manuscript(s) entitled:
[as above]
or its (their) revised version(s) and/or your rebuttals of their
earlier
reports, as the case might be.
On the basis of their reports or rejoinders, copies of which are
herewith
included, if not provided earlier or following this message, I must
regrettably conclude or re-affirm that FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS (LETTERS)
is
not the proper vehicle for the publication of your submitted paper(s).
(My
editorial guidelines require at least two favorable reports; three or
more
for controversial papers.)
I thank you for your interest in FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS (LETTERS) and
wish
you every success in finding a suitable alternative forum for the
public
discussion of your thoughtful ideas.
Cordially yours, Alwyn van der Merwe
report
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:14:12 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: referring a paper
To: [email protected]
Dear Prof. B. Josephson,
I am writing you in relation with publication a paper
in Foundations of Physics (FP) because you are the one
of the editorial members. Recently, I have submitted a
critical paper for publication in FP. There was
probability that the paper might be sabotaged. I have
received a report where the referee ignored essential
part of the paper, considering only the second and
last paragraphs. To my surprise the editor accepted
that report. The report is attached and I will send
you my comments and the paper in a different message.
Please if it is possible do not allow this paper be
sabotaged.
Thank you in advance.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev.
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:16:09 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: 031217.FPL.SHAHVERDIYEV:Comments on "Finsler geometry and relativistic field theory"
To: "ALWYN VANDERMERWE"
CC: [email protected]
Dear Prof., A. van der Merwe,
The referee considered the second and last paragraphs
of the paper only. The essential part of the paper is
ignored. Therefore, this report can not be considered
as a result of fair referring. Please send back such
kind of reports as inappropriate ones. My full
comments and a revised version of the paper are
attached.
If it is possible please send the paper for referring
to Profs. B. Josephson([email protected]) and Shing-Tung
Yau ([email protected]).
In my opinion you can choose any scientist as a
referee, because the knowledge of linear algebra and
electromagnetism is sufficient to referee it.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev.
Paper
Comments to report
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 17:43:38 +0000
From: "Brian Josephson"
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: referring a paper
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev,
Thanks for your email. It is a bit difficult for me to judge who is
right as I do not know anything about Finsler geometry. But it seems to me
that the crucial issue is whether you are write to state that the equation
following the line where eq. 62 is displayed in your paper is correct.
If you are write in saying this then this does seem to make the quoted
eqn. 62 incorrect. Perhaps it is trivial to derive your alternative formula
but the proof does need to be given to support your claim.
Regards, Brian Josephson
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:39:10 +0000
From: "Brian Josephson"
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: referring a paper
--On Monday, January 5, 2004 21:29 -0800 Shervgi Shahverdiyev
wrote:
> Resuming your comments, I agree to modify sentence
> between (62) and the following eqn. in order to
> clearly present my objections to (62). However, this
> modification absolutely does not change my objections
> to (63).
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev,
I think that if you did do that then that might resolve the issue. If
you can show very clearly that an equation in the paper by Biel is wrong
then you have proved your point, irrespective of what the literature quoted
by the referee may say, so it may be just a question of presenting things
a little differently. So I suggest you do this and then make the point I
have quoted to the editor.
Brian J.
* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: [email protected]
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
* Project * WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:19:36 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: referring a paper
To: "Brian Josephson"
Dear Prof. Brian Josephson,
Attached, I am sending you a revised according to your
comments version of the paper. Please let me know if
you have any comments for this version.
Thank you in advance.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev.
Paper
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:40:58 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: 031217.FPL.SHAHVERDIYEV:Comments on "Finsler geometry and relativistic field theory"
To: [email protected]
Dear Prof. A. van der Merwe,
I am sending you a revised, according to
Prof. B. Josephson's comments, version of the paper.
Please send this version of the paper to other
referees and let me know about its status.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 08:05:09 -0600 (MDT)
From: "ALWYN VANDERMERWE"
Subject: 040506.031217.FPL.SHAHVERDIYEV:Comments on "Finsler geometry and relativistic field theory" (fwd)
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
2ND TRANSMISSION
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:13:03 -0700 (MST)
From: ALWYN VANDERMERWE
To: Shervgi Shahverdiyev
Subject: 031217.FPL.SHAHVERDIYEV:Comments on "Finsler geometry and
relativistic field theory"
P.S.DUE OUR LIMITED RESOURCES, WE ARE VERY
REGRETFULLY UNABLE TO ENGAGE IN FOLLOW-UP
CORRESPONDENCE ABOUT ANY PAPER DECLINED FOR
PUBLICATION.
MESSAGE 1/2
P.S. I regret having been unable to obtain
any countervailing reports to the critical
report that follows in Message 2/2. In view
of this circumstance, the mandatory two or three
favorable reports required for publication in FP(L)
seems UNachievable. I am sorry that our severe
lack of resources will prevent me from pursuing
the matter any further. Sincerely, AV.
REVDEC
FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS (LETTERS)
Editor: Alwyn van der Merwe
University of Denver
Denver, Colorado 80208
United States of America
Fax: + 425.696.8787
[email protected]
Foundations of Physics []
Foundations of Physics Letters[]
[]
Dear Author:
Our referee(s) has (have) studied your manuscript(s) entitled:
[as above]
or its (their) revised version(s) and/or your rebuttals of their
earlier
reports, as the case might be.
On the basis of their reports or rejoinders, copies of which are
herewith
included, if not provided earlier or following this message, I must
regrettably conclude or re-affirm that FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS (LETTERS)
is
not the proper vehicle for the publication of your submitted paper(s).
(My
editorial guidelines require at least two favorable reports; three or
more
for controversial papers.)
I thank you for your interest in FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS (LETTERS) and
wish
you every success in finding a suitable alternative forum for the
public
discussion of your thoughtful ideas.
Cordially yours, Alwyn van der Merwe
==============
Report
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 03:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: "S. Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: 040506.031217.FPL.SHAHVERDIYEV:Comments on "Finsler geometry and relativistic field theory" (fwd)
To: "ALWYN VANDERMERWE"
Dear Prof. A. Vandermerwe,
You have sent me the report which has been commented
by me earlier. The paper has been revised according to
comments of Prof. B. Josephson and resent you. By the
way he has recommended the paper for publication.
Therefore, I did not understand you because
after three months you have sent the same report.
I think this a confusion. Looks like files get
misplaced. Please send me report(s) you have received
for the revised version.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev.
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: "S. Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: 040506.031217.FPL.REPORT#1.SHAHVERDIYEV:Comments on "Finsler geometry and relativistic field theory" (fwd)
To: "ALWYN VANDERMERWE"
Dear Prof. A. Vandermerwe,
This is the second time reminder that you have sent me
the the old report which has been commented by me
earlier. I also would like to remind that the paper
has been recommended for publication by one of the
editorial members (Prof. B. Josephson).
If you still do not want to publish the paper, please
simply let me know. If you do not reply to this mail
during one week, we will accept that you have
sabotaged the paper.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:17:15 -0600 (MDT)
From: "ALWYN VANDERMERWE"
Subject: 040506.031217.FPL.REPORT#1.SHAHVERDIYEV:Comments on "Finsler geometry and relativistic field theory" (fwd)
To: "S. Shahverdiyev"
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev:
I regret not having been able to secure
a countervailing opinion to the one
confidential report in my possession.
My editorial guidelines require at least two
favorable and confidential reports for
publication; three or more for controversial
papers.
I trust you will appreciate the need
for confidentiality, particularly to avoid
the placing of an unfair burden on the
referee involved--which is why referees
of FP(L) have our automatic and absolute
assurance that their identity will be
safeguarded.
I am very sorry that I cannot be more
helpful.
Sincerely yours,
AV
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 00:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: "S. Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: 040506.031217.FPL.REPORT#1.SHAHVERDIYEV:Comments on "Finsler geometry and relativistic field theory" (fwd)
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Dear Dr. A. Vandermerwe,
> I regret not having been able to secure
> a countervailing opinion to the one
> confidential report in my possession.
I am sorry, I have never heard about such a practice
as having confidential report. What is that?
> My editorial guidelines require at least two
> favorable and confidential reports for
> publication; three or more for controversial
> papers.
In our previous correspondences you have never
mentioned about confidential reports.
I am sorry you simply play around by inventing such
things as confidential reports. I do not understand
what may happen if you send it to me. The reports are
anonymous and there is no reason for not sending them.
It is obvious that you do not want to publish the
paper. Why play around? I have asked you before
submitting the paper, that if you do not want to
publish it just let me know and will publish it in
another journal.
> I trust you will appreciate the need
> for confidentiality, particularly to avoid
> the placing of an unfair burden on the
> referee involved--which is why referees
> of FP(L) have our automatic and absolute
> assurance that their identity will be
> safeguarded.
Again, I do not understand what you are talking about?
If the reports are anonymous for authors how the
identity of the referees can not be safeguarded?
> I am very sorry that I cannot be more
> helpful.
In that case it is obvious that you have sabotaged the
paper.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev.
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 01:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: "S. Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: referring a paper
To: [email protected]
Dear Prof. B. Josephson,
>I think that if you did do that then that might
> resolve the issue. If you
> can show very clearly that an equation in the paper
> by Biel is wrong then
> you have proved your point, irrespective of what the
> literature quoted by
> the referee may say, so it may be just a question of
> presenting things a
> little differently. So I suggest you do this and
> then make the point I
> have quoted to the editor.
I have revised the paper according your comments and
submitted it again and let the editor know about your
opinion.
In the revised version it is clearly, by detailed
calculation shown that the equation in the paper by
Beil is wrong.
However, I have received a letter from the editor that
he cannot publish the paper because of their limited
resources. The original report was also attached.
I thought that this was misplacement and asked the
editor to correct it. I have received a letter from
the editor that he has one confidential report which
is not not in favor for publishing it.
In my opinion it is obvious that the editor does this
for not publishing the paper. Confidential reports is
something new in academic affairs.
Please read the 4-th footnote in paper
math-ph/0311001, where it is shown that Prof. A.
Vandermerwe have published dozen of papers with
physically and mathematically wrong results.
In view of this I request that you and other members
of the editorial board (please inform about this the
other members of the editorial board) make any effort
to publish the paper or take back your membership
because the editor uses your reputation of nobel prize
winners, publishes papers with wrong results and
sabotages papers criticizing them.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev.
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 08:40:32 -0600 (MDT)
From: "ALWYN VANDERMERWE"
Subject: Re: 040506.031217.FPL.REPORT#1.SHAHVERDIYEV:Comments on "Finsler geometry and relativistic field theory" (fwd)
To: "S. Shahverdiyev"
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev:
I regret the linguistic misunderstanding.
The word "confidential" refers to the
identity of the referee, not the contents
of his report--which was communicated
to you.
Editors of all reputable journals base
their decisions on such confidential
reports--two or more of which are required
for publication in FP(L).
Sincerely yours,
AV
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 02:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: "S. Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: 040506.031217.FPL.REPORT#1.SHAHVERDIYEV:Comments on "Finsler geometry and relativistic field theory" (fwd)
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Dear Dr. A. Vandermerwe,
> I regret the linguistic misunderstanding.
> The word "confidential" refers to the
> identity of the referee, not the contents
> of his report--which was communicated
> to you.
I am sorry, again I do not understand why you refer to
the identity of the referee. I have never asked you to
provide any information about the referee.
> Editors of all reputable journals base
> their decisions on such confidential
> reports--two or more of which are required
> for publication in FP(L).
The report you have sent has been commented by me and
was shown to prof. B. Josephson. We, both, have found
that the report is not acceptable, because the referee
has not even discussed equation (63) from paper of Beil.
In my paper it is shown that equation (63) and its
consequences are not correct.
Please, realize that my paper is not an ordinary
paper. It is critical paper and must be considered
appropriately. I mean scientifically:in order not to
publish my paper referees and/or you must show that
equation (63) in the paper by Beil is correct, instead
of referring to some kind of guidelines and irrelevant
reports.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev.
P.S.
Please read the 4-th footnote in paper
math-ph/0311001,
at
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math-ph/pdf/0311/0311001.pdf
where its authors argued that you have published
dozens of papers with physically and mathematically
wrong results. If they are right, then please realize
that your guidelines must be changed.
Main Page