Main Page
V. Rubakov supports/makes irrelevant to General Relativity statement
V. Rubakov (Editor to Int. J. Mod. Phys. A) supports/states that linear displacement in geometry is nonsense (in contrary to the fact that dx is used everywhere
in mathematics). Supports/states that General Relativity also predicts that electromagnetic field is a source for
gravitational
one (absolutely irrelevant to General Relativity statement). Leaves unanswered the author's request for 5 (five) months,
although checks his e-mail frequently. As soon as all objection of a referee are overcomed by the author's comments,
sends the paper to another referee.
For details see full correspondence below
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: paper submission
To: [email protected]
Dear prof. Rubakov,
I would like to submit the attached paper
Title: Unification of Electromagnetism and
Gravitation"
to your journal.
Please let me know if this is appropriate for the
journal. If it is can I submit it electronically.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: paper submission
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 18:10:43 +0400 (MSK DST)
Dear Colleague,
I apologize, I am on vacations now.
I will read my e-mail after August 10.
Sincerely, Valery Rubakov
[email protected]
Subject: Re: paper submission
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:59:37 +0400 (MSK DST)
Dear Prof. Shahverdiyev,
Thnak you for sending e the corrected paper.
I have sent your paper out for refereeing already.
I will e-mail to you when I have referee's report.
Yours sincerely, Valery Rubakov
[email protected]
Subject: Your paper
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:35:05 +0400 (MSK DST)
Dear Prof. S.S. Shahverdiyev,
I regret your paper entitled
"Unification of electromagnetism and gravitation"
is not accepted to Mod.Phys.Lett.A on the basis of referee's
report. I am sending you the referee's report as a separate message.
Please, confirm the receipt of this message.
Yours sincerely, Valery Rubakov
[email protected]
Subject: Report on your paper
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:35:26 +0400 (MSK DST)
Referee's report on the paper
"Unification of electromagnetism and gravitation" by
S.S. Shahverdiyev.
This paper should not be published. It describes an
attempt to unify electromagnetism and gravitation on
a geometrical basis. Such an idea fails to incorporate
simultaneously particles of different electric charges
(neutrinos - neutral particles, electrons of charge e,
quarks of charge e/3 and 2e/3, together). Also, there is
no freedom to introduce the fine structure constant as a
parameter in the action.
There are many more inconsistencies. As an example, the interval
ds^2 is linear in displacements (last formula on page 2),
which is nonsence in geometry; the action (written
towards the end of page 3) is not dimensionless, etc.
Finally, the paper is not self-contained, most notions
and notations are not explained.
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 01:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Your paper
To: [email protected]
Dear Prof. Valery Rubakov,
Unfortunately, I cannot accept the referee's report
completely. My comments are sent you in a separate
message.
In addition to them I would like to let you know that
the first part of the report does not concern the
paper. Incorporation (unification) of particles of
different charges is irrelevant to the paper.
The second part of the report is unclear. I do not
know why in opinion of the referee linear
displacements are nonsense in geometry.
The form of ds^2 does not enter to any expressions in
the paper. Its form is under investigation in a
different paper and should be modified.
I accept the third part of the report which can be
overcomed by restoring coupling constants and giving
explanations to a few notations. These modifications
do not change absolutely the main results of the
paper.
The paper with these modifications is attached.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 01:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Comments (Report on your paper)
To: [email protected]
Comments to the referee's report.
--- [email protected] wrote:
> Referee's report on the paper
> "Unification of electromagnetism and gravitation" by
> S.S. Shahverdiyev.
>
> This paper should not be published. It describes an
> attempt to unify electromagnetism and gravitation on
> a geometrical basis. Such an idea fails to
> incorporate
> simultaneously particles of different electric
> charges
> (neutrinos - neutral particles, electrons of charge
> e,
> quarks of charge e/3 and 2e/3, together).
I have never tried to incorporate particles of
different charges in any paper. Moreover, if even the
proposed theory fails to incorporate particles of
different charges how this failure is relevant to the
unification of Electromagnetism (photons) and
Gravitation(gravitons)?
The $e$ in (2) means charge of a particle interacting
with electromagnetic field at the classical particle
level. You can replace it with a charge of a particle
of your choice including zero for neutrinos.
At the field theory level, electromagnetic and
gravitational fields are considered only . There is no
matter, sources for electromagnetic field. Moreover,
quarks are described by Yang-mills fields. I do not
consider Yang-Mills fields at all. Neutrinos and
electrons are described by Dirac spinor. I do not
consider any spinor in the paper.
>Also,
> there is
> no freedom to introduce the fine structure constant
> as a
> parameter in the action.
There is freedom to introduce any parameter in front
of two terms of (3) in order to construct an action.
It is noted in the footnote 2 page 3.
> There are many more inconsistencies. As an example,
> the interval
> ds^2 is linear in displacements (last formula on
> page 2),
> which is nonsence in geometry;
First of all the ds^2 does not enter to any formulas
in the paper. The actual form of ds is under
investigation in a different paper. Its form should be
modified. Moreover, if we omit ds^2 this will not
effect any results of the paper.
Why linear displacements are nonsense in geometry?
dx is a well defined quantity in geometry and it is
linear.
>the action (written
> towards the end of page 3) is not dimensionless,
> etc.
I agree with this remark. Almost all coupling
constants were omitted because they do not change the
main results. They can be restored by adding them in
front of corresponding terms in the action.
> Finally, the paper is not self-contained,
The paper uses main results of hep-th-0205224.
Although main results of "General Geometry" are given
at the beginning of sec 2. more information can be
added upon request.
> most
> notions
I do not know about any unexplained notions.
> and notations are not explained.
Indeed, a few notations were not explained because in
my opinion their definitions were clear from the
expressions they entered.
The paper with restored coupling constants, changed ds
and with the definitions of above mentioned notations
is sent to the editor.
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Your paper
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:25:45 +0400 (MSK DST)
Dear prof. Shahverdiyev,
Thank you for submitting revised version of your paper,
and sending your reply to referee's report.
I have sent your revised version and your comments to
another referee.
I will e-mail to you when I have referee's report on
this version.
Yours sincerely, Valery Rubakov
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:38:48 +0400
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Your paper
*This is an automatically generated reply*
Unfortunately I am at home now after surgical operation, and
will be unavailable till the middle of October. I do not
check my email regularly, so if you have anything urgent
please call me at home: +7(095)241 9151.
Yours sincerely,
Valery Rubakov
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 01:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Your paper
To: [email protected]
Dear Prof. Valery Rubakov,
Could you please let me know when can I expect a
referee's response to the paper. Is there any deadline
for referee's response?
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Your paper
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 15:36:10 +0400 (MSK DST)
Dear Prof. Shahverdiyev,
I apologize, I have not received the report yet.
I will e-mail to you when I get it.
Yours sincerely, Valery Rubakov
From: [email protected]
Subject: Your paper
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:27:28 +0300 (MSK)
Dear Prof. Shahverdiyev,
I regret your paper
is not accepted to Mod.Phys.Lett.A on the basis of referee's
report. I am sending you the referee's report as a separate message.
This decision is final.
Please, confirm the receipt of this message.
Yours sincerely, Valery Rubakov
From: [email protected]
Subject: Report on your paper
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:25:51 +0300 (MSK)
Report on the paper
"Unification of electromagnetism and gravitation" by
S.S. Shahverdiyev.
In the first place, I agree with the previous referee that
the paper is impossible to read. If the author wants that his
work is considered seriously, he/she has to rewrite the paper
completely, with every word unfamiliar to physics community
explained, and every notation explained too. In a journal
publication, things like author's motivation,
every single point of "General Geometry", etc, must be clearly
explained, so that the paper should be readable without
consulting other papers by the same author.
Furthermore, the author has to give detailed account of the
following point. In geometrical theories of gravity, including
general relativity, space-time geometry is an independent concept;
in other words, space-time metric is independent of properties
of a particle moving in the space-time. This is a consequence of
(or, depending on viewpoint, reason for) equivalence principle.
Metric in the end of page 2, on the other hand, contains parameters
q and m characteristic of a given particle. [This is not accidental:
particles of different charges move in electromagnetic field
differently.] Why then this metric is a metric of space-time?
Finally, electromagnetism is known (experimentally) to be a
part of unified electroweak (Glashow--Weinberg--Salam) theory.
The author should explain how this unified theory appears in
the context of his/her proposal.
In short, I agree with the previous referee that the paper
should not be published.
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 01:39:10 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Comments (Report on your paper)
To: [email protected]
Comments to the
Report on the paper
"Unification of electromagnetism and gravitation" by
S.S. Shahverdiyev.
> In the first place, I agree with the previous
> referee that
> the paper is impossible to read. If the author wants
> that his
> work is considered seriously, he/she has to rewrite
> the paper
> completely, with every word unfamiliar to physics
> community
> explained, and every notation explained too. In a
> journal
> publication, things like author's motivation,
> every single point of "General Geometry", etc, must
> be clearly
> explained, so that the paper should be readable
> without
> consulting other papers by the same author.
As it has been said in the comments to the first
referee's report I agree to add more information about
"General Geometry".
> Furthermore, the author has to give detailed account
> of the
> following point. In geometrical theories of gravity,
> including
> general relativity, space-time geometry is an
> independent concept;
> in other words, space-time metric is independent of
> properties
> of a particle moving in the space-time. This is a
> consequence of
> (or, depending on viewpoint, reason for) equivalence
> principle.
As you noted, this is true in theories of gravity
only. In the other words, using properties of
gravitational interaction, we can say that geometry
underlying gravitation must not depend on the
characteristic of moving particles. And Riemannian
geometry satisfies this requirement.
> Metric in the end of page 2, on the other hand,
> contains parameters
> q and m characteristic of a given particle. [This is
> not accidental:
> particles of different charges move in
> electromagnetic field
> differently.]
According to your note in [] above,
geometry underlying electromagnetism must depend on
the characteristic of moving particles. And this
property demonstrates again that Riemannian geometry
is not suitable for geometrization of electromagnetism
as it was proven in the paper "General Geometry ..."
>Why then this metric is a metric of
> space-time?
In the paper there is no notion of geometry of
space-time or metric of space-time. I use notion of
geometry
underlying electromagnetism or unified model of
electromagnetism and gravitation. When geometry is
defined we are free to choose any metric on it.
The requirement that the length of a curve (metric)
must not depend on characterists of a particle
is true for gravitational interaction only. For
electromagnetic interaction this requirement is not
true as it is proved experimentally.
> Finally, electromagnetism is known (experimentally)
> to be a
> part of unified electroweak
> (Glashow--Weinberg--Salam) theory.
> The author should explain how this unified theory
> appears in
> the context of his/her proposal.
The unified electroweak theory is based on gauge
principle. In the paper, unification of
electromagnetism and gravitation is made using
geometrization principle. Unfortunately, geometry of
weak interaction, which is described by Yang-Mills
theory is not known yet. So, at the present time there
is no known way to unify Yang- Mills theory with the
model proposed in the paper using geometrization
principle. Also it is not known how geometrization
principle is related to gauge principle. Therefore,
at the present time we do not know how theories based
on gauge principle may appear in the context of
theories based on geometrization principle.
> In short, I agree with the previous referee that the
> paper
> should not be published.
All you require is to add more information to the
paper. Therefore your decision is very strict.
Nevertheless, thank you for not writing an irrelevant
report.
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 01:42:06 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Your paper
To: [email protected]
Dear Prof. Valery Rubakov,
My comments are sent you in a separate message.
All what the referee require is to add more
information to the paper. His/her decision not to
publish the paper is not appropriate to his/her
requirement.
If you do not mind I can add required information to
the paper and send you it. In that case it will be
better if we continue with the same referee or you may
send the paper to a different referee without
informing him/her about two previous referee's
reports.
I have heard that the second, third and etc. referees
try not to oppose the decision of the first referee by
any means.
Please let me know about your decision.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Your paper
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:56:16 +0300 (MSK)
Dear Prof. Shahvediyev,
As I see from your message and comments,
you are going to submit a revised version.
Of course this version will be duly considered.
The words "final decision" in my previous message
referred to the existing version of your paper.
I strongly advise you to follow referee's remarks,
and rewrite your paper in such a way that
it is fully self-contained.
I agree to continue with the same referee.
Yours sincerely, Valery Rubakov
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:16:16 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Your paper
To: [email protected]
Dear Prof. Valery Rubakov,
Thank you for your letter.
A revised version of the paper will be sent you
in a few days.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 01:30:43 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Your paper
To: [email protected]
Dear Prof. Valery Rubakov,
I am sending you a revised version of previously
submitted paper. The paper is revised according to the
second referee's report. Please let us continue
with the second referee. I am interested in a rapid
publication of the paper. Please let the referee
consider the paper as soon as possible.
Before submitting the paper I did know that you are
an editor to Mod. Phys. Lett. A. too. When I have
written you that "I am submitting the paper to your
journal" I actually meant Int. J. Mod. Phys A.
Please if it is possible publish the paper in the
Int. J. Mod.Phys. A. The only reason for this is that
the Int. J. Mod. Phys. is more available than Mod.
Phys. Lett.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Your paper
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:33:42 +0300 (MSK)
Dear Prof. Shahverdiyev,
Thank you for submitting the revised version of your paper.
It will be considered as submission to Int. J. Mod. Phys. A.
I will e-mail to you when I have referee's report.
Yours sincerely, Valery Rubakov
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 01:04:33 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Your paper
To: [email protected]
Dear Professor Valery Rubakov,
Could you please ask the referee to speed up his
decision on the revised version of the paper.
More references may be added to the paper upon
request.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Your paper
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 12:16:33 +0300 (MSK)
Dear Prof. Shahverdiyev,
I still have not got the report on your paper.
I will ask the referee to send the report soonest.
Yours sincerely, Valery Rubakov
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:18:24 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Your paper
To: [email protected]
Dear Professor Valery Rubakov,
This is to remind the referee in charge with the paper
that the revised version have been submitted 4 months
ago. Could you please remind the referee about the
paper and let me know when we can expect referee's
response.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Your paper
To: [email protected]
Dear Professor Valery Rubakov,
It is almost five months passed since I have sent a
revised version of the paper. I wondered if the
referee forget about the paper. Could you please let
me know how much time it takes to get referee's
response.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 18:15:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Submission ID number
To: [email protected]
Hello,
I submitted a revised version of the paper
"Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravitation" to
Prof. V. Rubakov on November 25, 2002.
Please let me if there is any possibility to get a
Submission ID number in order to check status of the
paper online instead of contacting the Editor by
e-mail.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi Shahverdiyev.
From: "Thierry Lenzin"
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Submission ID number
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 01:07:14 +0200
Dear Dr Shahverdiyev,
To be able to find your submission we need to know to what journal you
made
your submission.
With best regards,
Thierry Lenzin
***************************************
FontisMedia SA
Thierry Lenzin
Project Management, Design
avenue Vinet 19
1004 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: ++41 21 648 39 74
Fax: ++41 21 648 39 75
E-mail: [email protected]
***************************************
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 14:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Submission ID number
To: "Thierry Lenzin"
Dear Thierry,
Thank you for your letter.
> To be able to find your submission we need to know
> to what journal you made
> your submission.
I have submitted it for publication in IJMPA to Prof.
V.A. Rubakov. It was submitted by e-mail directly to
the Editor.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
From: "Thierry Lenzin"
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Submission ID number
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 20:24:45 +0200
Dear Shervgi,
You have to contact the editor directly because the online submission
system
is in place only since February. We are unable to provide information
about
papers submitted by e-mail to the editor directly.
With best regards,
Thierry Lenzin
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 16:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Fwd: Re: Submission ID number
To: [email protected]
Dear Prof. V. Rubakov,
I have tried to get a submission ID number in order to
check the papers status online instead of bothering
you by email. Unfortunately, it is not possible to get
submission ID number for papers submitted by e-mail.
Please, if it is possible inform me about status of
the paper. We know very well that there are a group of
scientists, especially American ones, who are
interested in not allowing my papers to be published
and even more to be appear in arXiv e-print server.
For details you can visit web site
www.geocities.com/scienews
In any case if you are not interested in publishing
the paper, please let me know. (You may not provide
any explanation). I will submit it to a different
journal.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Submission ID number
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 11:54:11 +0400 (MSK DST)
Dear Prof. Shahverdiyev,
Your paper has got negative respond from
the two referees whom I sent the paper.
So, I have to reject your paper.
Yours sincerely, Valery Rubakov
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:24:46 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Submission ID number
To: [email protected]
Dear Prof. Rubakov,
In an attempt to publish a paper in a different
journal a referee has referred to paper by R. Beil
published in "Foundation of Physics" 33, No.7, 1107
(2003), stating that my paper's results are not new
although my paper has appeared on the Internet a long
time before R. Beil's. Fortunately, R. Beil paper's
results turned to be not correct. See
http://www.mathpreprints.com/math/Preprint/shervgi/20031126/2
This kind of action compels me to publish the paper in
the journals with the earliest submission date.
We will try to accomplish this if even a lawsuit will
be necessary. It is not a good thing for referees not
to allow the paper be published on empty grounds and
on the other hand encourage someone to publish a paper
by presenting results of my papers as their own.
As far as you remember the second referee's report was
almost positive. He required to add more information.
Due to this I would like to request you to reconsider
your decision. Further revisions can be made.
Thank you in advance.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev.
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Submission ID number
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:21:09 +0300 (MSK)
Dear prof. Shahverdiyev,
As an exception, I am sending your paper to a third referee.
Yours sincerely, Valery Rubakov
From: [email protected]
Subject: your paper
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:21:53 +0400 (MSD)
Dear Prof. Shahverdiyev,
Upon your request, I sent your paper to yet another referee,
as an exceptional case. I have got referee's report, which is
again negative. So, your paper cannot be published. I apologize,
in view of unanimous opinion of the referees, I cannot consider
your paper any more.
I am sending the last referee's report as a separate message.
Yours sincerely, Valery Rubakov
From: [email protected]
Subject: Report
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:22:37 +0400 (MSD)
I completely agree with the previous referees that the paper
"Unification of electromagnetism and gravitation" by
S.S. Shahverdiyev cannot be published in any scientific journal.
This paper does not contain any new results.
The action "constructed" in this paper describes
just a standard action for Maxwell electromagnetism coupled to
Einstein gravity. So it is completely unclear why the author expects
any
new predictions from this theory. Actually, the fact that as an example
of such a prediction he suggests that "electromagnetic field is a
source for
gravitational field" indicates that he may be not familar enough with
the
Einstein theory, which contains the statement that any field is a
source for gravitational field among its basics.
Finally, I would like to say that this paper cannot be thought
of as a new geometrical reformulation of the
Einstein-Maxwell theory as well. Eq. (1) suggested by the author as a
condition for the vector to be constant along the curve (actually, the
meaning of this equation is explained clearly
neither in the current paper, nor in Ref.[1])
is not invariant under the reparametrizations of the curve, so this
equation does not have any geometrical meaning.
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 08:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: "S. Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re:Comments to the Report
To: [email protected]
Comments to the report
> I completely agree with the previous referees that
> the paper
> "Unification of electromagnetism and gravitation" by
> S.S. Shahverdiyev cannot be published in any
> scientific journal.
Sorry, the previous referee has never made such kind
of statements. This exaggeration is an indication of
your bad intentions.
> This paper does not contain any new results.
> The action "constructed" in this paper describes
> just a standard action for Maxwell electromagnetism
> coupled to
> Einstein gravity. So it is completely unclear why
> the author expects any
> new predictions from this theory. Actually, the fact
> that as an example
> of such a prediction he suggests that
> "electromagnetic field is a source for
> gravitational field" indicates that he may be not
> familar enough with the
> Einstein theory, which contains the statement that
> any field is a
> source for gravitational field among its basics.
From this statement it is clear that the referee has
not read the last passage of the paper, where he/she
can find answer to his/her objection.
I would like to stress again that, the above mentioned
by the referee statement of Einstein theory is a
hypothesis but not prediction.
> Finally, I would like to say that this paper cannot
> be thought
> of as a new geometrical reformulation of the
> Einstein-Maxwell theory as well. Eq. (1) suggested
> by the author as a
> condition for the vector to be constant along the
> curve (actually, the
> meaning of this equation is explained clearly
> neither in the current paper, nor in Ref.[1])
> is not invariant under the reparametrizations of the
> curve, so this
> equation does not have any geometrical meaning.
>
This statement of the referee indicates that the
referee is not familiar very well even with Riemanian
geometry. The formulated Geometry includes Riemanian
geometry as a particular case. Therefore, the
referee's statement (in particular) that Riemanian
geometry does not have geometrical meaning is
meaningless.
Resuming, I can say that the referee has written this
report with bad intention, solely for sabotaging the
paper, which is not acceptable in academic affairs.
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 08:49:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: "S. Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: your paper
To: [email protected]
Dear Prof. Rubakov,
The referee's report is a complete nonsense. The
referee may benefit from reading the last passage of
the paper.
As far as I know the personality of the referee is
anonymous until there is no controversy between author
and referee opinions. If it is, the next step can be
direct discussion between referee and author.
I was a witness of direct discussion between some
authors and Prof. I. Tyutin (as a referee for TMP). I
am sure that if you provide the name of the referee
he/she never write meaningless report.
It surprising for me that you make decisions according
to such kind of reports. As far as I know your field
of research allows you to figure out that the
referee's report is a complete nonsense. In my opinion
such kind of reports must be returned to referee as
an inappropriate report or the referee may be
disqualified.
Also, I would like to let you know that if this case
will end with a lawsuit, you (as a defendant) may be
asked by a judge to provide the name of the referee,
because writing sabotaging reports can be considered
as a crime. If known, the name of a criminal can not
be concealed.
As a result of the above mentioned I request direct
discussion with the referee. If it is not possible I
ask you to send the paper to the second referee
according to whose report the paper has been revised
and submitted again. If you do not accept these
options
then we may prepare documents for a fair lawsuit
either in Russia or in USA.
I hope you will choose the first or the second
options.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev.
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 15:28:57 +0400 (MSD)
From: "V.A.Rubakov"
To: "S. Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: your paper
Dear Prof. Shahverdiyev,
I apologize, referees' names are confidential,
unless a referee discloses his/her name to an author on
his/her will.
Let me remind you that the last time I
sent the paper for refereeing as an exception.
Since referee's opinion is negative, your paper
cannot be considered anymore.
Valery Rubakov
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 18:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: "S. Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: your paper
To: "V.A.Rubakov"
Dear Prof. Rubakov,
> I apologize, referees' names are confidential,
> unless a referee discloses his/her name to an author
> on
> his/her will.
I would like to let you and the referee know again
that referee's name can be disclosed upon request by a
judge of a public court. As far as I know Russian laws
require to state name of a criminal if it is known. In
our case the referee sabotaged the paper with new
ideas and results by writing a report which does not
make any sense. Believe or not this is a crime. If our
case will end with a lawsuit then it is obvious that
you will be compelled by a judge to disclose the name
of the referee. Therefore, it is advisable that the
referee to take back his/her report or continue
discussion of the paper with his/her name disclosed.
> Let me remind you that the last time I
> sent the paper for refereeing as an exception.
> Since referee's opinion is negative, your paper
> cannot be considered anymore.
Let me also remind you that the paper has been revised
according to the second referee's report and the
agreement has been reached between me and you that
you will send it to the same referee again. However,
you stopped to answer my e-mails for 5 months. And
then you have sent it to another referee.
Some interested people have informed me that you did
all this after you visited Boston University. They
tried to assure me that some people from Boston
University have asked to sabotage the paper. By the
way, I have applied to the same university and
indicated in my application that the paper is
submitted to IJMPA at the same time you visited the
above University.
This is of course a speculation, but nevertheless you
violated our agreement.
Now, you close your eyes to the fact that the
referee's report is a complete nonsense. I am sorry,
but it is you, who makes final decision. And as I
noticed in my previous letter your field of research
allows you to figure out that the report is
meaningless.
You may also understand that I can win the lawsuit
without any witnesses. Nevertheless, I am sure that
there will be many Russian scientists who will witness
in my favor.
I request you to consider my paper fairly. That means
you will ignore all inappropriate reports, ask
referees to answer my comments instead of changing
them. Up to now the first and the third reports are
inappropriate and they can not be counted.
For this paper, only one fair report (the second) has
been written. The paper has been revised and submitted
again. Therefore, I do not see any reasons for not
publishing it.
Sincerely yours,
S. Shahverdiyev.
Main Page