Main Page
Editorial Board of Letters in Mathematical Physics uses lie, exaggeration and arrogance in referring paper [3].
The managing editor lies that the paper has been sent to two referees, although as it follows from the correspondence
the second referee write report for its revised version. According to the
managing editor LMP referees do not explain their statements in general words and unclear notions.
These kind of explanations are considered as tutoring.
For details see full correspondence below
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:18:38 +0100
To: [email protected]
From: "Letters in Mathematical Physics"
Subject: manuscript 22180
Dear author,
We acknowledge with thanks the receipt of your manuscript entitled:
ON SPECIAL CASES OF GENERAL GEOMETRY
submitted for publication in Letters in mathematical Physics.
The reference of your paper is: 22180
Please use this reference in the subject field of e-messages concerning
this paper.
Sincerely Yours
Jean-Claude CORTET
Jean-Claude CORTET
Managing Editor
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 01:25:14 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: manuscript 22180
To: "Letters in Mathematical Physics"[email protected]
Jean-Claude CORTET,
Thank you for your letter.
Could you please let me know if I need to send the
paper to a member of the editorial board too.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 08:09:23 +0100
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
From: "Letters in Mathematical Physics"
Subject: Re: manuscript 22180
You do not need to send yourmanuscript to a member of the editorial
board.
Your manuscript was transmitted to a referee.
Sincerely Yours
>Jean-Claude CORTET,
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:17:42 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: manuscript 22180
To: "Letters in Mathematical Physics"
Dear Prof. Jean-Claude CORTET,
Could you please let me know when can I expect a
referee's response to the paper. Is there any deadline
for a referee's response?
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi Shahverdiyev.
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:09:26 +0100
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
From: "Letters in Mathematical Physics"
Subject: Re: manuscript 22180
The referee promised to send the report next week
Sincerely Yours
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:30:55 +0100
To: [email protected]
From: "Letters in Mathematical Physics"
Subject: manuscript 22180
Dear author,
Enclosed please find the referee's report on your manuscript entitled
:
ON SPECIAL CASES OF GENERAL GEOMETRY
Ref 22180
which you submitted for publication in Letters in Mathematical Physics.
Unfortunately, in view of this report, we cannot accept in its present
form
but will reconsider its possible publication if you take into account
the
referee'scomments.
Sincerely Yours
Jean-Claude CORTET
Report to Letters in Mathematical Physics
Title: On special cases of general geometry.
Author: Shervgi S. Shahverdiyev
Shahverdiyev deal and analyze two special cases about the relation
between quantities that define the geometry and the ones that define the length
of a curve. The relation was just assumed in two previous works by the same author
and now he gives a proof about such relation for specific metrics, those
corresponding to two physical theories (Electromagnetism and an unified
model of Electromagnetism and Gravitation).
The conclusion obtained is that under these particular geometries the
length of a vector changes along a curve and are interpreted as the
geometries underlying these physical theories.
However, along the paper these particular cases are considered as
special cases of a new geometry called "General Geometry" which is not very
clear or defined at all. I therefore think, that the author should explain what he means by
General Geometry in the beginning of his paper, as per the other mathematical
objects involved. This will help the non-specialist to get an idea of the topic; this
seems important to me in times where expository style is recommended.
I do not recommend the publication of the paper, at least not in the
present form. A deeper analysis and a mayor insight in the consequences
of this construction is suggested to understand the relevance in the
change of the length of a vector along a curve in the presence of certain
fields that seems to be the main point involved. Also a more clear and precise
description of what is considered as General Geometry would be very
helpful.
Jean-Claude CORTET
Managing Editor
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:01:55 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: manuscript 22180
To: "Letters in Mathematical Physics"
Dear Professor Jean-Claude CORTET,
Thank you for your letter.
The paper will be revised according to the referee's
report and send you in a few days.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi Shahverdiyev.
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:41:36 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" | This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: manuscript 22180
To: "Letters in Mathematical Physics"
Dear Professor Jean-Claude CORTET,
My comments to the referee's report is sent you in a
separate message. The paper is revised according to
the referee's report and attached.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi Shahverdiyev.
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:42:11 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: manuscript 22180 (Comments)
To: "Letters in Mathematical Physics"
COMMENTS to the
> Report to Letters in Mathematical
> Physics
>
> Title: On special cases of general geometry.
> Author: Shervgi S. Shahverdiyev
> I therefore think, that the author should explain
> what he means by General
> Geometry in the beginning of his paper, as per the
> other mathematical
> objects involved.
> This will help the non-specialist to get an idea of
> the topic; this seems
> important to me in times where expository style is
> recommended.
At the begining of section 2 basics of General
Geometry will be included.
> A deeper analysis and a mayor insight
> in the consequences of
> this construction is suggested to understand the
> relevance in the change
> of the length of a vector along a curve in the
> presence of certain fields
> that seems to be the main point involved.
Unfortunately, at present time I do not know about
consequences different from those stated in the
paper. Unlike the Weyl's rule of change of the length of a
vector in our case the length of a vector does not
change propotionally to the length itself. Therefore
there are no obvious consequences of the change of the
length as in the case of Weyl's theory.
A revised version of the paper is sent to
Professor Jean-Claude CORTET.
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:24:51 +0100
To: [email protected]
From: "Letters in Mathematical Physics"
Subject: manuscript 22180 (revised version)
Dear author,
We acknowledge with thanks the receipt of your manuscript entitled:
ON SPECIAL CASES OF GENERAL GEOMETRY
submitted for publication in Letters in mathematical Physics.
The reference of your paper is: 22180 (revised version)
Please use this reference in the subject field of e-messages concerning
this paper.
Sincerely Yours
Jean-Claude CORTET
Jean-Claude CORTET
Managing Editor
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:40:27 +0100
To: [email protected]
From: "Letters in Mathematical Physics"
Subject: manuscript 22180 (revised version)
Dear author,
Below please find the referee's report on your manuscript entitled :
ON SPECIAL CASES OF GENERAL GEOMETRY
which you submitted for publication in Letters in Mathematical
Unfortunately, in view of this report, we cannot accept it for
publication.
Sincerely yours,
J.C. CORTET
Referee report on the paper entitled "On special cases of general
geometry" by S. S. Shahverdiyev, submitted for publication to Letters in
Mathematical Physics.
In this short Note, the author introduces a "general geometry"
apparently suitable for a geometrization of Electrodynamics. The approach is much
in the spirit of Unified field theory as it was considered about 50 years ago.
As far as I can understand, the manuscript is based on two previous preprints by
the authors (refs. 1 and 2). The paper looks rather inconclusive to me
and meets neither the mathematical level nor the standards of LMP.
Therefore I do not recommend the manuscript for publication in LMP.
The author is encouraged to make his ideas more precise, write it in a
comprehensive form, and eventually submit a new version to a more suitable Physics
journal such as "Classical and Quantum Gravity" or "Journal of Physics A".
Jean-Claude CORTET
Managing Editor
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:23:13 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: manuscript 22180 (revised version)
To: "Letters in Mathematical Physics"
Dear Professor Jean-Claude CORTET,
It looks like that this report is written by another
referee. The paper has been revised according to the
first referee's report and in my opinion there was no
reason to send it to a different referee. It seems
that the referee has not even read the first report.
Moreover, it is the reputation of nowadays referees
not to oppose decision of the previous referees by any
means, as I have been told by a few scientists. One of
them was a referee to Phys. Lett. B. Please if it
possible refrain sending the paper to different
referees.
This report is based on statements in general words
and therefore it is not clear what the referee means.
I liked the first report where it was clearly stated
what is needed to be done. Moreover, understanding of
the results of the paper is different by two referees.
It looks like that the second referee have read only
first two pages of the paper. He states that
"In this short Note, the author introduces a "general
geometry" ..."
which is not the case. "General geometry" has been
introduces in a different paper. In this paper basics
of "general geometry" is recalled for the sake of
completeness.
According to the first report it was clear that after
adding more information it must be accepted to the
publication. But the second referee requires to submit
it to more suitable journal. The editorial board had
to inform me about this in first days of submission.
The paper has been submitted 3.5 month ago and in my
opinion it is too late for such kind of requirements.
I agree to revise the paper further and appreciate if
the referee be more concrete in his requirements.
My comments are sent you in a separate message.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi Shahverdiyev.
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:24:32 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: manuscript 22180 (revised version) Comments
To: "Letters in Mathematical Physics"
Comment to the
> Referee report on the paper entitled "On special
> cases of general geometry"
> by S. S. Shahverdiyev, submitted for publication to
> Letters in Mathematical
> Physics.
>
>
>
> In this short Note, the author introduces a
> "general geometry" apparently
> suitable for a geometrization of Electrodynamics.
As it is written at the beginning of sec 2., the
second passage, General geometry is introduced in a
different paper. In this paper its basics are recalled
for the sake of completeness. This has been required
by the first referee.
> The approach is much in the
> spirit of Unified field theory as it was considered
> about 50 years ago.
I do not know what do you mean? Whose works do you
compare with this paper?
> As far as I can understand, the manuscript is based
> on two previous
> preprints by
> the authors (refs. 1 and 2). The paper looks rather
> inconclusive to me
It is not clear why the paper looks rather
inconclusive if there are at least two main results.
1. Relations between quantities defining geometry and
quantities defining the length of a curve in
geometries underlying Electromagnetism and unified
model of Electromagnetism and Gravitation are found.
2. It is shown that the length of a vector changes
along a curve in these geometries.
>and
> meets neither the mathematical level nor the
> standards of LMP.
This is what charachterazies LMP (copied from web page
of LMP)
"The aim of Letters in Mathematical Physics is to
present to the specialized reader (from the level of
graduate student upwards) important new developments
in the area of mathematical physics..... relativity
and gravitation, etc. It contains, in addition,
important contributions to modern mathematics in such
fields as functional analysis, differential geometry,
algebra, topology, etc., which have a potential
physical application, and important developments in
theoretical physics which have potential mathematical
impact."
As it is stated clearly "from the level of graduate
student upwards".
I am sorry, but what is done in the paper cannot be
considered below the level of graduate students.
> The author is encouraged to make his ideas more
> precise, write it in a
> comprehensive
> form,
Unfortunately, this statement is not clear for me.
Please let me know what result of the paper is not
clear for you or may not be clear for a reader.
>and eventually submit a new version to a more
> suitable Physics journal
> such as "Classical and Quantum Gravity" or "Journal
> of Physics A".
The first referee requested to add more information to
the paper. I understood that after that paper must be
accepted for publication.
You require to submit the paper to more suitable
journal. The editorial board had to inform me about
that in the first days of submission, not after 3.5
months. In my opinion it is very late for such kind of
requirements.
The paper has been submitted to a different journal.
The editor encouraged me to submit it to LMP the next
day after submission. And what was written in the web
page of LMP indeed made me submit the paper to LMP.
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:00:50 +0100
To: [email protected]
From: "Letters in Mathematical Physics" | This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: manuscript 22180
Dear author,
We did receive both messages containing your appeal and the reasons
that
motivated it.
As customary in our Journal, your Ms. has been reviewed by two
referees. In
this case they wrote a joint report. The junior referee formulated the
first report, the senior the second. In both cases the decision not to
publish it was made by the Editors, on the basis of the reports. That
decision is final. We nevertheless considered your appeal.
As stated on the web page of LMP, our journal is devoted to "important
new
developments in the area of mathematical physics." It is clear from the
reports that this is not the case of your Ms. We are sorry it took
time to get a first report, but we do not reject a paper without it being
examined by referees and then Editors. Incidentally, the time it took is short
by mathematics standards, where a paper can be rejected as unsuitable for
the journal after more than a year, sometimes without any further
explanation. As to the technical points, referees are supposed to evaluate a Ms.,
not to tutor authors. That is already a lot to ask, and many are overburdened
by this service to the community.
As much as we regret it, our decision remains the same.
Sincerely,
For the Editors,
Jean-Claude CORTET
Managing Editor
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:08:21 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: manuscript 22180
To: "Letters in Mathematical Physics"
Dear Managing Editor,
> As customary in our Journal, your Ms. has been
> reviewed by two referees. In
> this case they wrote a joint report. The junior
> referee formulated the
> first report, the senior the second.
I am sorry, but as follows from our correspondence the
reports were not written together but independently
for two different versions. If they wrote joint
report, the understanding of the paper and
requirements by two referees were not be different.
> As stated on the web page of LMP, our journal is
> devoted to "important new
> developments in the area of mathematical physics."
> It is clear from the
> reports that this is not the case of your Ms.
Unfortunately, you exaggerate the real being of
things. The first report does not contain such things.
The second report does not explain why the discovery
of geometries with changing length of a vector, which
are the underlying geometries for physical theories is
not an important new development in the area of
mathematical physics? Please let the editor in charge
provide me with answer to this question.
Therefore it is not clear from the second report.
Moreover the second report states that
"In this short Note, the author introduces a "general
geometry" ..." which is not the case.
Accordingly, the second report does not reflect main
results of the paper, which is formulated in the
abstract.
> We are sorry it took time to get a first report,
>but we do not reject a paper without it being
>examined by referees and then Editors. Incidentally,
>the time it took is short by mathematics standards,
>where a paper can be rejected as unsuitable for the
> journal after more than a year, sometimes without
> any further explanation.
This is very strange, however.
> As to the technical points, referees are supposed to
> evaluate a Ms., not to tutor authors.
Please do not be so arrogant. Being concrete in
requirements instead of writing a report in general
words can not be considered as tutoring. In our case
the first report is understandable than the second
report (which is written in general words). But we can
not consider the first report as teaching something to
the author.
On the other hand reports written in general words
like "the paper looks rather inconclusive to me
and meets neither the mathematical level nor the
standards of LMP..." can be written for any paper.
And without explanation they can be considered as
discrimination. Please understand that there is no
attempt to publish the paper in LMP by any means.
There are a few journals that may publish the paper.
I simply would like to get adequate answers
for reasons not to publish the paper in LMP.
I sincerely note that your letter is full of
exaggeration and arrogance. As far as I know you are
nonspecialist. It is convenient for me to discuss the
paper with a specialist, in our case with the editor
in charge. Please transfer our full correspondence to
the editor in charge and let me know the e-mail
address for contacting him.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Shervgi Shahverdiyev.
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: manuscript 22180
To: "Letters in Mathematical Physics"
Dear Managing Editor,
Please let me know when we can expect a response from
the editor in charge to my appeal.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi Shahverdiyev.
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:12:53 +0200
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
From: "Letters in Mathematical Physics"
Subject: Re: manuscript 22180
Dear Prof.Shahverdiyev,
We sent you a message by e-mail on March 21.It seems that you did nor
receive it. Below please a copy of this message.
Sincerely Yours,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Dear author,
We did receive both messages containing your appeal and the reasons
that
motivated it.
As customary in our Journal, your Ms. has been reviewed by two
referees. In this case they wrote a joint report. The junior referee formulated the
first report, the senior the second. In both cases the decision not to
publish it was made by the Editors, on the basis of the reports. That
decision is final. We nevertheless considered your appeal.
As stated on the web page of LMP, our journal is devoted to "important
new developments in the area of mathematical physics." It is clear from the
reports that this is not the case of your Ms. We are sorry it took
time to get a first report, but we do not reject a paper without it being
examined by referees and then Editors. Incidentally, the time it took is short
by mathematics standards, where a paper can be rejected as unsuitable for
the journal after more than a year, sometimes without any further
explanation. As to the technical points, referees are supposed to evaluate a Ms.,
not to tutor authors. That is already a lot to ask, and many are overburdened
by this service to the community.
As much as we regret it, our decision remains the same.
Sincerely,
For the Editors,
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: manuscript 22180
To: "Letters in Mathematical Physics"
Dear Managing Editor,
I received your message on March 21. I sent you
my responce on March 23.
Below, please find a copy of that message and please
acknowledge the receipt of this message.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Shervgi Shahverdiyev.
-------------------------------------------------
Dear Managing Editor,
> As customary in our Journal, your Ms. has been
> reviewed by two referees. In
> this case they wrote a joint report. The junior
> referee formulated the
> first report, the senior the second.
I am sorry, but as follows from our correspondence the
reports were not written together but independently
for two different versions. If they wrote joint
report, the understanding of the paper and
requirements by two referees were not be different.
> As stated on the web page of LMP, our journal is
> devoted to "important new
> developments in the area of mathematical physics."
> It is clear from the
> reports that this is not the case of your Ms.
Unfortunately, you exaggerate the real being of
things. The first report does not contain such things.
The second report does not explain why the discovery
of geometries with changing length of a vector, which
are the underlying geometries for physical theories is
not an important new development in the area of
mathematical physics? Please let the editor in charge
provide me with answer to this question.
Therefore it is not clear from the second report.
Moreover the second report states that
"In this short Note, the author introduces a "general
geometry" ..." which is not the case.
Accordingly, the second report does not reflect main
results of the paper, which is formulated in the
abstract.
> We are sorry it took time to get a first report,
>but we do not reject a paper without it being
>examined by referees and then Editors. Incidentally,
>the time it took is short by mathematics standards,
>where a paper can be rejected as unsuitable for the
> journal after more than a year, sometimes without
> any further explanation.
This is very strange, however.
> As to the technical points, referees are supposed to
> evaluate a Ms., not to tutor authors.
Please do not be so arrogant. Being concrete in
requirements instead of writing a report in general
words can not be considered as tutoring. In our case
the first report is understandable than the second
report (which is written in general words). But we can
not consider the first report as teaching something to
the author.
On the other hand reports written in general words
like "the paper looks rather inconclusive to me
and meets neither the mathematical level nor the
standards of LMP..." can be written for any paper.
And without explanation they can be considered as
discrimination. Please understand that there is no
attempt to publish the paper in LMP by any means.
There are a few journals that may publish the paper.
I simply would like to get adequate answers
for reasons not to publish the paper in LMP.
I sincerely note that your letter is full of
exaggeration and arrogance. As far as I know you are
nonspecialist. It is convenient for me to discuss the
paper with a specialist, in our case with the editor
in charge. Please transfer our full correspondence to
the editor in charge and let me know the e-mail
address for contacting him.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Shervgi Shahverdiyev
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 08:25:14 +0200
To: [email protected]
From: "Letters in Mathematical Physics"
Subject: manuscript 22180
Dear Dr Shahverdiyev,
This is in reply to your message from April 17 :
>I received your message on March 21. I sent you my responce on March
23.
>Below, please find a copy of that message and please acknowledge the
>receipt of this message.
>I am looking forward to hearing from you.
The Editors wish to communicate you the following:
1. In your response, you claim that your work is an important new
development and thus deserves publication. The referees and the Editors
do not agree. For them, your Ms. contains nothing of value from the mathematical
point of view, and its physical interest is at best marginal, in a field where
there is no urgency to publish such a Ms. As you were told, the Editors' decision
is final. They do not enter into direct discussions with authors on such issues.
In addition, if you have something more to say that is not contained in
your Ms. and could show the importance of your point of view, it should
be included in the Ms. -- and submitted to another Journal.
2. You maintain a web page http://www.geocities.com/shervgis/index.html
On that web page, until very recently, you claimed that the three
papers you refer to as [1], [2], [3], on very similar subjects, especially for
[2] and [3], were "to appear" in, resp. IJMPA, JMP (hep-th/0205224) and
LMP. That was incorrect. In fact, at least the latter two were rejected, in
spite of long and repeated argumentation. Therefore even the correction that
you made very recently, replacing "to appear" by "submitted to" is incorrect,
and you know that.
We shall not respond to any further message from you on this question.
The matter is closed as far as we are concerned.
Sincerely,
Jean-Claude CORTET
Managing Editor
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" | This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: manuscript 22180
To: [email protected]
Dear Managing Editor,
To be honest, I decided not to communicate with you
further because it become clear from our
correspondence that you do not want to publish the
paper by any means, even by putting yourself in a
contradictory position.
I am writing this letter because your statement
concerning my previous message is incorrect.
> The Editors wish to communicate you the following:
> 1. In your response, you claim that your work is an
> important new
> development and thus deserves publication.
Fortunately, you have the copy of my previous message.
And there is no such a claim. I made copy and paste of
relevant point of that message. I said
"...The second report does not explain why the
discovery of geometries with changing length of a
vector, which are the underlying geometries for
physical theories is not an important new development
in the area of mathematical physics?...."
This is a question not a claim.
> The
> referees and the Editors do
> not agree.
> For them, your Ms. contains nothing of value from
> the mathematical point of
> view,
First, if this was the case why then editors have sent
it for refereeing? Moreover, why the first referee did
not note this in his report?
Second, discovery of a new geometry with changing
length of a vector (which in addition is an underlying
geometry for experimentally well known
theory--electromagnetism) cannot be considered as a
zero value contribution to Mathematics. For example,
extension of Riemannian geometry by H. Weyl (which has
not found any physical applications yet) has never
been considered as a zero value contribution to
Mathematics.
For some people, everything may have zero value if
they value things according to their personal
feelings. Fortunately, value of contributions to any
subject does not depend on personal feelings of any
person and you know that.
>and its physical interest is at best marginal,
The proposed geometric model reproduces experimentally
well known theory exactly. Therefore, its physical
interest is not marginal.
> in a field where there
> is no urgency to publish such a Ms.
Never heard that papers get published on their
urgency. According to you, some papers, presenting new results,
must be published a few years later or even not be
published. This have never been an established
attitude to new accomplishments during the whole human
history.
> As you were told, the Editors' decision is final.
> They do not enter into
> direct discussions with authors on such issues.
I asked that only because it looks like that you are
the second referee(maybe one of the editors). Your
tendency not to publish the paper by any means closed
your eyes to reality. Therefore it is worthless
to argue with you. It will be fair if you give up
doing such things and let the others evaluate the
paper.
> In addition, if you have something more to say that
> is not contained in
> your Ms. and could show the importance of your point
> of view, it should be
> included in the Ms. -- and submitted to another
> Journal.
I believe that the author decides what to do with his
paper.
> 2. You maintain a web page
> http://www.geocities.com/shervgis/index.html
> On that web page, until very recently, you claimed
> that the three papers
> you refer to as [1], [2], [3], on very similar
> subjects, especially for [2]
> and [3], were "to appear" in, resp. IJMPA, JMP
> (hep-th/0205224) and LMP.
> That was incorrect.
That was correct in the sense that it was obvious that
the paper will be published in LMP
because it was revised according to the first
referee's report, who required to add more information
only. We did not expect that the revised version
be given to a different referee, and moreover we did
not expect that he wrote irrelevant report.
>In fact, at least the latter two
> were rejected, in
> spite of long and repeated argumentation.
Can I conclude that you are the same referee who wrote
irrelevant report to [2]? Otherwise how do you know
about my argumentation with JMP? It makes sense,
because your style of writing irrelevant reports is
the same as JMP's referee. At the beginning of the
report you state something irrelevant to the paper
absolutely not reflecting its main results. In the
second part you state something in general words. And
most interesting thing is that you avoid to explain
you statements in general words and partly take back
the statements of the first part.
Argumentation is repeated because you leave most part
of author's comments unanswered or repeat again some
places of your report.
> Therefore even the correction that you made very
> recently, replacing "to
> appear" by "submitted to" is incorrect, and you know
> that.
In my opinion any decision made according to
irrelevant reports does not change status of the
paper. Status of the version submitted to LMP remains
the same until LMP writes relevant to it report.
> We shall not respond to any further message from you
> on this question. The
> matter is closed as far as we are concerned.
Of course, when you have nothing to oppose the authors
comments and at the same time do not want to publish
the paper by any means you are compelled to do that.
Sincerely,
Shervgi Shahverdiyev.
Main Page