Journal of High Energy Physics referee writes irrelevant report
Journal of High Energy Physics referee writes irrelevant report
Paper
"A Note on Closed Strings"
by S. S. Shahverdiyev was submitted to "Journal of High Energy Physics"
in December 2001.
We will concern main points of referee's report and the authors comments.
(For details see full correspondence below.)
In his
report
referee says that "condition (4) does not allow to
identify at the quantum level the left and right
oscillators as operators".
However, in the paper there is no assertion
that the operators for left and right oscillators are identified at the quantum level.
Moreover, strings considered in the paper have only one type of operators.
Therefore, the referee's report is irrelevant to the paper.
It interesting to know what the editor writes as a response to the author's comments.
The executive editor (Simona Cerrato) writes "I regret to inform you that the editor
-- after reconsidering your paper -- decided to stick to hif former decision"
So, we see how this decision is unfair. And wonder why a scientist makes such an
unfair decision?
After that the author requests to let him know at what place of the paper
there is the mentioned above identification of operators or let him to discuss
it with an editor of JHEP. The executive editor
agrees to send the paper to an appropriate personnel. The appropriate personnel
writes
"The criticism of the referee did not only refer to the
point mentioned by the author in his reply, concerning the identification
of operators. In his reply the author also mentioned that one
section was not written clearly. He should have rewritten it and should have
resubmitted the paper. Independent of that, he should discuss his paper with
Profs. Ooguri and Gross and ask for their opinion."
We see that the appropriate personnel agrees that there is no identification of operators.
Later the author has contacted Profs. Ooguri and Gross but none of them agreed to discuss the paper
and eventually the author was compelled to resubmit the
paper with rearranged sec 3.
In his
report
the referee says " In effect, the
author has imposed both open and closed string boundary conditions at the
same time. This is not physically motivated nor is it demonstrated that the
resulting truncation leads to a consistent theory..."
The author's comment is
" the boundary conditions chosen are the subset
to the standard boundary conditions (2) for closed
strings. Therefore there cannot be any inconsistencies
because in that case all theory of the closed strings
will be inconsistent as a theory containing strings
considered in my paper as a special case...
"
In the second part of his report the referee writes
"At the beginning of section 4, the author states that all strings in type II
theory should have periodic worldsheet boundary conditions. This is simply
wrong..."
The referee's statement is surprising, however. We all know very well that type II string
theories are constructed from action principle as theories of closed strings.
The author in his paper shows that closed strings he considers lie on
D-Branes after T-duality. And according to him open strings attached to D-branes
in type II theories appear in these theories unnaturally (not from the action principle).
In his reply to the author's comments the referee requires that the author should consider
interacting strings too, in order to check if negative norm states decouple.
This was not in the referee's report, however and is irrelevant to the paper
because there is no consideration of interacting strings.
We consider this requirement as unnecessary for rejecting the paper for publication
because the author has right to consider only free strings.
Consideration of interacting strings is a different problem. For example
T-duality has been discovered in the theory of free strings and later in the theory of
interacting strings.
Accordingly, we consider the editor's decision not to publish the paper
because there was no consideration of interacting strings as unfair decision.
Later executive office and Directorate of JHEP have left the author's
messages unanswered.
William Soles
e-mail:[email protected]
04/23/03
******************************************************************************************
Date: Mon Jan 7 21:46:42 MET 2002
From: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Your Paper JHEP/052A/1201
Re: JHEP/052A/1201
A Note on Closed Strings
12/26/01
Dear Shervgi Shahverdiyev,
unfortunately we have to inform you that the paper
above has not been accepted for publication in
JHEP.
We are sending you in a separate e-mail the
referee's report.
Sincerely yours,
The Editor
JHEP
PS: If you wish to contact the JHEP Executive Office,
please write to
[email protected].
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:54:27 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" [email protected] |
Subject: The author's comment to report for
jhep/052A/1201
To: [email protected]
Dear Editor,
I am sending you my comments to the referee's report
for paper JHEP/052A/1201. The report is attached.
You can send me correspondence either to this e-mail
address or to [email protected].
The referee says that "condition (4) does not allow to
identify at the quantum level the left and right
oscillators as operators".
In the paper there is no assertion that the operators
for left and right oscillators are equal. The solution
(5) representing the closed strings satisfying (4) has
only one kind of operators $\alpha_n^\mu$, which
represents both left and right Fourier modes at the
classical level.
After quantizing (5) we obtain its spectrum.
In section 3 it is pointed out that if we consider
spectrum of closed strings satisfying (2) and
send $alpha_n$ to $\tilde\alpha_n$ we obtain exactly
the spectrum of closed strings represented by (5).
This is simply an observation. And this does not mean
that I identify left and right oscillators as
operators in order to quantize (5).
My statement in the beginning of sec. 4
was that the open strings (in type II theories) are
attached to D branes by hand. In type II theories
there are no open strings.
As it is shown in sec.4 closed strings satisfying
(4)can lie on D branes.
I agree that the sec. 3 should be reorganized.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:31:50 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" [email protected] |
Subject: The author's comment to report for
jhep/052A/1201
To: [email protected]
Dear Editor,
As a response to the referees report for my paper,
JHEP/052A/1201, I am sending you the paper with
sec. 3 enlarged. I have added quantization of closed
strings considered in the paper. In this version it is
clearly seen that there is no identification of
oscillators as operators.
Please let the referee evaluate this version of the
paper.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 14:39:13 +0100 (MET)
From: "JHEP Executive Office" [email protected]
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" [email protected]
Subject: Re: The author's comment to report for
jhep/052A/1201
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev,
Your comments on 8 January was forwarded to the editor
in charge, who
is
now considering them. A new version cannot be
submitted before the
editor's decision on your appeal.
Best regards,
Simona Cerrato
JHEP Executive Office
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:30:04 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" [email protected] |
Subject: Re: The author's comment to report for
jhep/052A/1201
To: "JHEP Executive Office" [email protected]
Dear Simona Cerrato,
In this case, if your rules allow, you can inform the
editor that the author have added a few formulas to
the sec 3. I think it will be easy to evaluate the
paper with the enlarged sec 3.
Thanks in advance.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:45:39 +0100 (MET)
From: "JHEP Executive Office"[email protected]
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" [email protected]
Subject: Re: The author's comment to report for
jhep/052A/1201
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev,
Please be patient, and wait for the editor's decision
on your appeal.
Be sure that we are doing our best to guarantee a fair
treatment to all
papers and authors!
Thank you and best regards,
Simona Cerrato
JHEP Executive Office
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:23:32 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" [email protected] |
Subject: Re: The author's comment to report for
jhep/052A/1201
To: "JHEP Executive Office" [email protected]
Dear Simona Cerrato,
I would like to know if you have deadline for
editorial work.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:22:20 +0100 (MET)
From: "JHEP Executive Office" [email protected]
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" [email protected]
Subject: Re: The author's comment to report for
jhep/052A/1201
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev,
The editor in charge has been already reminded, so we
trust to have a
definitive reply very soon.
Best regards,
Simona Cerrato
JHEP Executive Office
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:09:47 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" [email protected]
Subject: Re: The author's comment to report for
jhep/052A/1201
To: "JHEP Executive Office" [email protected]
Dear Simona Cerrato,
This is to remind the editor in charge with my paper
that the paper was submitted on 26 December 2001.
Today two months has passed. I simply would like to
know how much time it takes to make a decision?
I live in Los Angeles, CA. I can discuss the paper
with the editor if there is need to do that and
if the editor lives in that area. Otherwise I can
discuss it via e-mail.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:43:02 +0100 (MET)
From: "JHEP Executive Office" [email protected]
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" [email protected]
Subject: Re: The author's comment to report for
jhep/052A/1201
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev,
We are sorry for the delay in processing your paper.
The editor has been already reminded.
We will let you know as soon as we get his reply.
Best regards,
Simona Cerrato
JHEP Executive Office
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 00:40:07 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" [email protected] |
Subject: Re: The author's comment to report for
jhep/052A/1201
To: "JHEP Executive Office" [email protected]
Dear Simona Cerrato,
I would like to know when can I expect to receive
editor's response to my appeal? I think if you let me
know who is the editor it can be helpful because in
that case I will contact the editor directly and
discuss the paper with him.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 10:07:41 +0200 (MEST)
From: "JHEP Executive Office"[email protected]
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" [email protected]
Subject: Re: The author's comment to report for
jhep/052A/1201
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev,
I regret to inform you that the editor -- after
reconsidering your
paper
-- decided to stick to hif former decisionnn. Your
paper:
JHEP/052A/1201
A Note on Closed Strings
Shervgi Shahverdiyev
cannot be published in JHEP. This decision is final.
Best regards,
Simona Cerrato
JHEP Executive Office
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 22:33:42 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" [email protected]|
Subject: Re: The author's comment to report for
jhep/052A/1201
To: "JHEP Executive Office"
Dear Simona Cerrato,
I would like to stress that the referee's report is
not related to my paper. The solution (5) representing
strings in question is quantized by applying canonical
quantization method. There is no identification of
operators.
I would like to discuss the paper with one of the JHEP
representatives or with advisory committee in order to
come to fair and final decision. I will be very
garteful if someone will point to a mistake done in
the paper.
Below, I included my comments to the referee's report,
again. The paper with reorganized section 3 and added
Institution address is also attached.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
---------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS TO THE REFEREE'S REPORT
The referee says that "condition (4) does not allow to
identify at the quantum level the left and right
oscillators as operators".
The solution (5)is quantised by applying canonical
quantization method.
In the paper there is no assertion that the operators
for left and right oscillators are equal. The solution
(5) representing the closed strings satisfying (4) has
only one kind of operators $alpha_n^mu$, which
represents both left and right Fourier modes at the
classical level.
In section 3 it is pointed out that if we consider
spectrum of closed strings satisfying (2) and
send $alpha_n$ to $ ildealpha_n$ we obtain exactly
the spectrum of closed strings represented by (5).
This is simply an observation. And this does not mean
that I identify left and right oscillators as
operators in order to quantize (5).
My statement in the beginning of sec. 4
was that the open strings (in type II theories) are
attached to D branes by hand. In type II theories
there are no open strings. As it is shown in sec.4
closed strings satisfying (4)can lie on D branes.
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:17:02 +0200 (MEST)
From: "JHEP Executive Office" [email protected]
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: The author's comment to report for
jhep/052A/1201
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev,
The Board has looked into the matter and supports the
referee's and editor's decision. We regret tat the decision is final.
Best regards,
Simona Cerrato
JHEP Executive Office
Dear Simona Cerrato,
Independent of whether the decision is final or not, I
would like to let you know that it does not concern my
paper because it is made according to the report which
is irrelevant to my paper. If your(JHEP') side thinks
that they are right please let me know where in my
paper, at what page, there is identification of any
operators mentioned in the referee's report. As the
author to the paper I state that there is no
identification of any operators in my paper.
Because of the above mentioned I assume that my paper
is not considered at all, because the referee's report
and the decision made according to it does not concern
the paper.
I know that prof. Ooguri and prof. Gross from your
side live very close to me. Please let me discuss the
paper with one of them and reach fair and final
decision. I think it will take less than 10 min. to
discuss it. If they point to any mistake in the paper
I will acknowledge all of you and take back it.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:34:22 +0200 (MEST)
From: "JHEP Executive Office"
| This is spam | Add to Address Book
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: The author's comment to report for
jhep/052A/1201
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev,
Your message has been forwarded to the appropriate
person. I will let
yo
know the responce as soon as possible.
Best regards, Simona Cerrato
JHEP Executive Office
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:04:20 +0400 (MSD)
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Re: The author's comment to report for
jhep/052A/1201 (fwd)
----- Forwarded message from JHEP Executivvve Office
-----
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:05:03 +0200 (MEST)
From: JHEP Executive Office [email protected]
Reply-To: JHEP Executive Office
[email protected]
Subject: Re: The author's comment to report for
jhep/052A/1201 (fwd)
To: [email protected]
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev,
Please find below the FINAL reply regarding your
preprint:
JHEP/052A/1201
A Note on Closed Strings
Shervgi Shahverdiyev
Best regards,
Simona Cerrato
JHEP Executive Office
----------------------------------------------
- JHEP -
jhep.sissa.it
SISSA - via Beirut 4 - 34014 Trieste (Italy)
---------------------------------------------
========================================================
==============
The criticism of the referee did not only refer to the
point mentioned by
the author in his reply, concerning the identification
of operators.
In his reply the author also mentioned that one
section
was not written
clearly. He should have rewritten it and should have
resubmitted the
paper.
Independent of that, he should discuss his paper with
Profs. Ooguri and Gross and ask for their opinion.
========================================================
================
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" |
This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: Fwd: Re: The author's comment to report for
jhep/052A/1201 (fwd)
To: [email protected]
Dear prof. Ooguri,
After my request, the JHEP's executive office, would
like that I should discuss with you my paper submitted
to JHEP. Their reply is below. Please let me know what
time is convenient for you.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:47:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Hirosi Ooguri" |
This is spam | Add to Address Book
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
CC: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: The author's comment to report
for jhep/052A/1201 (fwd)
Dear Shervgi,
I was not involved in the review process of your
paper. I have never seen your paper nor the referee
reports, so I am not sure what I am supposed to
discuss with you. It is very unusual that a referee
report makes such a request. I would like to ask for
the editorial office to clarify the situation.
It is possible (I am just guessing since I have
never
seen your paper) that the referee thinks that your
paper
is related to one of the papers I wrote with David
Gross.
In which case, the referee was simply making some
friendly
advice to you. Perhaps the editorial office can
clarify
it, but I do not think that discussing with me is a
requirement for an acceptance of your paper to JHEP.
Unfortunately, due to my schedule, it is unlikely
that
I will be able to find time to read your paper
carefully
and discuss it with you.
Regards, Hirosi Ooguri
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" |
This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: The author's comment to report
for jhep/052A/1201 (fwd)
To: "Hirosi Ooguri"
Dear Prof. Ooguri,
I thought that you were informed about that.
I have submitted the paper and in my opinion the
referee's report I have received was irrelevant to
the paper. I have sent my comments to the executive
office and after 3 months the executive editor
Simona Cerrato, informed me that the editor in charge
with the paper keeps the referee's report.
Then I demanded to let them me know where in the
paper there is identification of operators mentioned
in the referee's report and requested to discuss the
paper with JHEP's representatives. I knew that you and
prof. Gross live close to me and mentioned that I
could discuss it with you and prof. Gross.
As I have been told by the executive editor, the paper
was sent to the appropriate person and his final
decision was included in the previous message. I can
only guess that that person was not neither the
referee no the editor in charge with paper.
The paper I have submitted with the rewritten section
3 is attached below. It is interesting for me to know
which one of your paper is related to the paper
submitted.
Please let me know in the case if you are able to
discuss it or let me know your opinion about it.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Hirosi Ooguri" |
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
CC: "Hirosi Ooguri"
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: The author's comment to report
for jhep/052A/1201 (fwd)
Dear Shervgi,
I am not involved at all in this process,
so I cannot make any comment on it. If you
are concerned about it, please discuss it
directly with the editorial office. The issue
is not under my juristiction.
Regards, Hirosi
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Hirosi Ooguri" |
This is spam | Add to Address Book
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
CC: "Hirosi Ooguri"
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: The author's comment to report
for jhep/052A/1201 (fwd)
Dear Shervgi,
I read your message and I understand the
message from the editorial office mentioned
my name and that of David Gross since you mentioned
our names as editors to discuss the issue.
Since I have never seen your paper, I guessed
that your work may have been related to one of
the papers I wrote with Gross, but it seems that
it was not the case.
At any rate, I do not think it makes sense
for me to discuss your paper with you since I was
not at all involved in the referee process. Each
editor of JHEP makes an individual decision. So
you have to discuss with the editor who handled
your case.
Regards, Hirosi
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Hirosi Ooguri" |
This is spam | Add to Address Book
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
CC: "Hirosi Ooguri"
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: The author's comment to report
for jhep/052A/1201 (fwd)
Dear Shervgi,
I inquired about your paper to the JHEP editorial
office and received the following reply. I am sending
it to you for your information. If you have any
further question, you should discuss it with the
editorial office.
Regards, Hirosi
Dear Hiroshi,
Thank you for informing us about this issue.
The paper in question was rejected after a very careful review (by two
referees and the editor). However the author was not satisfied, and
thought it a good idea to discuss his paper with you.
JHEP never suggested him to contact you.
We are sorry for this inconvenience.
If you wish I can send you the entire history of the paper.
Best regards, Simona
JHEP Executive Office
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" |
This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: Fwd: Re: The author's comment to report for
jhep/052A/1201 (fwd)
To: [email protected]
Dear prof. Gross,
According to the final decision of a referee I should
ask your opinion about my paper submitted to JHEP, and
resubmit it. The final decision is below.
The paper with rewritten section 3 is attached.
Besides it, I have done a work about geometry of
electromagnetism. I think it may be interesting to you
because of you paper hep-th\9411233 and would like to
discuss it with you.
Please let me know what time is convenient for you.
I live in Pasadena and can drive to Santa Barbara.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" |
This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: The author's comment to report
for jhep/052A/1201 (fwd)
To: [email protected]
Dear Simona Cerrato,
Although I did not get answer to my question in the
final decision I agree to follow the steps indicated
in the final decision.
First, I contacted profs. Ooguri and Gross for their
opinion. As I understood they were very busy and had
no time for reading the paper.
Second, I have rewritten section 3 and changed the
title of the paper.
I would like to know should I send it to you (for this
case the paper is attached) or submit it as a new
paper.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 16:18:22 +0200 (MEST)
From: "JHEP Executive Office"
| This is spam | Add to Address Book
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: The author's comment to report
for jhep/052A/1201 (fwd)
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev,
Your paper jhep/052A/1201 has been considered with the
utmost care, and
the Editor, the referees and the JHEP Directorate
decided it is not
suitable for publication in JHEP.
Modifications of the present version will not be
accepted.
Naturally you may want to submit a new paper, which
will then be
subjected to a rigorous examination.
Best regards,
Simona Cerrato
JHEP Executive Office
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected] | This is spam | Add
to Address Book
Date: Mon May 13 14:27:32 MEST 2002
Subject: Your Paper JHEP/001F/0502
Re: JHEP/001F/0502
Closed-Open String Duality
5/3/02
Dear Shervgi S. Shahverdiyev,
unfortunately we have to inform you that the paper
above has not been accepted for publication in
JHEP.
We are sending you in a separate e-mail the
referee's report.
Sincerely yours,
The Editor
JHEP
PS: If you wish to contact the JHEP Executive Office,
please write to
[email protected].
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 10:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" [email protected]
Subject: Comments
To: [email protected]
Dear Executive Editor,
I am sending you my comments for the referee's report
for JHEP/001F/0502.Please let the referee and the
editor pay attention to my comments.
My comments for the first passage of the report are
the following.
First of all I do not impose the boundary conditions
by hand. They are the solutions to the most general
boundary conditions
$$
\partial_{\sigma} X_\mu \delta X^\mu(\tau, 0)-
\partial_{\sigma} X_\mu \delta X^\mu(\tau, \pi) =0.
$$
as it is written in the beginning of section 2.
Because they follow from the action principle they
cannot lead to any inconsistencies.
Second, the boundary conditions chosen are the subset
to the standard boundary conditions (2)for closed
strings. Therefore there cannot be any inconsistencies
because in that case all theory of the closed strings
will be inconsistent as a theory containing strings
considered in my paper as a special case.
Third, a simply demonstration that there is no
inconsistencies is that the function (5) is also a
solution to the equation of motion with the standard
boundary condition (2). So, I can simply write the
solution (5) immediately after (2) without referring
to any subset of boundary conditions and do the same
conclusions after (5).This is simply equivalent to
omitting a part of the paper beginning from formula
(2) to (5). Therefore the results of section 2 do not
change at all in that case.
Concerning the second passage of the referee's report,
I can say that I absolutely agree with the referee,
except his assertion that "in type II theories
strings can not have periodic boundary condition".
I have read almost in all text books that the type II
theories is the theory of closed strings only.
If the referee can give an appropriate reference I be
grateful for him.
The point I wanted to bring into attention at the
beginning of section 4 and in the introduction is that
open strings on D-branes in type II theories do not come
from the first principles. Of course they are crucial
for obtaining dynamical description of D branes.
This simply means that we have to find a natural
appearance of them in the theory.
As it is shown in sec. 4 closed strings in question
can lie on D-branes and they appear from the action
principle.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 12:38:48 +0200 (MEST)
From: "JHEP Executive Office"
| This is spam | Add to Address Book
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Comments
Dear Dr Shahverdiyev,
your message has been forwarded to the
editor-in-charge. He will
contact
the referee himself.
Best regards,
JHEP Executive Office
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 19:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" |
This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: Comments
To: "JHEP Executive Office"
Dear Executive Editor,
From the author's web page, I have noticed that the
referee wrote his report for JHEP/001F/0502 during one
day. I have sent my comments two weeks ago. So, I
thought that may be the referee or the editor
have not received my comments or forgot about it.
Could you please double check if they received my
comments.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 10:13:51 +0200 (MEST)
From: "JHEP Executive Office"
| This is spam | Add to Address Book
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: Comments
Dear Dr Shahverdiyev,
your comments were sent to both the editor-in-charge
and the referee as
soon as we received them but the referee has not
replied. Perhaps he is
travelling and has not read your message yet.
In any case, I have prompted him for a reply.
Best regards,
Amanda de Felice
JHEP Executive Office
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:34:03 +0200 (MEST)
From: "JHEP Executive Office"
| This is spam | Add to Address Book
To: [email protected]
Subject: JHEP/001F/0502
Dear Dr Shahverdiyev,
the editor-in-charge would like to inform you that on
the grounds of
the
referee's reply to your comments (attached), he
maintains his previous
decion not to accept your paper for publication in
JHEP.
Best regards,
Amanda de Felice
It is still my opinion that this paper should not be published.
The author's reply to my previous report indicates that he has
failed to grasp a very basic fact about Dirichlet branes in
type II superstring theory. At the string worldsheet level a
Dirichlet p-brane is defined as a (p+1)-dimensional surface in
spacetime where open strings end, with the two endpoints of an
open string free to move independently inside the worldvolume
of the D-brane. This is achieved by imposing Neumann boundary
conditions on the embedding coordinates in the worldvolume
directions and Dirichlet boundary conditions on the remaining
coordinates in directions transverse to the D-brane. Imposing
the additional condition that these strings also be periodic,
as proposed by the author, ties the endpoints together.
At the worldsheet level the dynamics of D-branes is by
definition governed by the open strings that end on them and
if you remove those open strings from the theory, or tie their
endpoints together so that they form closed strings, you are
not describing D-branes.
The fact that type II superstring theory contains both open and
closed strings is quite clearly explained in Polchinski's
textbook on String Theory, see for example chapters 8 and 13.
Finally, to establish that a given string model is consistent
it is in general not sufficient to just look at the string
mode expansion. One has to consider string interactions in
the form of scattering amplitudes to see, for example, whether
negative norm states decouple.
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" |
This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: JHEP/001F/0502 (comments)
To: "JHEP Executive Office"
Dear Amanda de Felice,
First, I will comment the last passage of the
referee's reply.
In the paper I considered free strings only.
Consideration of interacting strings falls outside the
scope of the paper. But, as a physicist accepted
action principle as a first principle I am sure that
even in the theory of interacting strings there cannot
be any inconsistencies simply because the strings
considered in the paper comes from the action
principle and even more the theory of closed strings
contains them as a special case.
There are a few examples when scientists discovered
properties of free strings and then interacting
strings in different papers.
For example T-duality was discovered in the context of
free strings. Then in the different paper it was shown
that it is consistent with interactions a few
months later.
For the first passage of the referee's reply my
comments are the following.
There is no attempt do describe D-branes in the paper.
This issue also falls outside the scope of the paper.
It is shown that the strings in question
have the property to lie on D-branes. How to describe
D branes by those strings is another problem.
My point of view is that after choosing periodic
boundary conditions we remain with closed strings only
and D -branes appear as objects carrying R-R charges.
There is no open strings to attach to them. Of course
we can add open strings to D-branes, but at the same
time we have to find an explanation how they appear
naturally. In this respect it is worth mentioning
A. Sen's paper hep-th 9904207. He wrote
" The defining property of D-branes is that
fundamental strings can end on a D-brane..., although
type II string theories in the bulk only
contains closed string states without any end. The
open strings with ends on the D-brane can be
interpreted as the dynamical modes of the D-brane"
(p.4. last passage).
It is clearly seen that A. Sen adds by hand open
strings to D-branes and interprets them as modes of
branes or interprets modes of D-branes as open strings
which is equivalent to an assumption.
What I found in the books by Polchinski were the
following: The author writes
"...of course if we start with the ordinary type II
theory, T-duality will never give us open strings on
D-branes, so,.... Also, we will see in the next
chapter that the inclusion of D-branes leads to a much
more elegant and symmetric theory."
In summary, we are now considering a single theory,
which has a state that contains no D-branes and looks
like ordinary IIA theory,..."(Ch.13 p.144 passage 2
and 3.)
As it is said clearly there is no open strings in type
II theories and D-branes are considered as objects
carrying R-R charges. Presence of open strings on
D-branes is assumed.
I concerned presence of open strings on D-branes in
type II theories in the first two sentences at the
beginning of sec. 4 only. The whole paper is devoted
to investigation of properties of special strings.
There is no attempt to describe D branes or
interacting strings.
Please let the referee and the editor pay attentions
to these comments.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
--- JHEP Executive Office
wrote:
>
> Dear Dr Shahverdiyev,
>
> the editor-in-charge would like to inform you that
> on the grounds of the
> referee's reply to your comments (attached), he
> maintains his previous
> decion not to accept your paper for publication in
> JHEP.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Amanda de Felice
> JHEP Executive Office
> --------------------------------------------
> - JHEP -
> jhep.sissa.it
> SISSA - via Beirut 4 - 34014 Trieste (Italy)
> -------------------------------------------
> > It is still my opinion that this paper should not
be
> published.
> The author's reply to my previous report indicates
> that he has
> failed to grasp a very basic fact about Dirichlet
> branes in
> type II superstring theory. At the string
> worldsheet level a
> Dirichlet p-brane is defined as a (p+1)-dimensional
> surface in
> spacetime where open strings end, with the two
> endpoints of an
> open string free to move independently inside the
> worldvolume
> of the D-brane. This is achieved by imposing
> Neumann boundary
> conditions on the embedding coordinates in the
> worldvolume
> directions and Dirichlet boundary conditions on the
> remaining
> coordinates in directions transverse to the D-brane.
> Imposing
> the additional condition that these strings also be
> periodic,
> as proposed by the author, ties the endpoints
> together.
> At the worldsheet level the dynamics of D-branes is
> by
> definition governed by the open strings that end on
> them and
> if you remove those open strings from the theory, or
> tie their
> endpoints together so that they form closed strings,
> you are
> not describing D-branes.
>
> The fact that type II superstring theory contains
> both open and
> closed strings is quite clearly explained in
> Polchinski's
> textbook on String Theory, see for example chapters
> 8 and 13.
>
> Finally, to establish that a given string model is
> consistent
> it is in general not sufficient to just look at the
> string
> mode expansion. One has to consider string
> interactions in
> the form of scattering amplitudes to see, for
> example, whether
> negative norm states decouple.
>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:22:39 +0200 (MEST)
From: "JHEP Executive Office"
| This is spam | Add to Address Book
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: JHEP/001F/0502 (comments)
Dear Dr Shahverdiyev,
your message has been forwarded to the
editor-in-charge.
Best regards,
Amanda de Felice
JHEP Executive Office
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 20:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" |
This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: JHEP/001F/0502 (comments)
To: "JHEP Executive Office"
Dear Amanda de Felice,
I would like to remind the referee and the editor that
the comments to the referee's last reply were sent on
June 12, 2002, more that one month ago.
Could you please remind them about this.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:40:30 +0200 (MEST)
From: "JHEP Executive Office"
| This is spam | Add to Address Book
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: JHEP/001F/0502 (comments)
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev,
Your comments have been forwarded again to the editor
and to the
referee.
Best regards, Simona Cerrato
JHEP Executive Office
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" |
This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: JHEP/001F/0502 (comments)
To: "JHEP Executive Office"
Dear Simona Cerrato,
Thank you for forwarding my comments to the editor and
the referee again.
Because I was in correspondence with Amanda de Felice
for this version of the paper from the beginning
it is convenient for me to continue with Amanda de
Felice the rest of the correspondence. Amanda de
Felice
knew all details of my correspondence with the editor
and the referee.
Please let Amanda de Felice know about my previous
letter.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:04:53 +0200 (MEST)
From: "JHEP Executive Office"
| This is spam | Add to Address Book
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: JHEP/001F/0502 (comments)
Dear Dr. Shahverdiyev,
Amand is in holiday, but she will be back soon.
Best regards, Simona
JHEP Executive Office
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:21:53 +0200 (MEST)
From: "JHEP Executive Office"
| This is spam | Add to Address Book
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: JHEP/001F/0502 (comments)
Dear Dr Shahverdiyev,
I sincerely regret to inform you that the
editor-in-charge and referee
feel that your comments do not change their decision
on your paper. The
editor would like you to please accept his decision as
final.
Best regards,
Amanda de Felice
JHEP Executive Office
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" |
This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: JHEP/001F/0502 (comments)
To: "JHEP Executive Office"
Dear Amanda de Felice,
I expected to receive an answer to my comments.
I cannot accept the editor's decision because there is
no answer to my last comments.
It is widely accepted that if one of the sides (in our
case the referee) has nothing to oppose then the paper
considers as an accepted.
Actually, my comments are based on real facts that I
do not consider interacting strings and do not attempt
to describe D-branes in the paper.
I am not responsible for things I have never written
or said. If the referee did not find anything to
oppose my comments this simply means that he
agrees to accept the paper.
Also, I would like to inform you that the paper was
submitted first time on December 26, 2001. A referee
wrote absolutely irrelevant report to that version.
I agreed to resubmit the paper with slight changes.
In my opinion writing an irrelevant report in XXI
century is a crime against humanity.
Due to the fact that the e-print arXiv
server requires me not to submit the following paper
"Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravitation" but
simply attach it to the old paper hep-th/0205224 it
seems that there is a force that does not want my
papers to be published even more to be appeared in
e-print arXiv server.
My friends, who are freedom loving Americans decided
to sue that force. Actually, I do not like to be in
conflict with someone else. But writing irrelevant
reports and simply leaving comments without reply
compels us to sue those people.
Please let the editor reconsider his decision.
If the referee has nothing to oppose my comments
he should sincerely note it or you should have a
deadline for the referee's reply.
I understand that understanding of others ideas is not
so easy. After discussion with the author things
become clear. A scientist should be fair and confess
it.
It is interesting to note that the referee can say
that he had nothing to oppose and simply decided not
to reply. In this way the referee may take off
responsibility for the decision.
If the referee still do not reply to my comments and
the editor keeps his decision please send me name and
mailing address of the person who can take
responsibility for this decision in order to be
informed about place and time of the suing process by
Pasadena City court.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 23:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" |
This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: Fwd: Re: JHEP/001F/0502 (comments)
To: [email protected]
Dear Amanda de Felice,
The forwarded from my sent mail folder message was
sent you two weeks ago. I have not heard from you yet.
Please let me know about your decision.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 01:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" |
This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: JHEP/001F/0502 (comments)
To: [email protected]
Dear Amanda de Felice,
JHEP Executive Office
Please do not leave my messages unanswered. I am
writing you because you are an executive editor. You
may disregard messages addressed to you personally.
According to internationally accepted rules if you do not
have a person who can take responsibility for a
decision then that decision is meaningless.
Moreover, if your side do not come to a court then the
court will consider the other side as a winner of the
case.
Due to the above mentioned we consider the paper as
accepted to the publication. Please accept our
decision and let me know the number under which the
paper will appear in JHEP.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:00:30 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" | This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: correspondence with JHEP
To: [email protected]
Dear Prof. D. Amati,
I have submitted a paper to JHEP.
The executive office leaves my messages unanswered.
Could you please let me know to whom should I address
my correspondence in this case.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:09:47 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" | This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: correspondence with JHEP
To: [email protected]
Dear Prof. L. Bonora,
I have submitted a paper to JHEP.
The executive office leaves my messages unanswered.
Could you please let me know to whom should I address
my correspondence in this case.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:19:14 +0100 (CET)
From: "Daniele Amati" | This is spam | Add to Address Book
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: correspondence with JHEP
Dear Dr.Shahverdiyev, as has been confirmed to you your paper will not
be published by JHEP and all your queeries have been answered by our
Executive Office. Your case is closed and you will not receive any
answer
for further information.
Yours D.Amati
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 19:46:16 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" | This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: correspondence with JHEP
To: "Daniele Amati"
Dear Prof. D. Amati,
Unfortunately, I have not received any answer to my
last query. The paper was submitted two times. The
first time the referee wrote absolutely irrelevant
report to the paper and did not answered to my
comments during three months. The editor also did not
answered to my comments.
The executive editor have sent the paper to an
appropriate personnel. And the appropriate personell
has not confirmed the referee's report. He advised to
resubmit the paper.
The second time the referee has written an irrelevant
reply to my comments. And again has not answered my
comments to his reply during two months. Also the
editor has not answered my comments to the referee's
reply.
In my opinion writing irrelevant reports must be
adverse to scientific society. The only requirement I
have is the following: please show that in the paper
there is any mistake. And I will be grateful to you
and take back the paper.
If you need my correspondence with the executive
office please let me know. Any person including
nonspecialists can understand that the reports are
irrelevant to the paper.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:17:17 +0100 (CET)
From: "Daniele Amati" | This is spam | Add to Address Book
To: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev"
Subject: Re: correspondence with JHEP
You will not hear from me anymore as stated below.
Please avoid sending further messages.
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 15:28:15 -0800 (PST)
From: "Shervgi Shahverdiyev" | This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: correspondence with JHEP
To: "Daniele Amati"
Dear Prof. D. Amati,
I have not received any reply to my comments by
referees and editors. Therefore, I do not know what
made you to do such a decision.
You may at least let me know why the paper will not be
published in JHEP.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Shervgi.