by Joy Christian » Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:48 am
***
So here are my complaints against Annals of Physics [this list would be valuable to any potential author who plans to submit his/her paper(s) to Annals of Physics]:
(1) Annals of Physics secretly removed my published paper from their website without even a whiff of notification to me. I only found out accidentally about the removal of my paper when I saw an ambiguous note on the first page of the paper, followed by 12 blank pages, instead of my original, previously published, paper.
(2) The officials of the journal ---
i.e., the journal manager, the handling editor, and the Editor-in-Chief --- completely ignored my repeated (very polite) requests for a clarification, for over two months, until I contacted the customer service of their publisher, Elsevier, and even then I only received a boilerplate response from the customer service; but they did forward my message to the journal manager. I again waited for a week, and then rewrote to the customer service of the publisher, this time with a threat to take legal action. This led to breaking of the story on the Retraction Watch, after a journalist from Retraction Watch contacted me via email.
(3) They ---
i.e., the officials from Annals of Physics --- still, as of today, haven't responded to me about anything at all, or sent me any notification or communication whatsoever. The only two emails I have received so far are from someone from Elsevier, who claims to be responsible for the publication of Annals of Physics. I repeat, as of today the only communication I have received from Annals of Physics itself is the acceptance letter for my paper I received from them on the 26th of June 2016.
(4) The person from Elsevier who claims to be responsible for publishing Annals of Physics wrote to me soon after I spoke to the journalist from Retraction Watch, on the 29th of September 2016. He told me that my article "was withdrawn from the journal" and that they "failed to inform [me] about this decision due to an internal error..." Within his email he sent another letter, which he claimed "was formulated by the Editorial Board but inadvertently not sent out." One does not have to be a genius to realize that he was lying through his teeth and the only reason for his email to me (which was marked with
! for high priority) was the fact that the story was about to break big time on Retraction Watch, because I had threatened to take legal action (in case anyone is wondering, I wasn't bluffing and they could tell).
(5) In the supposed letter from the Editorial Board (which he probably had just cooked up minutes before sending it to me) he claimed that my article was withdrawn because "a serious major error has been identified in it." The "letter" goes on to say that "soon after the acceptance of your paper was announced, several experts in the field have sent us a correspondence to report the error in your manuscript." He, or the Editorial Board, or anyone from the journal, has yet to tell me what "serious major error" has been identified. How can one identity that which is not there? There are no errors in my article. The claim of the so-called error is simply made up.
(6) The supposed letter from the Editorial Board then makes a very silly claim, which reinforces my belief that no one knowledgeable in the subject of Bell's theorem could have written that letter: "After our editorial meeting, we have concluded that your result is in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact, i.e., violation of local realism that has been demonstrated not only theoretically but experimentally in recent experiments, and thus your result could not be generally accepted by the physics community. On this basis, we have made such a decision to withdraw your paper." Why is this silly? Because my model unambiguously predicts the correlation E(a, b) = -a.b, which is exactly what has been predicted by quantum mechanics, and exactly what has been observed by the so-called "loophole-free" experiments. How on earth can then my result be "in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact"? What they are declaring without proof is clearly an article of faith, not science. It is their statement, or their silly belief system on which it is based, that is in obvious conflict with this simple mathematical proof:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355.
(7) In conclusion, all the above mishandling by Annals of Physics are forgettable if only they can provide irrefutable proof of a "serious major error" within my article.
***
***
So here are my complaints against Annals of Physics [this list would be valuable to any potential author who plans to submit his/her paper(s) to Annals of Physics]:
(1) Annals of Physics secretly removed my published paper from their website without even a whiff of notification to me. I only found out accidentally about the removal of my paper when I saw an ambiguous note on the first page of the paper, followed by 12 blank pages, instead of my original, previously published, paper.
(2) The officials of the journal --- [i]i.e[/i]., the journal manager, the handling editor, and the Editor-in-Chief --- completely ignored my repeated (very polite) requests for a clarification, for over two months, until I contacted the customer service of their publisher, Elsevier, and even then I only received a boilerplate response from the customer service; but they did forward my message to the journal manager. I again waited for a week, and then rewrote to the customer service of the publisher, this time with a threat to take legal action. This led to breaking of the story on the Retraction Watch, after a journalist from Retraction Watch contacted me via email.
(3) They --- [i]i.e.[/i], the officials from Annals of Physics --- still, as of today, haven't responded to me about anything at all, or sent me any notification or communication whatsoever. The only two emails I have received so far are from someone from Elsevier, who claims to be responsible for the publication of Annals of Physics. I repeat, as of today the only communication I have received from Annals of Physics itself is the acceptance letter for my paper I received from them on the 26th of June 2016.
(4) The person from Elsevier who claims to be responsible for publishing Annals of Physics wrote to me soon after I spoke to the journalist from Retraction Watch, on the 29th of September 2016. He told me that my article "was withdrawn from the journal" and that they "failed to inform [me] about this decision due to an internal error..." Within his email he sent another letter, which he claimed "was formulated by the Editorial Board but inadvertently not sent out." One does not have to be a genius to realize that he was lying through his teeth and the only reason for his email to me (which was marked with [color=#FF0000]![/color] for high priority) was the fact that the story was about to break big time on Retraction Watch, because I had threatened to take legal action (in case anyone is wondering, I wasn't bluffing and they could tell).
(5) In the supposed letter from the Editorial Board (which he probably had just cooked up minutes before sending it to me) he claimed that my article was withdrawn because "a serious major error has been identified in it." The "letter" goes on to say that "soon after the acceptance of your paper was announced, several experts in the field have sent us a correspondence to report the error in your manuscript." He, or the Editorial Board, or anyone from the journal, has yet to tell me what "serious major error" has been identified. How can one identity that which is not there? There are no errors in my article. The claim of the so-called error is simply made up.
(6) The supposed letter from the Editorial Board then makes a very silly claim, which reinforces my belief that no one knowledgeable in the subject of Bell's theorem could have written that letter: "After our editorial meeting, we have concluded that your result is in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact, i.e., violation of local realism that has been demonstrated not only theoretically but experimentally in recent experiments, and thus your result could not be generally accepted by the physics community. On this basis, we have made such a decision to withdraw your paper." Why is this silly? Because my model unambiguously predicts the correlation E(a, b) = -a.b, which is exactly what has been predicted by quantum mechanics, and exactly what has been observed by the so-called "loophole-free" experiments. How on earth can then my result be "in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact"? What they are declaring without proof is clearly an article of faith, not science. It is their statement, or their silly belief system on which it is based, that is in obvious conflict with this simple mathematical proof: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355.
(7) In conclusion, all the above mishandling by Annals of Physics are forgettable if only they can provide irrefutable proof of a "serious major error" within my article.
***