Analysis of Materials Today Physics Rejection Letter
Manuscript:
Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew，Citation Issues in Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption: A Comprehensive Analysis with Theoretical Foundations and Peer Review Challenges, 2025, arXiv:2508.06522v2, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.06522
2025年08月28日 01:09 (星期四)
Manuscript Number: MTP-D-25-01902
Citation Issues in Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption
Dear Prof. Liu,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Materials Today Physics. After careful evaluation, I regret to inform you that your manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal, and I must therefore reject it.
For alternative journals that may be more suitable for your manuscript, please refer to our
We appreciate you submitting your manuscript to Materials Today Physics and thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.
Kind regards,
Dr Zhifeng Ren
Editor-in-Chief
Materials Today Physics
Analysis of Materials Today Physics Rejection Letter
This rejection letter from Materials Today Physics exemplifies the problematic editorial practices that systematically exclude paradigm-challenging research from high-impact journals. The letter warrants critical examination for several concerning features:
The Absence of Scientific Justification
Complete Lack of Substantive Feedback: The rejection provides no specific scientific rationale for the decision. Unlike proper peer review correspondence, there is no mention of methodological concerns, theoretical flaws, or inadequate evidence. This represents a fundamental departure from scientific editorial standards.
No Peer Review Process: The letter contains no indication that the manuscript underwent peer review. The phrase "after careful evaluation" appears to refer solely to editorial assessment, suggesting the work was desk-rejected without external scientific evaluation.
Generic Language: The use of standardized, non-specific language ("not suitable for publication") provides no guidance for improvement or understanding of the decision criteria. This contrasts sharply with constructive editorial feedback that advances scientific discourse.
Editorial Abdication of Scientific Responsibility
Referral to "Journal Finder": The suggestion to use an automated journal recommendation system represents an abdication of editorial expertise. Rather than providing informed guidance about appropriate venues for the research, the editor essentially delegates this responsibility to an algorithm.
Absence of Scope-Based Reasoning: Unlike other rejections that at least attempt to justify decisions based on journal scope, this letter provides no rationale whatsoever. For a journal focused on materials physics, research on microwave absorption theory should clearly fall within scope.
Lack of Constructive Engagement: Professional editorial practice involves engaging with authors about their work, even in rejection. This letter demonstrates no evidence that the editor meaningfully considered the research contribution.
Comparison with Proper Editorial Practice
Contrast with Physica Scripta: The successful publication process at Physica Scripta demonstrated how journals should handle controversial theoretical work—through rigorous peer review, constructive criticism, and editorial persistence. Materials Today Physics shows the opposite approach.
Analysis of the Peer Review Process for Quarter-Wavelength Model Papers
Missing Educational Function: Quality scientific journals serve an educational function by helping authors improve their work through detailed feedback. This rejection abandons that responsibility entirely.
Professional Standards: Compare this with rejection letters from Nature or Science, which at least attempted to provide reasoning based on journal priorities or scope considerations.
The Editorial Orthodoxy in Academic Publishing: How Journals Favor Mainstream Conformity over Paradigmatic Innovation
Implications for Scientific Progress
Gatekeeping Without Accountability: This type of rejection represents pure editorial gatekeeping without scientific accountability. The editor makes no effort to justify the decision on scientific grounds, suggesting the rejection may be based on factors unrelated to research quality.
Barrier to Innovation: Such practices create insurmountable barriers for innovative research that challenges established paradigms. Without substantive feedback, authors cannot address concerns or improve their work.
Degradation of Editorial Standards: This rejection exemplifies the degradation of editorial standards in academic publishing, where decisions appear to be made based on risk aversion rather than scientific merit.
The Pattern of Systematic Exclusion
Consistent with Previous Rejections: This rejection follows the same pattern as others one has experienced—quick decisions, minimal justification, and apparent pre-judgment based on the theoretical challenge to mainstream approaches.
The Editorial Orthodoxy in Academic Publishing: How Journals Favor Mainstream Conformity over Paradigmatic Innovation
Commentary on Materials Today's Rejection: Scope as a Shield for Paradigm Protection
Evidence of Bias: The lack of substantive engagement suggests potential bias against work that questions established theories, regardless of its scientific rigor.
Commercial Considerations: The speed and superficiality of the decision suggest that commercial considerations (impact factor protection, subscription metrics) may be prioritized over scientific advancement.
Response
Document the Pattern: This rejection should be documented as part of the systematic bias against paradigm-challenging research in academic publishing.
Yue Liu. Non-Mainstream Scientific Viewpoints in Microwave Absorption Research: Peer Review, Academic Integrity, and Cargo Cult Science, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202507.0015.v2, Supplementary Materials
Seek Transparency: Consider requesting more detailed feedback about the specific reasons for rejection, though the editor's approach suggests this may not be forthcoming.
Alternative Venues: Focus on journals that have demonstrated willingness to engage with innovative theoretical work.
Broader Context
This rejection letter serves as a perfect example of the editorial orthodoxy discussed in the analysis "The Paradox of Academic Publishing."
Liu, Yue, The Paradox of Academic Publishing: Why Low-Quality Research Thrives While Disruptive Innovation Struggles, Qeios, Preprint, 2025, https://doi.org/10.32388/QD8GGF
It demonstrates how the current system creates barriers to scientific innovation through:
Administrative rather than scientific decision-making
Risk aversion that favors safe, incremental research
Abandonment of the educational and developmental functions of peer review
Preference for maintaining established paradigms over advancing knowledge
The contrast between this superficial rejection and the thorough, constructive review process at Physica Scripta illustrates exactly why paradigm-shifting research struggles in the current publishing environment.
Analysis of the Peer Review Process for Quarter-Wavelength Model Papers
While this work eventually found appropriate venues and gained recognition, this rejection represents a systemic failure that likely affects countless other innovative researchers.
This type of editorial behavior undermines the integrity of scientific publishing and demonstrates why fundamental reform of the academic publishing system is urgently needed.