Analysis of Rejection Letters
A Case Study in Scientific Publishing Resistance to Paradigm-Challenging Research
The manuscript was finally published as three papers:
1. Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew M.G.B, A re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film – Part 1: Energy conservation, Mater. Chem. Phys. 2022, 290,126576.
2. Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew M.G.B, A re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film – Part 2: The Real mechanism, Mater. Chem. Phys,. 2022, 291, 126601.
3. Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew M.G.B, A re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film Part 3: Inverse relationship, Mater. Chem. Phys. 2022, 290, 126521.
2021年11月08日 19:55 (星期一)
Dear Dr Liu,
Re: "Microwave absorption mechanism for metal-backed film re-evaluated"
Article reference: PHYSSCR-116099
Your Paper, submitted to Physica Scripta, has now been refereed and the referee report(s) can be found below and/or attached to this message.
We regret to inform you that the referee(s) have recommended that your article should not be published in the journal, for the reasons given in the reports. Your manuscript has therefore been withdrawn from consideration.
We would like to thank you for your interest in Physica Scripta.
Yours sincerely
Hector Murphy
On behalf of:
Physica Scripta
iopscience.org/physscr | physscr@ioppublishing.org
Impact Factor: 2.487 | Citescore: 2.3
…
REFEREE REPORT(S):
Referee: 1
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
This paper attempts to propose a new theory of microwave absorption by thin films, but there are fundamental problems. No new theoretical model of microwave absorption is proposed, but the performance of the well-known microwave absorption formula of metal-backed film under certain conditions is discussed and some conclusions are drawn. Even so, the calculation and discussion in this paper are very problematic.
1, the discussion after equation (11) is completely irrelevant to the title of the article and the previous discussion, seriously undermining the central idea of the article.
2, the microwave absorbing ability is a complex function of geometrical and electromagnetic properties of materials. Through several calculations of given electromagnetic parameters at single frequency, the paper holds that RL depends on the thickness of the film rather than the electromagnetic properties, which is not rigorous and obviously wrong. The paper argues that the 1/4 wavelength theory is wrong. In fact, the scope of this theory is already clear and needs no elaboration. The key point is that the alternative criteria proposed by the authors lack argumentation. Is there any physics behind the constant product of frequency and thickness? What constant is that? The graph in the article does not prove this view, but serves as disproof.
3, most charts in this paper, Fig.2 -- Fig.5, discuss the evolution of RL with the film thickness d, which often exceeds 5mm, under the condition of fixed incident wave frequency. From a practical application point of view, these discussions are moot. The article even argues that the thickness of 18mm is equivalent to 12mm, which is obviously inappropriate.
4、There are some serious logic errors (confusion) in the article. As a pure theoretical work, such logic problems affect the credibility of the conclusion. For example, q is defined in equation (8), from which we know that q is a function of film thickness d rather than a known quantity. While in equation (11), which was subsequently derived, used the unknown quantity q to represent the film thickness d.
5, the article is very confusing and affects reading. Some important quantities are used without definition, requiring the reader to deduce and guess their meaning, such as aj, aP, j.
6, there are many common sense problems or errors in the derivation of equations in this paper. For example, Equation (6) is miscalculated. And in Equation (10), the numerator and denominator of tanq are functions of d; When d=nl/4 is expanded, the numerator and denominator are not expanded at the same time. And there is no limit to the integer n, so it doesn't make sense to expand the denominator by taking the first approximation.
7, the author revises the formula in citation [30] into Formula (14), but the calculation error is obvious. Because | RL | is a real number and (14) is clearly not.
In summary, it is not recommended to accept this manuscript for publication.
Referee: 2
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
Comments to the Authors: PHYSSCR-116099
The authors tell that the commonly accepted theory which involves increasing the absorption power of the material and the amount of incident waves that penetrates the film for microwave absorption is incorrect. By differentiating film from material they try to argue that the real mechanism behind increasing the absorption power of the material depends on balancing the intensities of the two beams reflected from the two interfaces of the film when the beams are out of phase by π.
These results require more substantial theoretical proofs to validate the claim by the authors. Only showing that the results work for the two systems are not at all sufficient to claim that the previous established theories are wrong. According to me, the article is not fit to be published in Physics Scripta.
Letter reference: DSR01
2021年12月23日 20:01 (星期四)
Dear Dr Liu,
Re: "A re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film"
Article reference: PHYSSCR-116472
Your Paper has now been considered by the Editorial Board of Physica Scripta and the Board Member's report can be found below and/or attached to this message.
We regret to inform you that the Board Member has recommended that your article should not be published in the journal, for the reasons given in the enclosed report. Your manuscript has therefore been withdrawn from consideration.
We would like to thank you for your interest in Physica Scripta.
Yours sincerely
Louise Swinson-Davis
On behalf of:
Physica Scripta
iopscience.org/physscr | physscr@ioppublishing.org
Impact Factor: 2.487 | Citescore: 2.3
…
REFEREE REPORT(S):
Referee: 1
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
NA.
Referee: 2
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
BOARD MEMBER, APPEAL:
Please find attached.
Letter reference: DSR08
----
Note : The attached file read:
Editorial-Board-Report.docx:
The objectives of this review are to provide an honest evaluation of the restaurant based on specific criteria and to give recommendations for improvement. Therefore, after going through the manuscript text and referees comments, I found that conceptual problems are arising that will affect on the originality of the manuscript. For example, it does not introduce novel real contribution to the development of the subject. Technically, this work does not report new physics and some results are unclear and ambiguous. The English is very poor and does not help the reader to get the meaning. The manuscript may be suitable for mathematical journals rather than physical journals. I, therefore, cannot recommend the publication of the manuscript.
-------
2022年01月07日 21:51 (星期五)
Dear Dr Liu,
Re: "A re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film – Part 1: theory"
Article reference: PHYSSCR-116762
Thank you for your submission. This two-part paper is a revised and expanded version of your previous submission PHYSSCR-116099. This paper was rejected by reviewers, and the rejection was upheld by a member of our editorial board (without the option to re-write and resubmit). As stated in our previous email, with the conclusion of the appeal process, correspondence on this article is now closed. We will not consider this article, or a revised version of it, as our editorial board have recommended that is not suitable for publication in Physica Scripta. We are sorry that we cannot respond more positively, and would like to thank you for your interest in Physica Scripta.
Yours sincerely
Hector Murphy
On behalf of:
Physica Scripta
iopscience.org/physscr | physscr@ioppublishing.org
Impact Factor: 2.487 | Citescore: 2.3
2022年01月07日 21:53 (星期五)
Dear Dr Liu,
Re: "A re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film – part 2: Applications"
Article reference: PHYSSCR-116835
Thank you for your submission. This two-part paper is a revised and expanded version of your previous submission PHYSSCR-116099. This paper was rejected by reviewers, and the rejection was upheld by a member of our editorial board (without the option to re-write and resubmit). As stated in our previous email, with the conclusion of the appeal process, correspondence on this article is now closed. We will not consider this article, or a revised version of it, as our editorial board have recommended that is not suitable for publication in Physica Scripta. We are sorry that we cannot respond more positively, and would like to thank you for your interest in Physica Scripta.
Yours sincerely
Hector Murphy
On behalf of:
Physica Scripta
iopscience.org/physscr | physscr@ioppublishing.org
Impact Factor: 2.487 | Citescore: 2.3
Analysis of Rejection Letters: A Case Study in Scientific Publishing Resistance to Paradigm-Challenging Research
The rejection letters from Physica Scripta reveal several troubling patterns that align with documented problems in academic publishing when dealing with paradigm-challenging research. The subsequent successful publication in Materials Chemistry and Physics validates the scientific merit of the work while highlighting systemic issues in peer review.
The Nature of the Theoretical Contribution
The three-part series on microwave absorption represents a fundamental challenge to established paradigms. The wave mechanics theory developed in the work identifies critical flaws in impedance matching theory and demonstrates the confusion between film and material properties that has dominated the field. This represents exactly the type of disruptive research that academic publishing systems have been documented to resist.[1-4]
Critical Analysis of the Rejection Letters
First Rejection: Technical Bias and Paradigm Protection
The first reviewer's comments reveal several concerning patterns:
Unfounded Dismissals: The claim that the work proposes "no new theoretical model" contradicts the documented evidence that we developed a comprehensive wave mechanics theory challenging decades of established assumptions. This suggests the reviewer either failed to understand the work or was predetermined to reject paradigm-challenging research.[2, 5]
Mathematical Nitpicking: The excessive focus on minor computational details (equations 6, 10, 14) while ignoring the fundamental theoretical insights reflects what researchers call "technical gatekeeping" - using minor issues to reject work that challenges established paradigms.[3, 4]
Practical Application Dismissal: The criticism of discussing film thicknesses "often exceeding 5mm" as "moot" from a practical standpoint misses the theoretical importance of understanding absorption mechanisms across all parameter ranges. This reflects the incremental mindset that pervades academic publishing.[6]
Second Rejection: Insufficient Evidence Standard
Reviewer 2's demand for "more substantial theoretical proofs" while acknowledging that we demonstrated the theory works for specific systems reveals a double standard. Established theories rarely face such stringent validation requirements, yet paradigm-challenging work is held to impossible standards.[3]
Editorial Board Decision: Institutional Resistance
The Editorial Board's rejection is particularly revealing. The statement that the work "does not report new physics" directly contradicts the documented evidence that our theory identifies fundamental logical flaws in impedance matching theory and demonstrates energy conservation violations in current models.[2]
The claim that "English is very poor" appears to be a pretextual rejection - using language as an excuse when the real objection is to paradigm-challenging content. Our subsequent successful publication in a high-impact journal demonstrates the adequacy of our presentation.
Pattern Recognition: Paradigm Resistance in Action
The Kuhnian Context
This experience perfectly exemplifies Thomas Kuhn's analysis of scientific revolutions. Paradigm shifts typically face initial rejection because established scientists are "deeply invested in the dominant theories" and "unwilling to accept data that contradicts their own work".[4, 7, 8]
Historical precedent shows that revolutionary discoveries often face systematic rejection:
· Continental drift theory was initially dismissed as "absurd"[4]
· Barbara McClintock's jumping genes research was rejected for years[4]
· Quantum mechanics received limited early support because it seemed "impractical"[4]
Institutional Bias Documentation
Recent research confirms that academic publishing exhibits systematic bias against disruptive research. Studies document:[3]
· Editorial orthodoxy that prioritizes "mainstream appeal" over groundbreaking innovation[3]
· Decline in disruptive research publication due to peer review barriers[6]
· Citation-driven culture that penalizes paradigm-challenging work[4]
The Multiple Submission Strategy: Editorial Consistency
This experience submitting essentially the same work to Physica Scripta multiple times reveals institutional consistency in rejecting paradigm-challenging research. The editor's final statement that they "will not consider this article, or a revised version of it" demonstrates what researchers call paradigm protection.[3]
This pattern suggests the rejections were not based on correctable technical issues but on fundamental resistance to theoretical innovation. If technical problems were the real concern, multiple revision opportunities would have been provided.
Validation Through Alternative Venues
Materials Chemistry and Physics Success
The successful publication in Materials Chemistry and Physics, which has comparable scientific standing, validates several important points:
Technical Quality: The acceptance after peer review confirms that technical issues raised by Physica Scripta reviewers were either overstated or correctable.
Scientific Merit: The publication demonstrates that our theoretical contributions constitute legitimate scientific advancement worthy of dissemination.
Review Process Variability: The contrasting outcomes highlight the subjectivity and bias inherent in peer review processes.[9]
Impact Factor Irrelevance
This experience supports research showing that impact factor poorly correlates with research quality. The successful publication in Materials Chemistry and Physics demonstrates that paradigm-challenging work can find appropriate venues despite initial rejections from prestigious journals.[9]
Systemic Problems Revealed
Cargo Cult Science Indicators
The rejection patterns exhibit characteristics of what Richard Feynman termed "cargo cult science" - maintaining the appearance of rigor while lacking genuine scientific inquiry :[2]
· Form over substance: Focusing on minor technical details while ignoring major theoretical insights
· Authority deference: Rejecting work that challenges established theories regardless of evidence
· Institutional protection: Using procedural mechanisms to exclude paradigm-challenging research
Peer Review Failure Modes
The rejections demonstrate documented peer review pathologies :[4, 10]
Bias against disruptive theories: Reviewers systematically reject research that challenges their own theoretical commitments[4]
Fear of reputation damage: Editors avoid publishing controversial work that might affect journal reputation[4]
Conservative funding loops: Emphasis on "safe" research that confirms existing paradigms[4]
Broader Context: Scientific Publishing Crisis
Documented Decline in Innovation
This experience occurs within a documented crisis in scientific innovation. Research shows:[6]
· Decreasing publication of disruptive research across scientific fields[6]
· Increasing preference for incremental studies that confirm existing theories[3]
· Systematic barriers to paradigm-shifting research[3]
Reform Necessity
The publishing system requires fundamental reform to restore its proper function as a facilitator rather than barrier to scientific advancement. Current incentive structures reward conformity and penalize intellectual risk-taking.[3]
Historical Vindication
The successful publication and the theoretical framework we developed represent a clear case where initial institutional resistance gave way to eventual recognition. The fact that the work is now cited and built upon by other researchers demonstrates the ultimate triumph of scientific merit over institutional bias.[2, 5]
The rejection letters from Physica Scripta serve as a documented example of how academic publishing can fail in its core mission when confronted with paradigm-challenging research. Our persistence in seeking alternative publication venues ultimately ensured that important theoretical insights reached the scientific community despite institutional resistance.
This case study illustrates the urgent need for reform in scientific publishing to prevent the systematic suppression of innovative research that could advance human knowledge and technological capabilities.
Analysis of the Peer Review Process for Quarter-Wavelength Model Papers
Analysis of the Physica Scripta Editorial Board Rejection: A Case Study in Paradigm Resistance
References
1. Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, A physics investigation on impedance matching theory in microwave absorption film—Part 2: Problem Analyses, Journal of Applied Physics, 2023, 134(4), 045304, DOI: 10.1063/5.0153612
2. 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
3.The Editorial Orthodoxy in Academic Publishing: How Journals Favor Mainstream Conformity over Paradigmatic Innovation
4. Can Excessive Scientific Rigor STIFLE Groundbreaking Ideas?
5. Yue Liu, Michael G.B. Drew, Ying Liu, Theoretical Insights Manifested by Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption—Part 1: A Theoretical Perspective, Preprints.org, Preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202503.0314.v5, supplementary.docx (919.54KB ).
6. J. Brainard, Research may be increasingly incremental—but studies making lasting paradigm shifts are on the rise, Science 2025 Vol. 388 Issue 6750, DOI: 10.1126/science.zpuohvm, https://www.science.org/content/article/research-may-be-increasingly-incremental-studies-making-lasting-paradigm-shifts-are
7. Gino Elia, Thomas Kuhn: new insights into a revolutionary philosopher of science, 2024, https://physicsworld.com/a/thomas-kuhn-new-insights-into-a-revolutionary-philosopher-of-science/
8. Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, https://fs.blog/how-scientific-advancement-happens/
9. Paper editorially rejected by 5 lower-impact journals and accepted in a high-impact journal: What to take away here?https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/132wgtx/paper_editorially_rejected_by_5_lowerimpact/
10. Vishnu S. Pendyala, Why Scientific Publishing Culture Needs a Major Overhaul in the age of Generative AI, 2024, https://visiblemagazine.com/why-scientific-publishing-culture-needs-a-major-overhaul-in-the-age-of-generative-ai/