Analysis of the Peer Review Process for Quarter-Wavelength Model Papers
The papers have been finally published as:
1. Liu Y, Liu Y, Drew MGB. A theoretical investigation of the quarter-wavelength model — part 2: verification and extension. Physica Scripta 2022 , 97(1) : 015806.
2. Liu Y, Liu Y, Drew MGB. A theoretical investigation on the quarter-wavelength model — part 1: analysis. Physica Scripta 2021 , 96(12) : 125003
2021年05月10日 21:24 (星期一)
Dear Dr Liu,
Re: "A theoretical investigation on the quarter-wavelength model and impedance matching theory in analyzing microwave absorption material" by Liu, Ying; Liu, Yue; Drew, Michael
Article reference: PHYSSCR-113327
We have now received the referee report(s) on your Paper, which is being considered by Physica Scripta.
The referee(s) have recommended that you make some amendments to your article. The referee report(s) can be found below and/or attached to this message. You can also access the reports at your Author Centre, at https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/physscr-iop
**In line with the scope of Physica Scripta, authors are encouraged to present their work in a manner that will increase its accessibility to the wider physical sciences community. Therefore, as part of the revision process, please can you ensure that a concise summary of the wider context of your research is added as part of your article's Introduction.**
Please consider the referee comments and amend your article according to the recommendations. You should then send us a clean final version of your manuscript. Please also send (as separate files) point-by-point replies to the referee comments and either a list of changes you have made or an additional copy of your manuscript with the changes highlighted (for further information visit https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/questions/how-to-prepare-your-revised-article/). This will aid our referees in reviewing your revised article. Please upload the final version and electronic source files to your Author Centre by 24-May-2021.
If we do not receive your article by this date, it may be treated as a new submission, so please let us know if you will need more time.
DATA AVAILABILITY
The preferred mechanism for sharing research data is via data repositories and as such, authors are encouraged to deposit their research data in a repository that has been widely adopted within their research community but if none is available may use a general data repository. Further information on IOP Publishing's data availability policy, including information on data repositories and data citation, is available at: https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/iop-publishing-data-availability-policy/
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours sincerely
Adam Gough
On behalf of:
Physica Scripta
Managing Editor: Jade Holt
iopscience.org/physscr | physscr@ioppublishing.org
Impact Factor: 1.985| Citescore: 3
Want to find out what is happening to your submission?
Track your article on:
Publishing support https://bit.ly/39t9yPz
WeChat https://bit.ly/2L0M9uz
ioppublishing.org | twitter.com/IOPPublishing
REFEREE REPORT(S):
Referee: 1
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The manuscript describes that the quarter-wavelength model does not apply to the microwave absorption from film. By considering the phase effects from interfaces in a film, the author achieved a series of the complete solution, which proved that the concept of IM developed from transmission line theory for s11(dB) cannot be applied to RL(dB) with MB film. In addition, these results have been verified from experimental data and from well-known formulae. This work paved the way for development of microwave absorption film. The paper is interesting. I would like to recommend it to publish in Physica Scripta.
Referee: 2
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
I like to see more experimental comparations, however I the paper is situable for publication
Referee: 3
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
1. This is a work divorced from real materials, so we cannot verify whether the conclusions of this paper are correct or not.
2. The theoretical basis of this manuscript is the same as the microwave absorption theory criticized by the author (mainly the quarter wavelength rule and impedance matching theory), which is the electromagnetic field theory. Different conclusions derived from the same theory must be due to the different assumptions used in the deduction. The authors do not say which of the assumptions of microwave absorption theory are not true and thus (the quarter-wavelength rule and impedance matching theory) are wrong.
3. As a new participant, he/she should have a full understanding of this field, including some well-established research methods, means and terms. For example, the authors thought that RL represented microwave absorption, but it was not. RL reflects the scattering ability of radar absorbing material: the greater the absolute value of RL, the smaller the radar scattering cross section of absorbing material, and the better its stealth performance.
4. The "interfacial phase effect" proposed in this paper can be used as "half-wave loss" when discussing optical problems, which is actually included in the Fresnel equations describing different interfaces. In specific problems, it can be determined according to the material properties of different media (e.g., σ, ε, μ).
Referee: 4
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
Board Member Report
In the work, the authors argue that the current applications of quarter-wavelength model (QWM), to measurements of minima on reflections loss (RL) for the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum, based on impedance matching (IM) theory, are wrong. The paper goes on a detailed scrutinization of RL and impedance analysis, for several distinct scenarios, regarding the applicability of QWM. The shown results, to me, demonstrate that authors have accomplished their intent. The references are updated, the subject is timely.
I would suggest minor corrections, as a unified size of the graphs (as in Figs. 4 and 5). The text is fairly well written, a little repetition could be avoided, but it is OK. My suggestion is acceptance upon this minor revision.
Letter reference: DSMo01
2021年06月16日 15:51 (星期三)
Dear Dr Liu,
Re: "A theoretical investigation on the quarter-wavelength model — Part 1：The Analysis" by Liu, Ying; Liu, Yue; Drew, Michael
Article reference: PHYSSCR-113327.R1
We are pleased to tell you that we have provisionally accepted your Paper for publication in Physica Scripta. Any further comments from the referees can be found below and/or attached to this message. Our editorial team will now perform some final checks to ensure that we have everything we need to publish your Paper. These checks will enable our production team to publish your Paper as quickly and efficiently as possible. Once this is confirmed, your article will be formally accepted and we will inform you of this via email.
Your accepted manuscript (http://iopscience.iop.org/page/acceptedmanuscripts) will be made available online within 24 hours of formal acceptance, unless you decided to opt out during the submission process.
If you have chosen to publish your Paper on an Open Access basis, you will be responsible for ensuring that the article publication charge (APC) is paid in full. Once your Paper has been accepted, we will not be able to change the Open Access status of your manuscript.
All articles published by IOP Publishing are available online to readers at http://iopscience.org/. For more information, please contact our Customer Services department at customerservices@ioppublishing.org. For advice on complying with US funder requirements, please go to http://iopscience.iop.org/info/page/chorus.
Thank you for choosing to publish in Physica Scripta. We look forward to publishing your Paper.
Yours sincerely
Adam Gough
On behalf of:
Physica Scripta
Managing Editor: Jade Holt
iopscience.org/physscr | physscr@ioppublishing.org
Impact Factor: 1.985| Citescore: 3
Want to find out what is happening to your submission?
Track your article on:
Publishing support https://bit.ly/39t9yPz
WeChat https://bit.ly/2L0M9uz
ioppublishing.org | twitter.com/IOPPublishing
REFEREE REPORT(S):
Referee: 4
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
Board Member Report
The authors have splitted the paper in two. I don't know the reason for this, but at least the first part suffices for the understanding of the subject. I recommend the publication of the first part.
Letter reference: ERSA01
2021年07月30日 20:53 (星期五)
Dear Dr Liu,
Re: "A theoretical investigation on the quarter-wavelength model - Part 2: Verification and Extension"
Article reference: PHYSSCR-114546
We have now received the referee report(s) on your Paper, which is being considered by Physica Scripta.
The referee(s) have recommended that you make substantial changes to your article. The referee report(s) can be found below and/or attached to this message. You can also access the reports at your Author Centre, at https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/physscr-iop
…
Please consider the referee comments and amend your article according to the recommendations. Please send us the following:
- point-by-point replies to the reviewer comments (this should be anonymous) and a list of changes you have made (if your changes are not highlighted in the manuscript)
- an anonymous PDF of the complete revised manuscript with tracked changes (designated 'Complete Document for Review (PDF Only)'). This should not include author information, funding information, any ethical statement or acknowledgements
- source files for the revised manuscript with no tracked changes or comments. This should not be anonymous. This should be in either Word/TeX/LaTeX format, with all author information, funding information, any ethical statement and acknowledgements included
- any supplementary files
- any permissions that you have obtained
For further information visit https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/questions/how-to-prepare-your-revised-article/
Please upload the final version and electronic source files to your Author Centre by 27-Aug-2021.
If we do not receive your article by this date, it may be treated as a new submission, so please let us know if you will need more time.
…
Please note that if the referee(s) and Editorial Board are not satisfied with the changes to your manuscript, it may still be rejected.
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours sincerely
Adam Gough
On behalf of:
Physica Scripta
Managing Editor: Jade Holt
…
REFEREE REPORT(S):
Referee: 1
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
In "Responses", the author lists the achievements of the last decade, indicating that they are not "a new participant". It is not a long participant, but it is not a new participant. To be clear, "a new participant" is not a derogatory sense. I apologize if I offended the author.
1. I am not denying theoretical work. On the contrary, theoretical research is very important. For example, the "impedance matching principle" and "quarter and wavelength model" questioned by the author can be obtained from the electromagnetic field theory.
2. Theoretical research is based on models and hypotheses. The higher the approximation between models and materials, the more reasonable the hypotheses are, and the more accurate the theoretical results will be. For example, the "Quarter Wavelounder Model" is based on the theory of canceling electromagnetic waves reflected off the upper and lower surfaces of a material. However, for some materials with larger thickness and better conductivity, when the electromagnetic wave cannot penetrate the material layer, the total reflection of the lower surface will not occur, so there will be no "quarter model". This means that the quarter model is not suitable for conductive materials with larger thickness. It cannot be said that the quarter model is wrong.
3. In the first review, I was confused as to why the author adopted the same model (Figure 1) and based on the same theory (electromagnetic field theory), it was wrong to conclude that "quarter and wavelength model" and "impedance matching principle" were adopted. In my opinion, the conclusions of "impedance matching principle" based on the assumption of uniform and isotropic non-conductive medium are correct, and the formula deduction process is unimpeccable.
4. The author's doubts about RL stem from the different understanding of "RAM". In radar stealth technology, the performance of "RAM" is usually measured by reflectivity (S11), and whether the electromagnetic wave entering "RAM" is lost or transmitted, that is, S21 cannot directly reflect the stealth performance of "RAM" (although S11 and S21 are related). Therefore, using RL to describe the absorbing performance of "RAM" is a conventional method in the field.
5, RM(x) is the reflection coefficient for an interface at x. As can be seen from Figure 1, Rm (X-1) in Formula (1) is the reflection coefficient of the incident end, namely S11. S11 is equal to 1 by the definition of RL, which seems to be a mistake, right?
What is the "wave addition approach" mentioned by the author? "Waves superposition principle"?
There are also errors in Table 1. For real materials, the real part of the relative dielectric constant and the real part of the relative permeability cannot be zero. This error also occurs in the text and in subsequent deductions.
6. In this paper, a great deal of space is devoted to proving that RL is related to the absorption of materials, and further, that RL is related to the thickness of materials. In fact, using the law of conservation of energy, the relationship between RL and material absorption rate is easy to obtain.
Referee: 2
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The shown results have well clarified the manuscript. I would like to recommend it to publish in Physica Scripta.
Referee: 3
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
Board Member Report
The authors demonstrate, with several specific and distinct cases, where the current applications of quarter-wavelength model (QWM) based on impedance matching (IM) theory, are wrong. The text is well written. The several distinct scenarios, which are supported by experimental data, show that authors have accomplished their intent. The references are updated, the subject is timely.
I would suggest minor corrections, and I am sending a PDF file with my suggestions. My suggestion is acceptance upon this minor revision.
Letter reference: DSMa01
2021年08月17日 18:54 (星期二)
Dear Dr Liu,
Re: "A theoretical investigation on the quarter-wavelength model - Part 2: Verification and Extension"
Article reference: PHYSSCR-114546.R1
We are pleased to tell you that we have provisionally accepted your Paper for publication in Physica Scripta. Any further comments from the referees can be found below and/or attached to this message. Our editorial team will now perform some final checks to ensure that we have everything we need to publish your Paper. These checks will enable our production team to publish your Paper as quickly and efficiently as possible. Once this is confirmed, your article will be formally accepted and we will inform you of this via email.
…
Thank you for choosing to publish in Physica Scripta. We look forward to publishing your Paper.
Yours sincerely
Jade Holt
On behalf of:
Physica Scripta
Managing Editor: Jade Holt
…
Referee: 3
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The authors have made all the minor corrections. I am glad to accept the paper now.
Letter reference: ERSA01
Analysis of the Peer Review Process for Quarter-Wavelength Model Papers
The publication journey of these two papers in Physica Scripta provides a fascinating case study in how paradigm-challenging research navigates the peer review system. Despite eventual successful publication, the review process revealed several critical issues that deserve detailed analysis.
Positive Reception and Recognition of Innovation
Strong Editorial Support: The journal demonstrated commendable editorial judgment by recognizing the significance of theoretical work that challenges established paradigms. The editorial team's willingness to shepherd controversial theoretical work through multiple review rounds reflects proper scientific editorial practice.
Recognition of Theoretical Merit: Multiple reviewers acknowledged the work's importance. Referee 1 recognized that the work "paved the way for development of microwave absorption film," while Referee 4 (Board Member) noted that "authors have accomplished their intent" and praised the work's timeliness and updated references.
Constructive Engagement: The fact that the journal split the work into two papers and continued supporting both parts demonstrates institutional commitment to theoretical innovation, even when it challenges mainstream approaches.
Critical Analysis of Negative Comments
Referee 3's Fundamental Misunderstandings: The most problematic review came from Referee 3, whose comments reveal several concerning issues that illuminate broader problems in peer review of innovative research:
1. Dismissal Based on Practical Concerns Over Theoretical Merit
Referee 3's opening statement—"This is a work divorced from real materials, so we cannot verify whether the conclusions of this paper are correct or not"—demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of theoretical physics. This criticism mirrors the historical reception of Einstein's relativity papers, which were initially dismissed for lacking immediate experimental verification. Theoretical work advances understanding by developing new frameworks that experimental work can later validate or refute.
2. Circular Logic in Theoretical Criticism
The referee argued that since both the authors' work and the theories they criticize are based on electromagnetic field theory, the conclusions must be equivalent. This reasoning is fundamentally flawed—it's precisely through different applications and interpretations of the same underlying physics that scientific understanding advances. The reviewer failed to appreciate that theoretical innovation often comes from reconsidering established applications of well-known principles.
3. Terminological Orthodoxy Over Conceptual Innovation
The criticism regarding RL (Reflection Loss) terminology reveals how semantic orthodoxy can stifle scientific progress. The referee insisted on conventional definitions rather than engaging with the authors' conceptual framework. This represents exactly the type of conservative thinking that prevents paradigm shifts from gaining recognition.
4. Dismissal of Novel Concepts Through False Equivalence
Referee 3's reduction of the "interfacial phase effect" to "half-wave loss" and existing Fresnel equations demonstrates the common reviewer tendency to dismiss innovation by claiming it's "already known." This response pattern frequently occurs when reviewers encounter genuinely novel approaches—they attempt to force new concepts into familiar frameworks rather than engaging with their distinctive contributions.
The Evolution of Reviewer Understanding
First Round to Acceptance: The progression from initial criticism to eventual acceptance illustrates how peer review can function when editors maintain scientific integrity. Referee 3's later acknowledgment that corrections had been made suggests that persistent engagement with critics can eventually lead to understanding.
Board Member Consistency: Referee 4's consistent support throughout the process demonstrates how senior reviewers with broader perspectives can recognize theoretical merit even in controversial work. Their suggestion for "minor revision" rather than fundamental changes showed appropriate scientific judgment.
Systemic Issues Revealed
The "New Participant" Bias: Referee 3's initial characterization of the authors as "new participants" who should "have a full understanding of this field" exemplifies the status bias that plagues peer review. This ad hominem approach attempts to dismiss work based on perceived authority rather than scientific merit.
Conservative Field Definitions: The insistence on conventional interpretations of microwave absorption theory demonstrates how established fields resist theoretical innovation. The referee's defense of "well-established research methods, means and terms" reflects the institutional conservatism that Kuhn identified as characteristic of normal science.
Experimental Verification Demands: The requirement for immediate experimental validation of theoretical work represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how science progresses. Major theoretical advances—from Maxwell's equations to quantum mechanics—often precede experimental verification by years or decades.
Implications for Scientific Progress
The Value of Persistent Editorial Support: This case demonstrates why editorial persistence is crucial for scientific advancement. Had the editors accepted Referee 3's initial recommendations, important theoretical work would have been lost to the literature.
The Importance of Multiple Perspectives: The diversity of reviewer responses—from strong support to fundamental opposition—illustrates why multiple reviewers are essential for evaluating innovative work. No single reviewer, however expert, can fairly evaluate paradigm-challenging research.
The Role of Theoretical Work in Scientific Advancement: The eventual publication and citation of these papers validates the importance of theoretical work that challenges established paradigms, even when it faces initial resistance from conservative reviewers.
Lessons for the Scientific Community
This publication journey offers several important lessons:
Editorial Courage is Essential: Journals must be willing to support innovative work through difficult review processes, as Physica Scripta demonstrated here.
Reviewer Training is Needed: The scientific community must better educate reviewers about how to evaluate paradigm-challenging work, focusing on methodological rigor rather than conformity to existing frameworks.
Theoretical Work Deserves Equal Standing: The scientific community must resist the tendency to devalue theoretical contributions in favor of immediately practical applications.
Persistence in Scientific Innovation: Authors challenging established paradigms must be prepared for extended review processes and must respond constructively to criticism while maintaining scientific integrity.
Liu, Yue, Theoretical Primacy in Scientific Inquiry: A Critique of the Empirical Orthodoxy in Modern Research (August 05, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5379953 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5379953
The successful publication of these papers, despite significant initial resistance, demonstrates that the peer review system can function properly when supported by courageous editorial leadership and persistent scientific inquiry. However, the process also reveals how easily innovative work can be derailed by conservative reviewing practices and status bias. The scientific community must learn from both the successes and failures evident in this case to better support future paradigm-shifting research.
Analysis of the Physica Scripta Editorial Board Rejection: A Case Study in Paradigm Resistance
Analysis of Rejection Letters: A Case Study in Scientific Publishing Resistance to Paradigm-Challenging Research