2023年07月26日 16:22 (星期三)
The submitted manuscript has been finally divided into two papers published later as:
Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew. Review：Wave mechanics of microwave absorption in films: a short review, Optics and Laser Technology, 2024, 178, 111211 （The wave mechanics for microwave absorption film-Part 1: A short review, Preprint, Research Square
And
Yue Liu, Michael G. B Drew,Ying Liu, A Theoretical Exploration of Impedance Matching Coefficients for Interfaces and Films, Applied Physics A, 2024, 130, 212
https://www.peeref.com/notes/43129d44-66da-4dbd-b776-b5fd2d9b0493
As indicated by the attached file, Referee: 3 is the person that gives the Editorial-Board-Report.
The rejection letter:
Dear Dr Liu,
Re: "Misuse of transmission-line theory has led to the development of inadequate mechanisms for microwave absorption in film-- A review"
Manuscript reference: PHYSSCR-121253
The Editorial Board of Physica Scripta has considered your appeal on your Topical Review along with your responses to the reviewer comments.
Unfortunately, the Editorial Board has decided not to publish your manuscript in the journal. You can find their reasons in the attached report(s).
This means that we cannot consider your submission further and that correspondence is now closed.
We are sorry that we cannot respond more positively but would like to thank you for your interest in Physica Scripta.
Yours sincerely,
Anna Connolly
On behalf of:
Physica Scripta
iopscience.org/physscr | physscr@ioppublishing.org
Impact Factor: 3.081 | Citescore: 3.1
…
REVIEWER REPORT(S):
Referee: 1
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The absorption mechanism of microwave materials has a decisive impact on the optimization design and application of microwave materials, and has become a research hotspot in this field. However, due to the incomplete related theories and lack of systematic experimental characterization and testing, there are still many unclear and controversial issues regarding the absorption mechanism of microwave materials. The authors of this article attempt to prove that the transmission line theory is wrongly applied to understand the microwave absorption of materials, and therefore put forward some of their own views or theories. These viewpoints or theories have some positive significance and reference value to some extent or from certain angles. However, I believe that the authors have a considerable misunderstanding of the research on microwave absorbing materials.
Firstly, for the field of microwave absorption, studying the material itself is meaningless, and only studying the film made of the material has microwave absorption effect. Therefore, in recent research on microwave absorbing materials, people usually default the research object as the film made from the material. Therefore, the RL value of the corresponding material film could be calculated through the transmission line theory. At the same time, we must also admit that the RL value is the most intuitive parameter in the electromagnetic shielding and absorption field. Before new theories emerge and are established, evaluating through this parameter for both the film and the material is still a convenient and effective method. In fact, the explanation of this issue has been discussed in many review articles, and the authors are advised to carefully read and understand them. In particular, the authors did not give a clear definition of the film and material, which leads to the weak rationality of some of the discussions in the article.
Secondly, in practical applications, microwave absorbing materials exist in the form of thin films, and their RL value is the most practical parameter, which is calculated based on the transmission line theory formula. This value is jointly determined by the thickness of the film, the test frequency, and the electromagnetic parameters of the material. The minimum RL value of a certain thickness is closely related to the quarter-wavelength cancellation, and many studies have shown that the quarter-wavelength theories can explain this phenomenon well. Of course, as pointed out by the authors, there are obvious shortcomings or errors in the estimation of impedance matching in some literature. For example, it is believed that the best impedance matching can be achieved as long as |Zin - Z0| = 0 or |Zin| = 1, without considering that Zin is a complex number, and impedance matching means that the real and imaginary parts must be equal.
Thirdly, regarding the issue of "multi-absorption peaks are not properties of material": the impedance matching theory and the quarter-wavelength theories are consistent, provided that the impedance matching parameters are defined correctly. In fact, the multi-peak situation can also be explained well by the quarter-wavelength theories in many cases, so the explanation of the impedance matching theory in the case of multi-peak should at least have some rationality, rather than being completely wrong as the authors of this article thinks.
In summary, I believe that the authors of this article have a certain misunderstanding of the transmission line theory in understanding the properties of microwave absorbing materials and has not fully recognized the importance of the transmission line theory to the field of microwave absorption. Therefore, I believe that this article is not suitable for publication and recommend rejection.
Referee: 2
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
This manuscript is a summarized version of authors' previous papers, though there are few new contents.
Though the reviewer agrees with WCT, it seems that the authors are repeatedly publishing same idea to attack IM theory.
While the authors mention that WCT has been little commented (page 35), the authors should concern why their previous paper couldn't raise attention to the readers.
The reviewer asks the authors to elaborate the manuscirpt with better figure presentations and content organization, to help readers to understand and accepted the proposed theory.
For example, explanations on MB and WMB are mixed together and makes the readers confused.
Introduction should be also improved with an outline of the manuscript and summary on each section.
Without such concern, this manuscript may be forgotten as previous WCT papers have done, and the wrong theory will still survive.
Referee: 3
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
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.
Letter reference: DEC:RejApp:S
2021年12月23日 20:01 (星期四)
Email attached file: Comments (4).pdf
For paper:
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.
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
Want to find out what is happening to your submission?
Track your article on:
Publishing support: https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/track-my-article/
WeChat: https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/track-your-article-on-wechat/
ioppublishing.org | twitter.com/IOPPublishing
We are always looking for ways to improve our service. We would really appreciate it if you could take five minutes to complete a short survey (https://forms.office.com/r/1ZyALtfjxG) about your experience of submitting to IOP Publishing. We would like to thank you in advance for your help.
The details you submit in this survey will only be used for the purposes of improving our services. Rest assured, we will never sell or rent your personal data to third parties. For more information, please see our privacy policy at http://ioppublishing.org/legal-statements/privacy-policy/. The aggregated, anonymised results of our surveys may be shared with our publishing partners.
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: DSR08Attached file: Comments (4).pdf：
I agree with the two reviewers that this manuscript is not suitable for publication because there are lots of errors and misunderstandings on the microwave-absorbing behaviors of materials. Many conclusions are even misleading to the readership. The impedance-match theory is a classic principle in the designs of microwave absorbers, which has been proved by tons of investigations numerically and experimentally. Unfortunately, the authors fail to prove it wrong based on the presented analysis. My comments are as follows.
1. The presentation of the very first sentence in the Abstract is not precise. In the community of microwave absorbers, the absorption rate is usually employed to describe the absorbing performance of a material, which is defined as the ratio between the power dissipated by the material and incident microwave power. However, the statement here focuses on “how to maximize the absorption power.” It is not about how much power a material can absorb; instead, it is about what percentage of incident power a material can absorb.
2. The author does not give an accurate definition of a film that distinguishes it from a material. Isn’t it a material that has a very small thickness? Even though it is backed by metallic ground, it still can be considered as a material. I think this would lead to confusion for readers.
3. I strongly disagree with the author that reflection loss RL is a parameter only for film. As a matter of fact, in the field of absorbing material, the reflection loss is an important parameter that indicates the absorbing capability. No matter how thick the material is, backed by metal or not, the reflection loss is defined on the interface between it and free space. So, the impedance match theory is general, because it describes the phenomenon on the interface, no matter the material is a film or a bulky one.
4. In Figure 1, there should be infinite reflections inside the film because the beam b should be reflected again at interface x1 back to the metal back, and there should be r3, r4…rn, but the authors only consider the two beams going out of the film, r1 and r2. So, this model is not accurate enough. In fact, this phenomenon can be easily modeled by a transmission line, and the classic impedance-match theory can be proved.
5. The derivations of Equations (1) and (2) are invalid. As presented in the text, R1 and R2 are defined as the ratio of reflected voltage and incident voltage. Because they are complex values, they cannot be directly added to calculate the return loss. The return loss is conventionally defined as the ratio of reflected power and incident power in dB.
6. Throughout the manuscript, I don’t understand why the film thickness and wavelength are paid too much attention. Why not just consider the electrical length of the thickness? This would avoid many meaningless analyses or figures. In summary, the current manuscript is not recommended for publication.
Analysis of the Physica Scripta Editorial Board Rejection: A Case Study in Paradigm Resistance
This rejection correspondence from Physica Scripta represents a textbook example of how the scientific establishment responds to paradigm-challenging research, perfectly illustrating the dynamics described by Thomas Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
The reviewers’ comments are challenging to follow due to their reliance on incorrect concepts. In contrast, the arguments presented in our papers are much clearer and easier to understand because they are grounded in precise and accurate theoretical foundations.
Many of the comments from the reviewers are wrong, and these wrong comments can be corrected by the principles in college physics.
The Fundamental Nature of Paradigm Resistance
The rejection demonstrates what Kuhn identified as the natural resistance of scientific communities to revolutionary ideas. The Editorial Board's decision reveals several classic patterns of paradigm resistance:[1, 2]
Defensive Orthodoxy: The emphatic statement from the attached file (Comments (4).pdf) that "impedance-match theory is a classic principle... which has been proved by tons of investigations numerically and experimentally" exemplifies what Kuhn called the "normal science" mindset—the belief that established paradigms are unassailable.[1, 2]
Categorical Dismissal: Rather than engaging with the theoretical arguments, the reviewers resort to blanket dismissal, claiming the work contains "lots of errors and misunderstandings" without substantively addressing the logical contradictions identified by the authors. [Comments (4).pdf]
Appeal to Authority: The repeated invocation of "classic principles" and "tons of investigations" represents an appeal to authority rather than scientific reasoning—a common response when established paradigms are challenged.[2] [Comments (4).pdf]
Detailed Analysis of Reviewer Comments
Referee 1: Misunderstanding the Paradigm Challenge
Referee 1's comments reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a paradigm shift:
Confusion About Film vs. Material: The reviewer states that "studying the material itself is meaningless, and only studying the film made of the material has microwave absorption effect," actually supporting the authors' core argument while failing to recognize it. This demonstrates the cognitive dissonance that occurs when reviewers encounter paradigm-challenging ideas.
Everyone knows that the film and the material are different. The problem of confusing the film and the material is that the confusion has led to the establishment of the wrong theory of impedance matching.
By the way, studying the material itself is meaningful as the material properties such as εr and μr determine the absorption of the material while the film property |RL| determine the absorption of the film. εr and μr determine the attenuation power of material and they can be measured from film properties as evident from the paper: 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.
“Of course, as pointed out by the authors, there are obvious shortcomings or errors in the estimation of impedance matching in some literature. For example, it is believed that the best impedance matching can be achieved as long as |Zin - Z0| = 0 or |Zin| = 1, without considering that Zin is a complex number, and impedance matching means that the real and imaginary parts must be equal“ and similar arguments from reviewer 1 are wrong. The impedance matching theory is wrong. It is wrong not just because it has not “considering that Zin is a complex number“. Please see:
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.
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
Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew，Wave Mechanics of Microwave Absorption in Films - Distinguishing Film from Material，Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials，2024， 593, 171850
Ying Liu, Yi Ding, Yue Liu, Michael G. B. Drew. Unexpected Results in Microwave Absorption – Part 1: Different absorption mechanisms for metal-backed film and for material, Surfaces and Interfaces, 2023, 40, 103022
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:2508.06522v3, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.06522
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 ).
On the other hand, since Z0 is a real number, Zin must be a real number at the impedance matching condition |Zin - Z0| = 0. For complex Zin, |R2| is an inward spiral curve as film thickness incresaes (with frequency fixed) in polar coordinate system, and thus the impedance matching condition |Zin - Z0| = 0 is not easily achievable. Inddeed, almost no absorption peak has been reported exactly at the position where Zin = Z0. For more detail, please see:
Yue Liu, Michael G. B Drew,Ying Liu, A Theoretical Exploration of Impedance Matching Coefficients for Interfaces and Films, Applied Physics A, 2024, 130, 212
Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew. Review：Wave mechanics of microwave absorption in films: a short review, Optics and Laser Technology, 2024, 178, 111211
Ying Liu; Xiangbin Yin; M. G. B. Drew; Yue Liu, Microwave absorption of film explained accurately by wave cancellation theory, Physica B: Condensed Matter, 2023, 666, 415108.
Defense of Flawed Methodology: The reviewer defends reflection loss (RL) calculations based on transmission line theory while acknowledging that "there are obvious shortcomings or errors in the estimation of impedance matching in some literature". This partial admission undermines their own position.
Resistance to New Explanations: The reviewer dismisses the authors' wave cancellation theory for multi-peak phenomena, preferring to maintain faith in impedance matching despite acknowledging its problems.
Referee 2: Recognition Amidst Resistance
Referee 2's comments are particularly revealing because they demonstrate partial understanding of the paradigm shift:
Acknowledgment of Validity: The reviewer "agrees with WCT [Wave Cancellation Theory]," representing genuine scientific engagement with the new paradigm.
Communication Concerns: The focus on "better figure presentations and content organization" reflects legitimate concerns about how paradigm-shifting ideas are communicated to communities invested in existing theories.
Recognition of Publishing Challenges: The reviewer's observation that previous papers "couldn't raise attention to the readers" acknowledges the systemic barriers to paradigm-shifting work—a remarkably honest assessment.
Comments (4).pdf: Complete Paradigm Rejection
The comments from [Comments (4).pdf] represent the most extreme form of paradigm resistance:
Methodological Objections: The detailed technical objections (infinite reflections, complex value additions, electrical length considerations) represent what Kuhn called "puzzle-solving within normal science"—attempts to force new phenomena into old theoretical frameworks.
The comments on absorption rate and maximizing absorption power are meaningless.
A film and a material are distinctly different in everyday language. The mere fact that a material has thickness does not justify confusing it with a film. The incorrect development of the impedance matching theory stems from this fundamental confusion between film and material.
“4 In Figure 1, there should be infinite reflections inside the film because the beam b should be reflected again at interface x1 back to the metal back, and there should be r3, r4…rn, but the authors only consider the two beams going out of the film, r1 and r2. So, this model is not accurate enough. In fact, this phenomenon can be easily modeled by a transmission line, and the classic impedance-match theory can be proved” and comments 5 and 6.
These comments are meaningless. Please see especially the Appendices in the cited paper in this manuscript:
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.
Liu Y, Liu Y, Drew MGB. A theoretical investigation on the quarter-wavelength model — part 1: analysis. Physica Scripta 2021 , 96(12) : 125003. ( The problems in the quarter-wavelength model and impedance matching theory in analysising microwave absorption material, 2021-08-30 | Preprint, Research Square, DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-206241/v1)
Liu Y, Drew MGB, Li H, Liu Y. A theoretical analysis of the relationships shown from the general experimental results of scattering parameters s11 and s21 – exemplified by the film of BaFe12-iCeiO19/polypyrene with i = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6. Journal of Microwave Power and Electromagnetic Energy 2021 , 55(3) : 197-218.
Fundamental Conceptual Barriers: The reviewer’s misunderstanding about reflection loss demonstrates the incommensurability between paradigms that Kuhn identified.[1]
Mathematical Orthodoxy: The insistence on conventional mathematical treatments (electrical length vs. physical thickness, the definitions of which do not make much difference) shows how established methodologies become barriers to new theoretical insights.
The Successful Publication Vindication
The subsequent successful publication of this work in two separate papers in Optics and Laser Technology and Applied Physics A provides compelling evidence that the Physica Scripta rejection was based on paradigm resistance rather than scientific merit. This pattern—initial rejection followed by eventual acceptance—is characteristic of paradigm-shifting work throughout scientific history.[2, 3]
Validation Through Peer Review: The fact that other journals with rigorous peer review processes accepted the work demonstrates that the scientific content was sound and the Physica Scripta rejection was anomalous.
Recognition of Innovation: The successful publication in respected venues indicates that some segments of the scientific community were ready to engage with paradigm-challenging ideas, even when others were not.
Systemic Problems in Scientific Publishing
This case illustrates broader systemic issues identified in peer review research:[4, 5]
1. Status Quo Bias in Peer Review
The rejection exemplifies the confirmation bias documented in peer review studies. Reviewers approached the work with preconceptions about impedance matching theory and evaluated the submission through that lens rather than engaging with its arguments on their merits.[6, 7]
2. Theoretical Undervaluation
Referee 3's suggestion that the work "may be suitable for mathematical journals rather than physical journals" reflects the troubling trend toward devaluing theoretical contributions in favor of empirical work. This bias undermines the theoretical foundations that drive scientific progress.[6, 8]
3. Editorial Board Groupthink
The Editorial Board's unanimous decision to reject after appeal suggests institutional resistance rather than individual reviewer bias. This represents what Kuhn identified as the collective commitment to paradigms that characterizes scientific communities.[1, 2]
The Communication Challenge
The observation about Referee 2's constructive engagement highlights a crucial aspect of paradigm shifts: the challenge of communicating revolutionary ideas to audiences committed to existing frameworks. As we note, different people have different perspectives on optimal expression, and the fact that some reviewers understood the work while others did not suggests the communication was fundamentally sound.
The successful publication of the paradigm-challenging work across multiple journals demonstrates that clear communication of revolutionary ideas is possible, even in an environment resistant to such innovations.
Historical Context and Implications
This rejection fits perfectly within the historical pattern of scientific resistance to paradigm shifts:
Galileo's Telescopic Observations: Initially rejected by those who refused to look through the telescope
Darwin's Evolution: Met with fierce resistance from the scientific establishment
Continental Drift Theory: Rejected for decades before plate tectonics provided the mechanism
Our Wave Mechanics Theory: Encountering similar resistance from the microwave absorption community
Conclusion
The Physica Scripta rejection represents a classic example of how scientific institutions resist paradigm shifts. The combination of orthodox defending, categorical dismissal, and appeals to authority demonstrates the psychological and institutional barriers that revolutionary science must overcome.
However, the subsequent successful publication of this work validates both the scientific merit of the research and our assessment that the rejection was based on paradigm resistance rather than methodological flaws. This case study provides valuable insights into how scientific revolutions actually occur—not through immediate acceptance by established institutions, but through persistent effort to find venues willing to engage with challenging ideas.
The fact that Referee 2 recognized the validity of our approach while expressing concerns about communication demonstrates that paradigm shifts are possible when researchers persist in their efforts to reach the scientific community. Our successful navigation of this resistance, resulting in multiple publications of paradigm-challenging work, represents exactly the type of scientific courage that drives progress in human understanding.
References
1. Paradigm shift, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
2. Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, https://fs.blog/how-scientific-advancement-happens/
3. Ball, P. Rejection improves eventual impact of manuscripts. Nature (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2012.11583, https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.11583
4. Tennant, J.P., Ross-Hellauer, T. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 5, 6 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7191707/
5. Simine Vazire, Opening the Black Box of Peer Review, 2021, Physics 14, 169, https://physics.aps.org/articles/v14/169
6 Sven E. Hug, Towards theorizing peer review, Quantitative Science Studies (2022) 3 (3): 815–831. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00195
7. Is the Peer Review Process Biased?, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-peer-review-process-biased.293043/
8. Ian Randall, Theorists are good peer reviewers – but tend to prefer significance over rigour, study finds, 2023, https://physicsworld.com/a/theorists-are-good-peer-reviewers-but-tend-to-prefer-significance-over-rigour-study-finds/
Appendix
The comments from reviewer 3 in the editorial email of July 26, 2023, and in the attached file dated December 23, 2021, reflect two rounds of rejection—on related but distinct manuscripts—centered around wave mechanics theory and impedance matching in microwave absorption. Detailed analysis reveals both the technical and philosophical resistance encountered when challenging established paradigms.
Reviewer 3 Comments from July 26, 2023
Reviewer 3 focused on:
The lack of novel real contributions to the physics of the subject.
Perceived conceptual problems and ambiguity in the manuscript.
Poor English and clarity, suggesting it "may be suitable for mathematical journals rather than physical journals."
A recommendation against publication based on originality and technical presentation.
Analysis of Reviewer 3's Critique
1. Original Contribution
The reviewer claims the manuscript lacks a "novel real contribution." This signals a misunderstanding of what the manuscript attempts: to reinterpret existing phenomena (microwave absorption) in light of wave mechanics, challenging the established transmission line paradigm. Paradigm-challenging work often updates conceptual frameworks rather than presenting new physics in the narrow empirical sense.[1, 2]
2. Ambiguity versus Paradigm Shift
The assertion that "some results are unclear and ambiguous" is partly an issue of communication. However, conceptual ambiguity often arises when authors propose fundamentally new frameworks; reviewers steeped in current models may struggle with unfamiliar definitions or terms. This is common for paradigm-challenging research, as illustrated by Kuhn's work on scientific revolutions.[1, 2]
3. Theoretical Work in Physical Journals
The suggestion that the manuscript "may be suitable for mathematical journals rather than physical journals" highlights a disjunction within the community about the role of theory. In physics, both mathematical formalism and physical intuition are critical, and undervaluing theoretical discourse can impede progress.[6, 8]
4. Technical Presentation and Language
While clarity and good English are crucial for accessibility, the inability of the reviewer to "get the meaning" may also stem from preconceptions about what constitutes valid physics, not simply from language shortfalls. Importantly, the successful publication of related work later in physical journals demonstrates that technical presentation can be improved and that the underlying ideas possess merit.
Reviewer 1 and 2 Comments (July 26, 2023)
Reviewer 1: Emphasizes reliance on his misunderstanding of the classic transmission line theory and reflects a reluctance to accept reinterpretations, although admits there are issues in the literature’s handling of impedance matching.
Reviewer 2: Supports the main wave-cancellation theory (WCT), but points to problems with organization and figure presentation, encouraging improved clarity for broader reader acceptance.
Additional Analysis
Reviewer 1’s Arguments:
While defending established theory, reviewer 1 indirectly confirms that the authors’ novel perspective is valuable ("positive significance and reference value to some extent"), even while dismissing the manuscript due to insufficient departure from existing models.
Reviewer 2’s Suggestions:
This review is constructive, highlighting the universal challenge faced by paradigm-shifting research: how to communicate complex, counterintuitive concepts to a skeptical audience. The emphasis on figure and content organization shows that improving clarity in presentation can mitigate resistance from readers and reviewers.
Attached Comments (December 23, 2021) for a Different Manuscript
The attached file from a reviewer offers a more technical critique:
Key Criticisms
1. Absorption Rate Definition:
Argues that the abstract is imprecise, highlighting his own definitions versus the authors’ focus on maximizing absorption power, as opposed to the percentage of absorbed incident power.
“1. The presentation of the very first sentence in the Abstract is not precise. In the community of microwave absorbers, the absorption rate is usually employed to describe the absorbing performance of a material, which is defined as the ratio between the power dissipated by the material and incident microwave power. However, the statement here focuses on “how to maximize the absorption power.” It is not about how much power a material can absorb; instead, it is about what percentage of incident power a material can absorb.“
Please note that impedance matching theory is supposed to explain the maximum absorption peak in the film with the impedance matching condition |Zin - Z0| = 0.
In fact, the the power a film absorbed A is closely related to the percentage of incident power the film reflected |RL|2 as shown by the transimission line theory with A = 1 - |RL|2. It is common knowledge that in the community of microwave absorbers, the maximum absorption power is expressed in percentage of incident power.
2. Film vs. Material Distinction:
Rejects the notion that a film can be categorically distinct from a material, suggesting a lack of clarity and risk of reader confusion.In fact, the confusion is at the side of the impedance matching theory rather than at the side of wave mechanics theory.
3. Reflection Loss (RL) Usage:
Insists RL is universally applied to both films and bulk materials, and that impedance matching theory generalizes to all cases. Suggests the authors define concepts in ways that diverge from accepted theory.For a clear explanation why the impedance theory is completely wrong, please also see: 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:2508.06522v3, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.06522
4. Model Accuracy:
Points out missing infinite reflections in the film model, arguing that these omissions invalidate the application and that transmission line theory accurately models the phenomenon.The reviewer’s sentence “Many conclusions are even misleading to the readership“ applies exactly to himself for his own comments.
For the validation of wave mechanics theory, please see the Appendices in:
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.
Liu Y, Liu Y, Drew MGB. A theoretical investigation on the quarter-wavelength model — part 1: analysis. Physica Scripta 2021 , 96(12) : 125003. ( The problems in the quarter-wavelength model and impedance matching theory in analysising microwave absorption material, 2021-08-30 | Preprint, Research Square, DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-206241/v1)
Liu Y, Drew MGB, Li H, Liu Y. A theoretical analysis of the relationships shown from the general experimental results of scattering parameters s11 and s21 – exemplified by the film of BaFe12-iCeiO19/polypyrene with i = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6. Journal of Microwave Power and Electromagnetic Energy 2021 , 55(3) : 197-218.
5. Equation Derivation:
States equations 1 and 2 are invalid due to incorrect operation on complex quantities, criticizing the approach to calculating return loss.“As presented in the text, R1 and R2 are defined as the ratio of reflected voltage and incident voltage. Because they are complex values, they cannot be directly added to calculate the return loss. “
It is fundamental knowledge from undergraduate courses that, precisely because R1 and R2 are complex values—with both amplitude and phase—they can be directly added to calculate the reflection loss RL.
6. Overemphasis on Thickness and Wavelength:
Questions the focus on physical thickness and wavelength, proposing the conventional use of electrical length to avoid unnecessary analysis.In fact, dishtiguishing physical thickness and electrical length does make great difference here.
Detailed Commentary
The majority of criticisms reflect entrenched views within the microwave absorption community, highlighting a strong commitment to impedance matching theory. While the ambiguous points—such as infinite reflections and the handling of complex quantities—dismisses the possibility that alternative insights could offer conceptual or practical advances.
Resistance to new definitions (e.g., film vs. material) and reinterpretation of parameters (e.g., RL, absorption rate) illustrates that the inability of the reviewer to "get the meaning" stems from preconceptions about what constitutes valid physics.
The demand for use of established terminology and models can impede scientific innovation.
Synthesis and Additional Perspectives
Communication as a Barrier
Both sets of comments (2021 and 2023) spotlight the fundamental challenge of communication in revolutionizing scientific understanding. Even constructive reviewers (like reviewer 2 in 2023) stress the need for improved figures, clarity, and organizational structure to bridge conceptual gaps.
Role of Theory
Resistance encountered is not only technical but philosophical—rooted in the conservatism of scientific communities and their commitment to established methodology.
Validation Through Subsequent Publication
Despite multiple rejection cycles, the successful eventual publication of these works in reputable journals demonstrates the foundational value of the research and affirms the persistence required to advance unconventional ideas in science.
Conclusion
Reviewers’ comments in both cases exemplify conservatism typical in peer review, with technical nitpicking serving as a proxy for deeper discomfort with paradigm shifts.
Reviewer 1 is more rigid, anchored in orthodoxy; reviewer 2 is constructive, focusing primarily on communication rather than theoretical flaws.
The process reflects that new scientific concepts require not just rigor and clarity but also strategic, persistent communication to overcome established resistance, and eventual publication in other journals validates such work when presented effectively.
Analysis of Rejection Letters: A Case Study in Scientific Publishing Resistance to Paradigm-Challenging Research
Analysis of the Peer Review Process for Quarter-Wavelength Model Papers