Quick Decisions, Conventional Outcomes
How Rapid Editorial Processes Marginalize Disruptive Innovation
Related preprint:
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08日 21:47 (星期五)
08-Aug-2025
Dear Dr Liu,
This is regarding Manuscript ID MOP-25-0796 entitled "Citation Issues in Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption: A Comprehensive Analysis with Theoretical Foundations and Peer Review Challenges" which you submitted to Microwave and Optical Technology Letters. The subject paper has been reviewed by the members of the Editorial Board and publication is not recommended.
I would like to point out that, to maintain a high technical standard of published material, we have to be very selective. To achieve our speed of publication, the reviewers are asked to make their decisions as quickly as possible and they are not required to provide us with technical comments. In the case of your manuscript, however, we were provided with some comments for your information (see below).
Wiley Editing Services Available to All Authors
Should you be interested, Wiley Editing Services offers expert help with manuscript, language, and format editing, along with other article preparation services. You can learn more about this service option at www.wileyauthors.com/eeo/preparation. You can also check out Wiley’s collection of free article preparation resources for general guidance about writing and preparing your manuscript at www.wileyauthors.com/eeo/prepresources.
Due to a large volume of submissions, please do not revise and resubmit a rejected paper. We appreciate your submitting this manuscript for our consideration. We look forward to having opportunity of publishing some of your future work.
Sincerely,
Wenquan Che
Editor-in-Chief, Microwave and Optical Technology Letters
Area Editor, Microwave and Optical Technology Letters
Associate Editor, Microwave and Optical Technology Letters
Response:
Comment on Springer's New Screening Tool for AI Tortured Phrases
2025年08月20日 06:47 (星期三)
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your consideration of our manuscript submitted to Microwave and Optical Technology Letters. We appreciate the challenges that high-impact journals face in balancing rapid publication with maintaining scientific quality.
However, we would like to respectfully respond to the decision conveyed. It is widely observable that many articles supporting mainstream theories, despite being published in top journals, often lack substantive scientific value and may be considered low-quality. In contrast, research that challenges prevailing paradigms but manages to be published in leading journals demonstrates clear academic merit and deserves thorough and careful evaluation.
Our work on the wave mechanics theory of microwave absorption has already been published in multiple reputable journals, indicating its foundation in significant and peer-recognized theoretical innovation. The nature of rapid communication journals is to ensure quick dissemination, but this should not equate to compromising the review quality or prematurely dismissing potentially paradigm-challenging research. In practice, expedited review processes tend to favor submissions aligned with mainstream theories, while articles opposing these paradigms often undergo prolonged and more stringent scrutiny, sometimes resulting in rejection based on criteria beyond purely scientific merit.
Moreover, the high desk-rejection rates seen at prestigious journals mean that only a small fraction of submissions proceed to peer review. This gives an illusion that all published articles are highly innovative or important, while disruptive and truly novel ideas frequently struggle to pass initial editorial screening. This systemic bias is detrimental to scientific progress.
In support of this perspective, we refer to our recent publication, "The Paradox of Academic Publishing: Why Low-Quality Research Thrives While Disruptive Innovation Struggles" (Liu, 2025, Qeios), which documents these challenges in greater detail. While prioritizing revolutionary research alone may not eliminate the problem of low-quality publications, it is an essential step toward creating a fairer and more intellectually vibrant academic environment.
We hope this response clarifies our position and encourages reflection on how rapid publication policies might be better aligned with the mission of advancing meaningful scientific knowledge.
Thank you again for your time and thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
Prof. Yue Liu
Analysis of Materials Today Physics Rejection Letter
Commentary on Materials Today's Rejection: Scope as a Shield for Paradigm Protection
Correcting Error in Academic Publishing: An Ethical Responsibility
Cultures of Trial and Error: Identifying and Overcoming Barriers in Science Correction
A toast to the error detectors
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