Rejection Letters as Data: The Case of the Gibbs–Duhem Equation

ChatGPT

Sep 28, 2025

A Critical Review of Current Microwave Absorption Theories: The Fundamental Distinction Between Films and Materials—Perperlexity.ai

Commentary Offered by Perplexity.ai

Summary Commentary on the Rejection History of a Paper about Gibbs-Duhem Equation—DeepSeek

Related Paper

Liu Ying, Liu Yue, Drew Michael G. B. Natural mathematical derivation of the Gibbs-Duhem Equation related to ΔG and ∂G/∂ξ, International Journal of Thermophysics, 2022, 43, 73 doi: 10.1007/s10765-022-02998-y. ( Natural Mathematical Derivation of the Gibbs-Duhem Equation, 2022-03-10 | Preprint, Research Square, DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1061987/v1)

Rejection Letters as Data: The Case of the Gibbs–Duhem Equation

Abstract

This article examines a sequence of rejection letters received for a manuscript on the Gibbs–Duhem equation, eventually published in International Journal of Thermophysics (2022). The rejection history itself is used as data to analyze systemic barriers in academic publishing, especially when a submission corrects entrenched conceptual errors in widely taught theory. The analysis demonstrates how disciplinary gatekeeping, reviewer resistance to mathematical rigor, and the entrenchment of earlier mistaken publications—particularly in Journal of Chemical Education—shaped the peer review outcomes.

Keywords: Gibbs–Duhem equation, peer review, rejection letters, mathematical rigor, institutional bias, chemical education

Introduction

Corrections to long-standing conceptual errors often face greater resistance in academic publishing than incremental extensions of accepted theory. This paper analyzes the rejection trajectory of a manuscript that addressed a fundamental misinterpretation of the Gibbs–Duhem equation. Although ultimately published in International Journal of Thermophysics, the path through multiple rejections reveals how journals enforce disciplinary boundaries and how reviewers often resist submissions that challenge entrenched teaching traditions.

Case Analysis of Rejections

1. American Journal of Physics (AJP)

Reviewer admitted not checking correctness, dismissed the manuscript as “overly mathematical.”

Barrier: Lack of willingness to engage with rigorous derivation.
Commentary: The critique reflects avoidance rather than evaluation.

2. Journal of Chemical Education (JCE)

Editor rejected on grounds that the work “does not help students learn Gibbs–Duhem.”

Barrier: Journal prioritizes simplified pedagogy over conceptual accuracy.
Commentary: Ironically, many incorrect papers on Gibbs–Duhem were previously published in JCE, institutionalizing the very error the manuscript sought to correct.

3. European Journal of Physics (EJP)

Conflicting reviews: one referee praised clarity; others accused it of “mathematical illiteracy” or “spreading fog.” Adjudicator sided with the critical reviewers.

Barrier: Conservative bias in the face of reviewer disagreement.
Commentary: Challenges to mainstream interpretations were dismissed as “not original,” despite clear technical contribution.

4. The Physics Teacher

Desk rejection: “too far from introductory physics.”

Barrier: Scope mismatch.

5. Journal of Mathematical Chemistry

One reviewer: “Better for JCE.” Another: “Obvious and too long.”

Barrier: Delegation and dismissal.
Commentary: Reviewer unwillingness to examine the details reflects both resistance to corrections and lack of mathematical engagement.

6. Applied Physics A

Editor: out of scope. Polite, but avoidance.

Discussion: Structural Barriers

Three structural reasons emerge:

Institutionalized Error: Once flawed interpretations appear in a canonical venue (JCE), correction becomes harder than perpetuation. Journals are reluctant to discredit their own archives.
Reviewer Resistance: Many reviewers lacked either the mathematical ability or willingness to engage with Gibbs–Duhem equation related to differential/derivative central to the correction.
Conservatism of Peer Review: Novel but corrective work is framed as “not original” or “too complicated,” whereas pedagogical simplifications are preferred.

Conclusion

The publication history of the Gibbs–Duhem paper illustrates how rejection letters themselves reveal systemic academic biases. Rejections were rarely about actual errors; instead, they reflected entrenched traditions, resistance to rigorous mathematics, and editorial conservatism. Ultimately, the successful publication in International Journal of Thermophysics shows that correctness and rigor can prevail, but only after navigating institutional barriers that often prioritize continuity over truth.

Rejection Letters

2019年11月29日 19:31 (星期五) MS 32067 received by AJP

Dear Professor Liu,

We acknowledge the submission of your manuscript entitled, “A natural mathematical derivation of the Gibbs-Duhem Equation and its application,” which we have assigned the manuscript # 32067. Please refer prominently to this number in all correspondence.

2019年11月30日 21:23 (星期六) AJP: decision on ms 32067

Dear Professor Liu,

Attached you will find a copy of the reviewer’s report on your manuscript “A natural mathematical derivation of the Gibbs-Duhem Equation and its application,” our manuscript #32067. As you can see, this reviewer recommends against publication and we concur with that opinion. AJP receives many submissions, almost all of which have some value. However, we can only accept a limited number of manuscripts and thus manuscripts must receive enthusiastic support from the reviewer for further consideration. (Only ~15% of all submitted manuscripts are eventually published in AJP.) I am writing to inform you, therefore, that we will not pursue publication of this manuscript.

Thank you for your interest in the American Journal of Physics.

Sincerely,

Joseph Romano

AMERICAN JOURNAL of PHYSICS

Richard H. Price, Editor

Joseph D. Romano, Associate Editor

amjphys@gmail.com

Editor’s Website: http://web.mit.edu/rhprice/www

Online Journal: http://aapt.scitation.org/journal/ajp

Attachments:

R1’s report

Attachments:

This manuscript purports to shed light on a controversy in the pages of the Journal of Chemical Education. The abstract and introduction are written for readers who are already familiar with that controversy, or who are willing to look up the cited references in that journal. Few readers of AJP will fall into either category.

It is conceivable to this reviewer that the underlying issue could be made interesting and accessible to AJP readers, but this manuscript makes no attempt to do so. Many AJP readers won’t even remember what chemists mean by the so-called Gibbs-Duhem relation, so the title and abstract will immediately alienate those readers; the manuscript doesn’t bother to say what that relation is until the middle of page 9. The rest of the abstract is overly abstract, referring vaguely to a “long-standing scientific problem,” “wrong concepts,” and “existing methods.” The introduction is not self-contained, but instead refers readers to several J. Chem. Ed. papers for background. Most of the manuscript is overly mathematical, offering little physical insight into the meaning of the lengthy equations.

Because the framing of the subject in this manuscript is so inappropriate for AJP, I have not taken the time to check the manuscript for technical correctness.

Let me also remark on a minor but annoying issue. In endnote 7 the authors cite a paper of their own that has apparently been accepted but not yet published by AJP. As a reviewer I have no way to access that paper. In this instance the citation appears to be merely to justify an equation that is very easy to derive, so there is little harm. But in general, authors who wish to cite their own unpublished work should be required to make that work available to reviewers via arXiv or through some other public web site.

2020年01月10日 04:30 (星期五) Manuscript ed-2019-01197r assigned to Editor

09-Jan-2020

RE: Manuscript Editor Assignment

Journal: The Journal of Chemical Education

Manuscript ID: ed-2019-01197r

Title: “The Gibbs-Duhem Equation and its application”

Authors: Liu, Ying; Liu, Yue; Drew, Michael

Manuscript Status: Associate Editor Assigned

Dear Dr. Liu:

Your manuscript entitled “The Gibbs-Duhem Equation and its application” has been assigned to the following editor:

Arthur M. Halpern

Associate Editor

Journal of Chemical Education

Fax: (202) 354-4541

Email: ahalpern@jce.acs.org

Please address all future correspondence regarding this manuscript to the above editor.

2020年01月24日 06:13 (星期五) Decision on Manuscript ID ed-2019-01197r

23-Jan-2020

Journal: The Journal of Chemical Education

Manuscript ID: ed-2019-01197r

Title: “The Gibbs-Duhem Equation and its application”

Author(s): Liu, Ying; Liu, Yue; Drew, Michael

Dear Dr. Liu:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript for publication in the Journal of Chemical Education. I read the manuscript with interest because it is arguable that the Gibbs-Duhem equation and especially its application are among the more difficult topics to cover (and for students to understand) in the standard two-semester (or full academic year) physical chemistry course.

Yes despite my particular interest, I believe that this work is not appropriate for the Journal of Chemical Education because it does not address the important issue how how to improve the presentation of the topic nor does it demonstrate how to help students understand and apply the equation in solving problems. In other words, the manuscript does not sufficiently overlap with the needs of chemistry instructors and chemistry students.

I suggest you find a more appropriate venue for disseminating the work.

I am sorry to have to convey this negative decision to you. Nevertheless, I appreciate your choice of the Journal of Chemical Education as a possible forum for presentation of your work and would be happy to consider other manuscripts from you in the future.

Yours very truly,

Arthur M. Halpern

Associate Editor

Journal of Chemical Education

Fax: (202) 354-4541

Email: ahalpern@jce.acs.org

2020年01月24日 23:51 (星期五)

Your submission to Eur. J. Phys.: EJP-105136

Dear Professor Liu,

Re: “The Gibbs-Duhem Equation and its application” by Liu, Ying; Liu, Yue; Drew, Michael

Article reference: EJP-105136

Thank you for submitting your Paper, which will be considered for publication in European Journal of Physics. The reference number for your article is EJP-105136. Please quote this number in all future correspondence regarding this manuscript.

As the submitting author, you can follow the progress of your article by checking your Author Centre after logging in to https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/ejp-eps Once you are signed in you will be able to track the progress of your article, read the referee reports and send us your electronic files.

This journal makes manuscripts available to readers on the journal website within 24 hours of acceptance. Please be aware that if you did not tick the relevant opt-out box on the submission form, the accepted version of your manuscript will be visible on the journal’s website before it is proof-read and formatted to our house style.

If you are planning any press activity for your article, or are currently engaging in an IP or patent application, you may wish to opt-out of making your accepted manuscript immediately available online. If you do not wish to make the accepted version of your manuscript immediately visible to readers, and have not ticked the opt-out box during submission, please let us know as soon as possible.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of assistance to you.

Yours sincerely

On behalf of the IOP peer-review team:

Jessica Thorn - Editor

Lucy Joy – Associate Editor

Mirna Chandrakumar – Editorial Assistant

ejp@ioppublishing.org

and Iain Trotter – Publisher

IOP Publishing

Temple Circus, Temple Way, Bristol

BS1 6HG, UK

www.iopscience.org/ejp

2018 Impact Factor: 0.861

Letter reference: SAu05

2020年02月25日 20:33 (星期二) A status update on your article: EJP-105136

Dear Professor Liu,

Re: “The Gibbs-Duhem Equation and its application” by Liu, Ying; Liu, Yue; Drew, Michael

Article reference: EJP-105136

We just wanted to update you about the current status of your Paper, which is under consideration by European Journal of Physics. We have now received both primary referees’ reports, but as they do not agree we have had to send your manuscript and the referees’ reports to an adjudicator. We hope to receive this report shortly. Once we have received the report we will be able to inform you about the decision on your article.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance to you.

Yours sincerely

Lucy Joy

On behalf of the IOP peer-review team:

Jessica Thorn - Editor

Lucy Joy – Associate Editor

Mirna Chandrakumar – Editorial Assistant

ejp@ioppublishing.org

and Iain Trotter – Publisher

IOP Publishing

Temple Circus, Temple Way, Bristol

BS1 6HG, UK

www.iopscience.org/ejp

2018 Impact Factor: 0.861

Letter reference: HO02

2020年03月17日 20:38 (星期二) Our decision on your article: EJP-105136

Dear Professor Liu,

Re: “The Gibbs-Duhem Equation and its application” by Liu, Ying; Liu, Yue; Drew, Michael

Article reference: EJP-105136

Your Paper, submitted to European Journal of Physics, 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 European Journal of Physics.

Yours sincerely

Lucy Joy

On behalf of the IOP peer-review team:

Jessica Thorn - Editor

Lucy Joy – Associate Editor

Joanna Bewley – Editorial Assistant

ejp@ioppublishing.org

and Iain Trotter – Publisher

IOP Publishing

Temple Circus, Temple Way, Bristol

BS1 6HG, UK

www.iopscience.org/ejp

2018 Impact Factor: 0.861

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://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/iopauthors1) 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)

The authors propose a method to derive the Gibbs-Duhem equation. The method is essentially the one exposed in Callen’s book “Thermodynamics and an Introduction to Thermostatistics” (John Wiley, Second Edition, pag. 60-62). They also discuss a controversy that has already been solved many years ago. In my opinion, there is no genuine contribution to the development of the subject.

Furthermore, the description of the controversy is confusing. It is stated that infinitesimal changes dG of the Gibbs free energy G are equivalent to the partial derivative of this free energy with respect to the reaction coordinate. This statement is imprecise and may induce students to think that a differential is the same as a partial derivative.

Referee: 2

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)

The paper presents a discussion of controversy in the literature about the well-known Gibbs-Duhem equation. Then it presents a twofold derivation of the said equation: thermodynamic and mathematical.

The paper is clear and well written. The symbols are clear and the equations are neat. I recommend publication. I have some minor remarks.

1. p. 4 lines 74-76: if the components are all gaseous, then why call Pk0 saturated vapor pressure (like that of a liquid) and not simply total gas pressure?

2. p. 5: Q, Δμ and Δn need to be defined.

3. Editorial:

Abstract line 14: the most difficult topics

Abstract line 15: Moreover instead of ‘What is more’

p.2, line 38: dominates in publications

p. 2, line 46: by applying the Legendre transformation

p. 2, line 47: different perspective than the usual

p. 3, line 57: perspectives lying in the different methods (suggested)

p. 8, line 139: ways of thinking and cultivating...

p. 15, line 246: system where only PV work... (not when)

p. 18, line 305: despite the fact that corrections have been made which show...

p. 18, line308: somewhat abstract ___ (lacks a noun here).

p.19, line 320, better put R = 8.314 (than simply 8.3)

Referee: 3

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)

Thermodynamics is indeed mathematically difficult, e.g. when it comes to Maxwell’s equations and the Gibbs-Duhem equation. I remember that very well from my own studies. Students not only need to understand the correct mathematics of the proofs but also the intuition of the framework in which the equations are a part. The introduction of this paper is therefore very relevant and appears promising. Unfortunately the paper does not deliver as promised. If I were confused about the Gibbs-Duhem equation and the interpretations of dG and dG/dxi to begin with, I would be totally lost after reading the paper.

The paper wants to attract attention to two opposing statements about dG and dG/dxi (are those two expressions equivalent or not?), so the least the authors could do is to present the two points of view in sufficient detail and sufficiently clearly that undergraduate students could understand the issue. No such attempt is made. Instead large blocks of equations are presented without any explanations of the relationships among the individual equations nor the conditions under which they apply. (In thermodynamics conditions, like what is kept constant, are everything!) In particular for educational purposes it is important to take the hand of the student and explain the issue step by step, not least where one may (and some do) go wrong in the arguments.

Pedagogically, aimed at students, this paper spreads fog, not clarity. Didactically, aimed at teachers, there is no new direction or method nor any explicit refutation of previous teachings. Consequently I have no choice but to reject the paper.

Let me add some examples of insufficiencies in the present writing.

L.60 – ‘known’ from where? Why? What are the variables?

L.64 – again “we have”, why?

L.67 – “If a component k…”

L.71 – Int(mu*dn) is only =mu*n if mu is constant.

L.71 – From eq.(2) VdP=0 @ const. T as specified above.

L.79 – What is the meaning of all these expressions?

L.89 – Is the transition from infinitesimal delta to finite Delta based on the linear behavior of an ideal gas/liquid system?

L.101 – Why the absolute value |nu|, it is wrong.

L.103 – What is Q?

L.107 – Of course when xi->0, it is the definition of an infinitesimal and thus a derivative.

L.118 – “the erroneous claim”, how about telling us what that erroneous claim is.

L.126 – If DeltaG is not G_final - G_initial, what then is the meaning of DeltaG?

L.173 = Fig.1 – Where is the Legendre transformation? This figure needs serious explanation.

I think I will stop here and only mention in

L.276 that the proper last name is ‘de Heer’ in Dutch and the reference is 4.

Referee: Adjudicator report

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)

I have been asked to adjudicate on this paper in the light of the opposing referees’ recommendations.

Referee1 states that the work is well known and already in standard textbooks. This would not necessarily prevent it from being published in EJP, but the work would have to demonstrate some originality in approach that would make it easier for students to understand. The authors claim to do this, but I am not convinced.

Referee 1 also points out that, in its central claim, the paper states that an infinitesimal quantity, dG, is equal to a partial derivative. This is just mathematically illiterate.

Despite the positive recommendation from referee 2, I recommend rejection.

Referee: Editor in Chief

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS

We had two conflicting reports and therefore sought a third opinion and asked an adjudicator to look at the paper. As a result, I follow the critical referee and the adjudicator: there is not enough originality in the paper going beyond what is already published on the topic, which would justify publication in EJP. Therefore the paper is rejected.

Letter reference: DSR01

2020年03月24日 23:17 (星期二) our submission to Eur. J. Phys.: EJP-105283

Dear Professor Liu,

Re: “The Gibbs-Duhem Equation and its application” by Liu, Ying; Liu, Yue; Drew, Michael

Article reference: EJP-105283

Thank you for submitting your Paper, which will be considered for publication in European Journal of Physics. The reference number for your article is EJP-105283. Please quote this number in all future correspondence regarding this manuscript.

2020年04月03日 15:47 (星期五) A message from Eur. J. Phys. concerning article: EJP-105283

Dear Professor Liu,

Re: “The Gibbs-Duhem Equation and its application” by Liu, Ying; Liu, Yue; Drew, Michael

Article reference: EJP-105283

Thank you for submitting your revised paper. Please be aware that we do not usually accept appeals as new submissions: we would normally only able to reconsider articles for publication in EJP if a formal appeal letter is received by email within 4 weeks of the decision. The appeal should address each of the criticisms of the reviewers and where appropriate include a list of changes on how points raised would be addressed, but authors should *not* revise their article at this stage. If the appeal is considered to be justified (which may follow consultation with a member of the Editorial Board) the decision of the original article would be reversed, which allows authors to revise their work then.

More information can be found here: https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/authoring-for-journals/?step=5

In this case we are considering your revised version further under the ID EJP-105283, but in the future you should follow our formal appeals procedure.

Yours sincerely

Lucy Joy

On behalf of the IOP peer-review team:

Jessica Thorn - Editor

Lucy Joy – Associate Editor

Joanna Bewley – Editorial Assistant

ejp@ioppublishing.org

and Iain Trotter – Publisher

IOP Publishing

Temple Circus, Temple Way, Bristol

BS1 6HG, UK

www.iopscience.org/ejp

2018 Impact Factor: 0.861

Letter reference: HAA01

2020年04月30日 16:43 (星期四) Our decision on your article: EJP-105283

Dear Professor Liu,

Re: “The Gibbs-Duhem Equation and its application” by Liu, Ying; Liu, Yue; Drew, Michael

Article reference: EJP-105283

Your appealed Paper, submitted to European Journal of Physics, has now been refereed and the referee report(s) can be found below and/or attached to this message.

We would like to thank you for your interest in European Journal of Physics.

Yours sincerely

Lucy Joy

On behalf of the IOP peer-review team:

Jessica Thorn - Editor

Lucy Joy – Associate Editor

Joanna Bewley – Editorial Assistant

ejp@ioppublishing.org

and Iain Trotter – Publisher

IOP Publishing

Temple Circus, Temple Way, Bristol

BS1 6HG, UK

www.iopscience.org/ejp

2018 Impact Factor: 0.861

REFEREE REPORT(S):

Referee: 1

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)

I acted as adjudicator in my capacity as a Board member not as an expert in the field. I therefore recommend that the paper be sent out to expert referees.

The paper now stresses that the infinitesimal quantity, dG, has the same functionality as dG/d\gzi because d\gzi is a constant. As this does not imply that the two expressions are mathematically identical, this may address the comment made in my previous report.

Referee: 2

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)

I acknowledge the insistence of these authors, but I am afraid that they have not gotten any closer to their goal. They have increased the length of their paper by 43%, not its clarity. And they give several pages of mathematical derivation in their rebuttal, arguments which, if they are of value, should not be restricted to the benefit of the referees but be available to all readers.

I was delighted when I saw a new section ‘2.1 A longstanding controversy related to the Gibbs-Duhem equation’, expecting to find a sharp and concise description of the two different views. Instead I found 8 pages of long winded ‘intuitive’ text. This is not the way to present a controversy as the prelude to its final resolution. What I would have liked to see in order is

- a concise description of the different points of view

- a rigorous mathematical derivation of dz(x,y) in the general case

- a thermodynamic argument why the Gibbs-Duhem equation endows dG(xi) and (dG(xi)/dxi)_n with the same physical behavior, i.e. they are not the same but convey the same message because Sum(n_k*dln(x_k))=0 is a consequence of Gibbs-Duhem.

This would have separated the thermodynamics from the mathematics and eased the insight as distinct from mathematical derivation.

These general observations are enough reasons not to publish this manuscript because it is not productive for its stated purpose, but let me add a couple of specific comments in addition.

P.2—Mathematically dz(x, y) and (dz(x,y)/dx)_y (partial d’s in this last derivative) are always different. The former is a differential (infinitesimally small), the second a derivative (usually of finite magnitude). This elementary observation is true whatever x, y, and z are supposed to model. Maybe, depending on content, the two expressions carry the same physical information. That is where the discipline of thermodynamics comes in, but they are *never* equivalent and can never replace one another.

Eq. (1) is the definition of G, it is not just “well known from thermodynamics that G can be expressed as” which might only imply that the equation is an empirical observation. Yes, I am picky here, but the whole paper is about being picky about detail.

Eq. (7) top line – The reactants on the left side of the = are not *equal* to the products on the right side. Please use the chemical double arrow <=> (sorry for my inability to type the proper \rightleftharpoons).

In Eq. (7) the stoichiometric coefficients are called a-b-c-d whereas in eq. (14) they are called nu_k.

P.9 – “Mathematically, the Gibbs-Duhem equation can be intuitively proved from…”. Intuition cannot prove anything, it can only give inspiration for a proper rigorous mathematical proof.

Referee: 3

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)

I recognize that the authors have worked out the manuscript to try to improve their results. However, my criticisms were poorly addressed. In particular, I was not taking part on any side of the controversy. Rather, I was pointing out that stating that infinitesimal changes of a multivariate function are equivalent to a partial derivative of the function is misleading. In words of the Adjudicator, this is just mathematically illiterate. This statement was corrected in some parts of the manuscript (it appears several times), but still there are confusing sentences in this regard. Furthermore, if the central result of the paper is giving a new proof of a very well-known result, the Gibbs-Duhem equation, such a proof should be really appealing and well described to be worth of publication. Instead, the given proof is difficult to follow and contain an excessively large amount of equations. I do not say that it is wrong but that it needs for more elaboration. I maintain my opinion that in this work there is no genuine contribution to the development of the subject.

Referee: Editor in Chief

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS

The appeal was sent out again to all three referees (including the former adjudicator). As a result, two reports recommend to reject with quite detailed arguments whereas the third, arguing that he/she is not really an expert in the field, voted for further amendments.

For any paper submitted to EJP, we require more positive recommendations to proceed with a paper. As this is not the case here, and as this was already a submission after an appeal, the paper is finally rejected.

Letter reference: DSR01

2020年05月01日 00:08 (星期五) Submission to TPT completed successfully

Dear Yue Liu:

This email is to confirm that you have successfully completed your submission, titled

The Gibbs-Duhem Equation and its application

to The Physics Teacher.

Now that your submission is complete, we have disabled further access to it via the online

submission form. This means that neither you nor any other person can access it. Your

submission has been transferred to a ‘secure holding tank’

at The Physics Teacher.

Thus, the url we sent you in the first confirmation email will no longer work.

This is to protect your anonymity and ensure the confidentiality of your submission,

subject to the technical caveats that you agreed to at step 1 of the submission

(i.e. that it is impossible to offer a 100% guarantee of confidentiality).

The secure holding tank where your submission has been transferred is inspected

periodically by the staff at The Physics Teacher.

Once a staff member inspects it and verifies that your submission and associated files

are complete and readable, you should expect to receive another email confirmation

at this time.

Note that your manuscript ID number will be different from the submission ID number

your submission has been temporarily assigned, 3506, to uniquely identify it while it is

awaiting final inspection in the secure holding tank at The Physics Teacher.

If you have questions about your submission, please contact The Physics Teacher The Physics Teacher <tpt@appstate.edu>.

However please let a reasonable period of time elapse before making further inquiries

(say at least 10 days), since the staff of The Physics Teacher is not always able to

inspect the submission holding tank on a daily basis.

Sincerely,

The Physics Teacher The Physics Teacher <tpt@appstate.edu>

2020年05月05日 03:40 (星期二)Decision on your submission

Greetings, Professor Yue Liu:

We have now completed our review of your manuscript “The Gibbs-Duhem Equation and its application.” Unfortunately, this manuscript seems too far removed from the concerns of the introductory physics teacher and does not comport with the guidelines for TPT authors in other ways (see https://www.aapt.org/Publications/tptauthors.cfm), and thus I feel that I must reject this manuscript without sending it out for external review.

I wish that I had happier news regarding your manuscript, as I know from personal experience a little bit about how much effort and passion go into producing such a work. However, because of severe space constraints, we are only able to publish about one-third of the manuscripts that we receive; therefore, we must take care to select those that we feel will be most useful to our readership.

Although we are unable to publish your work, we do thank you for the opportunity to examine it and we thank you for your interest in our journal.

Sincerely,

Gary White

Editor

The Physics Teacher

2020年05月05日 06:48 (星期二) JOMC-D-20-00122 - Submission Confirmation

Dear Prof. Liu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript, The Gibbs-Duhem Equation and its application, to Journal of Mathematical Chemistry.

The submission id is: JOMC-D-20-00122

Please refer to this number in any future correspondence.

During the review process, you can keep track of the status of your manuscript in the journal’s website.

Your username is: yueliusd

If you forgot your password, you can click the ‘Send Login Details’ link on the EM Login page at https://www.editorialmanager.com/jomc/

Should you require any further assistance please feel free to e-mail the Editorial Office by clicking on “Contact Us” in the menu bar at the top of the screen.

With kind regards,

Springer Journals Editorial Office

Journal of Mathematical Chemistry

2021年08月09日 17:33 (星期一)Decision on your Manuscript #JOMC-D-20-00122 - [EMID:d04c67030acff730]

Dear Prof. Liu:

We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript, “The Gibbs-Duhem Equation and its application”.

With regret, I must inform you that, based on the advice received, your manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in Journal of Mathematical Chemistry.

Attached, please find the reviewer comments for your perusal.

I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Paul G Mezey

Journal of Mathematical Chemistry

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #1: This manuscript is focusing on the educational significance of properly representing a well-established field, perhaps J. Chem. Educ. would be a better journal for it.

Reviewer #2: The Gibbs Duhem equation is an old result (see the date of the original result and the references). It is important, but somehow it seems to be a wrong concept. Its correction already exists. This novel mathematical derivation is not really important because the result is already known. The derivation in some sense is obvious and it consist of too many steps. The article is too long.

2021年08月21日 03:00 (星期六) Author Approve Changes or submits updated ms by author - [EMID:6e9c9cb031eda291]

Dear Professor Liu,

Re: Natural mathematical derivation of the Gibbs-Duhem Equation

Thank you for approving the changes that the Editor made to your submission or updating your submission according to the requested changes.

You will be able to check on the progress of your paper by logging on to Editorial Manager as an author. The URL is https://www.editorialmanager.com/apya/.

Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.

Kind regards,

Editorial Office

Applied Physics A

2021年08月23日 15:24 (星期一) APYA: Your manuscript entitled Natural mathematical derivation of the Gibbs-Duhem Equation - [EMID:d31f02caa3d220c6]

Ref.: Ms. No. APYA-D-21-02241

Dear Dr. Liu,

As editor it is my responsibility to judge the suitability of a submission in relation to the scope of the journal as well as the novelty of a submission. Your manuscript unfortunately is not among the usual topics covered in Applied Physics A. I therefore suggest you submit your manuscript to a more topical journal. In such a journal you will reach the right audience and your paper will receive the attention it deserves.

I am indeed very sorry to tell you that your paper “Natural mathematical derivation of the Gibbs-Duhem Equation” unfortunately is not suitable for the journal Applied Physics A.

May I kindly suggest to submit it to another more appropriate journal.

Thank you for your kind understanding and for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

Yours sincerely

Emil J.W. List-Kratochvil

Senior Editor

Applied Physics A

2021年09月09日 09:18 (星期四) Your submission to Phys. Educ.: PED-102989

Dear Professor Liu,

Re: “Natural mathematical derivation of the Gibbs-Duhem Equation”

Article reference: PED-102989

Thank you for submitting your Paper, which will be considered for publication in Physics Education. The reference number for your article is PED-102989. Please quote this number in all future correspondence regarding this manuscript.

As the submitting author, you can follow the progress of your article by checking your Author Centre after logging in to https://mc04.manuscriptcentral.com/ped-iop Once you are signed in you will be able to track the progress of your article, read the referee reports and send us your electronic files.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of assistance to you.

Yours sincerely

On behalf of:

Physics Education

Editor-in-Chief: Gary Williams

iopscience.iop.org/journal/0031-9120 | ped@ioppublishing.org |@EducatePhysics

2021年09月13日 23:35 (星期一) Our decision on your article: PED-102989

Dear Professor Liu,

Re: “Natural mathematical derivation of the Gibbs-Duhem Equation”

Article reference: PED-102989

Thank you for your submission to Physics Education. Unfortunately the content of your Paper is not within the scope of the journal. Your manuscript has therefore been withdrawn from consideration.

Please note that Physics Education is a pedagogical journal that supports the teaching of physics to students aged 11 up to introductory undergraduate level. For more details, please see https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0031-9120/page/about-the-journal#aim.

We would like to thank you for your interest in Physics Education.

Yours sincerely

Jessica Thorn

On behalf of:

Physics Education

Editor-in-Chief: Gary Williams

iopscience.iop.org/journal/0031-9120 | ped@ioppublishing.org |@EducatePhysics

2021年10月30日 13:44 (星期六) Your Submission CHTX-D-21-00034 - [EMID:3b5d4b5eae817b96]

Dear Prof. Liu,

We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript CHTX-D-21-00034 “Natural mathematical derivation of the Gibbs-Duhem”.

With regret, I must inform you that, based on the advice received, I have decided that your manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in ChemTexts.

Below, please find the comments for your perusal. You are kindly requested to also check the website for possible reviewer attachment(s).

You will see that Reviewer 1 voices major concerns about the scientific validity of the sequence of thought presented in the paper. The reviewer also gave a very detailed explanation in manuscript comments as a separate document. I fully agree with the criticism of this reviewer. Therefore, I do not think this paper would serve the goals of the journal ChemTexts well.

I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration and wish you every success in finding an alternative place of publication.

With kind regards,

Gabor Lente, PhD, DSc

Topical Editor

ChemTexts

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #1:

Overall Recommendation: Reject

Please note that I have also attached a detailed review and an Annotated manuscript with more detailed explanations of problems than you can find here.

This manuscript contains a confusing treatment of a misunderstood misunderstanding. It also reflects basic failures in understanding both of elementary calculus and thermodynamics by the authors.

The title and abstract announce the derivation of the Gibbs-Duhem (G-D) equation, but the main thrust of the text is about a (misunderstood) problem of interpreting the quantity called (after de Donder) affinity, which is the negative partial derivative -(∂G/∂ξ)_(T,P,n_(j<R) ), where G is the Gibbs free energy, ξ is the reaction extent, T is temperature, P is pressure, nj is the amount of substance (mole number) of component i, and R is the number of reacting species.

There is no need to invoke the G-D equation to show this equivalence, as there is also no need to invoke any Legendre transform to derive the G-D equation - as it is explained below. Derivation of the G-D equation by a ‘novel, more natural, direct and intuitive method’ announced in the abstract and described in the Appendix is not novel (there are even old textbooks including it), nor more natural or direct. In fact, the G-D equation is simply based on the property of the function U(S, V, n) (and related energy-like functions as H, F or G) that it is a homogeneous first-order function of the extensive variables - as expressed by the Euler equation.

To conclude the review, I do not find the content of the manuscript interesting for a wide audience of students; it is rather confusing to a beginner as well as an advanced learner; thus it is not worth of publishing in the journal ChemTexts. No changes of the present text would make it worth of an eventual publication.

Reviewer #2:

Overall Recommendation: Major Revision

Whereas in this manuscript, some of the criticism of earlier related publications on the topic has foundations, nevertheless, I find the style of this manuscript too combative and somewhat unusual for a paper in ChemTexts, where, supposedly, the scientifically well-settled, but in University classes only insufficiently emphasized fields and results are the main focus. I suggest to tone down the criticism and place more emphasis on the well-established and well-accepted aspects. I recommend major revision.

There is additional documentation related to this decision letter. To access the file(s), please click the link below. You may also login to the system and click the ‘View Attachments’ link in the Action column.

https://www.editorialmanager.com/chtx/l.asp?i=5050&l=44VIXYIF

---

Message from Springer Nature, publisher of ChemTexts:

Although your manuscript was not suitable for ChemTexts,

Springer Nature is keen to help you find a suitable journal to publish your manuscript from our portfolio of over 2,600 journals.

One of our Submission Editorial Advisors will be in touch shortly to help you find the most relevant journal for your manuscript.

---

**Our flexible approach during the COVID-19 pandemic**

If you need more time at any stage of the peer-review process, please do let us know. While our systems will continue to remind you of the original timelines, we aim to be as flexible as possible during the current pandemic.

This letter contains confidential information, is for your own use, and should not be forwarded to third parties.

Recipients of this email are registered users within the Editorial Manager database for this journal. We will keep your information on file to use in the process of submitting, evaluating and publishing a manuscript. For more information on how we use your personal details please see our privacy policy at https://www.springernature.com/production-privacy-policy. If you no longer wish to receive messages from this journal or you have questions regarding database management, please contact the Publication Office at the link below.

2021年11月09日 05:30 (星期二) CMAT-D-21-00181 - Submission Confirmation

Dear Dr. Liu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript, Natural mathematical derivation of the Gibbs-Duhem, to Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics.

The submission id is: CMAT-D-21-00181

Please refer to this number in any future correspondence.

During the review process, you can keep track of the status of your manuscript by accessing the Editorial Manager web site:

Your username is: yueliusd

If you forgot your password, you can click the ‘Send Login Details’ link on the EM Login page at https://www.editorialmanager.com/cmat/

Should you require any further assistance please feel free to e-mail the Editorial Office by clicking on “Contact Us” in the menu bar at the top of the screen.

With kind regards,

Springer Journals Editorial Office

Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics

2021年12月26日 00:28 (星期日) CMAT-D-21-00181 - Our decision on your submission to Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics

Ms. No. CMAT-D-21-00181

Natural mathematical derivation of the Gibbs-Duhem

Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics

Dear Dr. Liu,

Reviewers’ comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they are advising against publication of your work. Therefore I must reject it.

The reviewers’ comments can be found at the end of this email or can be accessed online.

Your username is: yueliusd

If you forgot your password, you can click the ‘Send Login Details’ link on the EM Login page at https://www.editorialmanager.com/cmat/

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

Yours sincerely

Andreas Öchsner

Editor-in-Chief

Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #1: The manuscript is about a particular problem of physical chemistry, written in an educational style. The subject is a possible misunderstanding regarding the particular form of Gibbs-Duhem relation. The authors somehow disregard the simple mathematics of homogeneous functions. Therefore, the title is misleading, and the topic and presentation are confusing for anybody familiar with continuum non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The research is not without merit, but not for the readership of CMAT. I suggest rejection.

yueliusd’s Substack

Discussion about this post