Revisiting the Qeios Rejection of a Preprint on Wave Mechanics Theory for Microwave Absorption
The Illusion of Quality Control: How Peer Review Enables Mediocrity While Suppressing Innovation in Academic Publishing
Commentary on Qeios Rejection: Documenting the Systematic Suppression of Paradigm-Challenging Research
The Gamification of Academic Publishing: How Artificial Limits Stifle Innovation and Critical Discourse
The Academic Publishing Hierarchy: A Commentary on Qeios' Rejection and the Suppression of Non-Mainstream Scholarship
Revisiting the Qeios Rejection of a Preprint on Wave Mechanics Theory for Microwave Absorption
Yue Liu
College of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Shenyang Normal University, Shenyang, P. R. China,110034, yueliusd@163.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5924-9730
Abstract
Two rejection letters from Qeios declined to post a preprint challenging mainstream microwave-absorption mechanisms. The letters cite excessive self-citation, polemical tone, and inadequate empirical validation. We argue that (1) the submission was explicitly a preprint intended for open critique; (2) abundant self-citation is inevitable when a small group pioneers a nascent theory and should prompt evaluators to consult rather than discount the cited works; (3) the Wave Mechanics Theory (WMT) transforms extant experimental data into evidence against prevailing impedance-matching and microwave absorption mechanism; (4) scientific maturity hinges on explanatory power, not popularity; and (5) peer review cannot reliably filter flawed research, as reflected in Honjo’s “90% wrong” estimate for leading journals. By re-interrogating published datasets, we show that WMT predicts inverse trends in reflection-loss behaviour that contradict canonical interpretations yet align with observations. Suppressing such counter-evidence delays cumulative progress.
Keywords
Self-citation; minority theories; Qeios rejection; peer-review limitations; scientific gatekeeping; reflection loss; impedance matching
Introduction
The manuscript, rejected by Qeios was submitted as a preprint, explicitly to invite open commentary prior to journal peer review1. Preprint platforms, including Qeios, serve precisely this exploratory phase; demanding full consensus-grade polish (Supplementary Material 1) contradicts the purpose of preprint dissemination. The paper was finally posted on preprints.org2.
It is argued that “It is the unsaid rule in publication to systematically avoid criticizing established figures, journals, and misconducts committed by the majority. To ensure self-correcting rather than maintaining the academic silence that protects established paradigms, the scientific community must systematically document cases where criticism of established work faces resistance, as such documentation "is not good to make improvement" when it remains hidden. Creating public databases of editorial bias cases, reviewer misconduct, and institutional resistance to error correction would help the community learn from these problems3”. This paper documents the Qeios rejection comments.
Structure and contents
Functions of references and the legitimacy of self-citation.
Evidence that published data invalidate mainstream microwave-absorption models when analysed via WMT.
Logical fallacies in equating majority belief with theoretical maturity.
Why new experiments are not prerequisite when re-analysis suffices to refute incumbent models.
Structural weaknesses of conventional peer review in policing research quality.
Commentary on the Qeios editorial stance.
The Role of References and the Necessity of Self-Citation
1. Scholarly Lineage
Every reference anchors a claim within an existing knowledge network. Omitting citation scrutiny erases the lineage of ideas and obstructs replication. A reviewer who ignores cited work abdicates the evaluative duty Qeios professes to uphold.
2. Pioneer Literature and Small-Field Dynamics
WMT originates from a concentrated research cluster (Liu Y. & collaborators, Supplementary Material 2). In emerging subfields, self-citation density is mathematically inevitable. Dismissing such citations paradoxically penalises groundbreaking efforts precisely for being first.
3. Function-Specific Citations
Citations in the rejected preprint2 serve four discrete functions:
Conceptual provenance (earliest statement of WMT principles).
Methodological validation (derivations in Part 1 of the series4).
Empirical cross-checks (film vs material datasets).
Critical engagement (public responses to Hou et al. and DeepSeek outputs).
The editor’s blanket concern thus reflects a quantitative bias rather than a qualitative assessment.
Published Data that Falsify Mainstream Theories
Reflection-Loss Parameter Misapplication
Mainstream practice treats reflection loss (RL) as intrinsic to material. WMT shows RL applies exclusively to film configurations because material-only samples lack the necessary boundary interference term. This uncorrected mistake over a long time has led to the wrong impedance matching theory and the wrong absorption mechanism for film.
Majority Opinion vs Theoretical Maturity
Prevailing consensus reflects social dynamics, not epistemic certainty. Historical precedents—continental drift, heliocentrism—demonstrate that minority theories often mature prior to acceptance. Thus, editorial claims that WMT is “immature” because it “lacks majority support” invert the burden of proof. Evidence quality, not poll results, determines maturity.
Are New Experiments Required?
Defenders of the status quo argue, “The current understanding of microwave absorption mechanisms is based on a variety of factors, including the electrical conductivity, permittivity, and permeability of materials. However, if there are claims that the current absorption mechanism for microwave absorption is wrong, it could be due to new findings or advancements in materials science that challenge the established theories.” (Peeref forum quotation5). This misunderstands falsification logic: if existing data conflict with a theory once re-interpreted, the theory is already falsified. WMT achieves this by inverse-modelling published S-parameter data, exposing mathematically inconsistent premises in impedance-matching analyses.
Peer Review’s Limited Gatekeeping Capacity
Honjo’s assessment that 90% of top-journal claims are wrong6 within ten years underscores peer review’s fallibility. Bibliometric study estimates that 95% of trash papers passed at least two reviewers, revealing systemic weaknesses7. Hence, Qeios’ pre-publication “rigour gate” risks false negatives that suppress innovation without significantly improving literature reliability.
Importance of Disseminating Minority Evidence
Suppressing minority evidence impedes accumulation of anomalies necessary for paradigm shift. If WMT analyses remain unpublished, future researchers cannot weigh conflicting interpretations, and error correction stalls.
Conclusion
The preprint’s rejection by Qeios illustrates structural tensions between gatekeeping and innovation. By clarifying the indispensable role of self-citation, demonstrating that published data already disprove mainstream models under WMT, and highlighting peer-review’s intrinsic limitations, we reaffirm the scientific value of disseminating minority theories. We invite open, data-driven debate rather than editorial foreclosure.
References
(1) Cabbolet, M. J. T. F. To All Who Believe in Science as an Open Discussion of New Ideas: A Call for Reforms to Reverse the Politicization of Science. Journal of Academic Ethics 2025. DOI: 10.1007/s10805-025-09646-8.
(2) Liu, Y.; Drew, M. G. B.; Liu, Y. Theoretical insights manifested by wave mechanics theory of microwave absorption — Part 2: A perspective based on the responses from DeepSeek. Preprints.org 2025. DOI: 10.20944/preprints202503.0314.v3
(3) Liu, Y. Non-Mainstream Scientific Viewpoints in Microwave Absorption Research: Peer Review, Academic Integrity, and Cargo Cult Science. 2025. DOI: 10.20944/preprints202507.0015.v2
(4) Liu, Y.; Drew, M. G. B.; Liu, Y. Theoretical insights manifested by wave mechanics theory of microwave absorption—Part 1: A theoretical perspective. Preprints.org 2025. DOI: 10.20944/preprints202503.0314.v4.
(5) Liu, Y. The Accepted Theories Have Been Overturned. 2024. https://www.peeref.com/hubs/219.
(6) Honjo, T. https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.xhtml?fileId=5112613&version=1.1, English translation of the views of Nobel laureate Tasuku Honjo from a Chinese website. https://www.sohu.com/a/423577113_788170.
(7) Li, B. 95% of scientific research papers are rubbish if not wrong (No matter what kind of "academic waste", it is harmful and public hazard), in Chinese,. https://www.sohu.com/a/400765429_665896.
=====
Related preprint:
Yue Liu. Non-Mainstream Scientific Viewpoints in Microwave Absorption Research: Peer Review, Academic Integrity, and Cargo Cult Science, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202507.0015.v2, Supplementary Materials
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
Rethinking “Balanced View” in Scientific Controversies
Quick Decisions, Conventional Outcomes
Supplementary Materials
Revisiting the Qeios Rejection of a Preprint on Wave Mechanics Theory for Microwave Absorption
Yue Liu
College of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Shenyang Normal University, Shenyang, P. R. China,110034, yueliusd@163.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5924-9730
Overview
This paper responds to the two Qeios rejection letters concerning the preprint “Theoretical Insights Manifested by Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption—Part 2: A Perspective Based on the Responses from DeepSeek.” It clarifies why extensive self-citation is indispensable, rebuts the assertion that minority theories are necessarily immature, and demonstrates that published experimental data already undermine prevailing microwave-absorption models when re-examined through the new Wave Mechanics framework. If existing data, properly analysed, refute a theory, new experiments are not obligatory for falsification. The paper also critiques peer-review’s limitations, citing Nobel laureate Tasuku Honjo’s claim that 90% of top-journal ideas prove incorrect within a decade.
Posted preprint:
Yue Liu, Michael G.B. Drew, Ying Liu, Theoretical Insights Manifested by Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption—Part 2: A Perspective Based on the Responses from DeepSeek, Preprints.org, Preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202504.0447.v3, Supplementary Materials IVB.
Supplementary material 1: Documentation of the two reject letters from Qeios
2025年04月04日 23:07 (星期五)
Dear Yue,
thank you so much for submitting a new manuscript to Qeios!
Please note that we’re unable to proceed with posting the manuscript in its current form. This manuscript raises several important and thought-provoking critiques, but there are a few key issues we’d kindly like to highlight:
- The manuscript makes definitive claims about the correctness of a new theory and the complete invalidity of existing models without providing sufficient empirical validation recognized by the broader scientific community.
- A large portion of the citations reference works authored or co-authored by the submitting authors. While self-citation is, of course, acceptable, its heavy use here may be seen as limiting the theoretical foundation to one research group’s perspective.
- The writing frequently adopts an extremely polemical tone, at times characterizing mainstream research as “junk” or “wrong” without engaging constructively with the existing literature or acknowledging the possibility of co-existing or complementary approaches.
- Certain sections are difficult to follow due to complex sentence structures and heavy use of jargon, which could hinder clarity for a wider audience.
We completely understand the importance of challenging prevailing models and appreciate your efforts to push scientific understanding forward. That said, at Qeios we strive to facilitate open, constructive, and inclusive scholarly discourse. For that reason, as it currently stands, we’re unable to post the manuscript. We trust your kind patience and understanding in this regard, and we’d be happy to consider a revised version that addresses the issues described above :)
We hope this preliminary feedback is helpful, Yue! We’re always here for anything else you might need. In the meantime, we wish you a lovely weekend ahead,
Qeios Team
Qeios
9 Sydney Mews, SW3 6HW, London, UK
info@qeios.com
www.qeios.com
=============
2025年04月08日 22:27 (星期二)
Dear Yue,
thank you for resubmitting your manuscript to Qeios and for your thoughtful reply.
We’ve now had a chance to review the updated version, and we wanted to share some thoughts with you. While we sincerely appreciate your continued efforts, the concerns outlined in our previous message unfortunately still remain.
As we mentioned before, we very much welcome manuscripts that challenge the current scientific consensus – after all, much of what we now accept as established knowledge was once considered heretical. Our post-publication, Open Peer Review model is particularly well suited to encouraging open, forward-looking scientific dialogue of this kind.
That said, as an academic platform, we also have a responsibility to ensure that the content we post meets a basic level of scholarly rigor, and to be mindful of the time and effort of peer reviewers – whose expertise is both highly valuable and limited. For this reason, we can only post and send for review manuscripts that meet certain minimum standards in terms of structure, argumentation, and engagement with the literature.
Challenging established models plays an important role in scientific progress – and we absolutely encourage that. At the same time, when a manuscript is still in an early or informal stage, the most productive path forward is often to seek informal feedback and collaboration from other researchers. This can help refine the work, build a stronger foundation, and ensure it’s ready for meaningful engagement through peer review. Submitting very early-stage ideas into the peer review system too soon can risk straining the process, and ultimately isn’t the most effective route for advancing the work or benefiting the broader academic community.
In the case of your latest submission, we also wanted to gently note that some elements of tone and language still fall short of academic expectations. Strong claims – especially when expressed with inflammatory phrases – can easily come across as dismissive rather than constructive, and may hinder meaningful discussion rather than encourage it.
With all this in mind, we confirm that we won’t be able to proceed with posting or sending this version of your manuscript out for review. Of course, you’re more than welcome to share your work through other platforms or venues that you feel may be more suitable at this stage.
Even when perspectives differ, we deeply respect your views and your commitment to contributing to scientific discourse, Yue. We truly appreciate your continued engagement with Qeios, and we wish you all the very best with your manuscript and future work!
Warmest regards,
Qeios Team
Qeios
9 Sydney Mews, SW3 6HW, London, UK
info@qeios.com
www.qeios.com
Supplementary material 2: The papers published on the new wave mechanics theory
1. Yue Liu, Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew Review: Recognizing problems in publications concerned with microwave absorption film and providing corrections A focused review, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2025, 64(7), 3635–3650, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.4c04544 ; Recognizing Problems in Publications Concerned with Microwave Absorption Film and Providing Corrections: A Focused Review, Qeios, preprin, 2024-07-01, Supplementary data, Yue Liu, Ying Liu, Drew MGB, [Commentary] Comments on: “A perspective on impedance matching and resonance absorption mechanism for electromagnetic wave absorbing” by Hou et al. [Carbon 222 (2024) 118935], Qeios, 2024, Supplementary Yue Liu, Ying Liu, Drew MGB, Corrections of common errors in current theories of microwave absorption caused by confusing film and material, Qeios, 2024/02/10, preprint, https://doi.org/10.32388/QQ1MFF; Corrections of Common Errors Associated with the Confusion between Film and Material in Current Theories of Microwave Absorption. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4797207 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4797207
2. Yue Liu, Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Review: 膜微波吸收研究在波动力学理论方向的新进展, 分子科学学报(英文版, Journal of Molecular Science), 2024, 40(198-04), 300 -305; Review of Wave Mechanics Theory for Microwave Absorption by Film, Qeios, Preprint, 2024-07-04, Supplementary data
3. 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, 15 Aug, 2023, scite）
4. 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 ; ( The wave mechanics for microwave absorption film – Part 2: The difference between film and material，Preprint, Research Square, 15 Aug, 2023, Supplementarial file)
5. Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew，Wave Mechanics of Microwave Absorption in Films: Multilayered Films, Journal of Electronic Materials, 2024, 53, 8154–8170, doi: 10.1007/s11664-024-11370-9; The wave mechanics for microwave absorption film-Part 3: Film with multilayers, Preprint, Research Square, 13 Aug, 2023,Supplementarial file, scite_
6. Yue Liu. Non-Mainstream Scientific Viewpoints in Microwave Absorption Research: Peer Review, Academic Integrity, and Cargo Cult Science, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202507.0015.v2, Supplementary Materials
7. 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.v4, supplementary.docx (919.54KB ).
8. Yue Liu, Michael G.B. Drew, Ying Liu, Theoretical Insights Manifested by Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption—Part 2: A Perspective Based on the Responses from DeepSeek, Preprints.org, Preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202504.0447.v3, Supplementary Materials IVB.
9. 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
10. Ying Liu, Michael. G.B. Drew, Yue Liu, Chapter 4: Fundamental Theory of Microwave Absorption for 10lms of Porous Nanocomposites: Role of Interfaces in Composite-Fillers, in Porous Nanocomposites for Electromagnetic Interference Shielding, Edited by: Sabu Thomas, Claudio Paoloni, Avinash R. Pai, 2024, Elsevier, [978-0-323-90035-5_B978-0-323-90035-5.00013-1], pp. 59 - 90, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-90035-5.00013-1
11 刘颖， 刘跃，膜的微波吸收机理， 分子科学学报， 2023，v.39; No.194(06) 521-527
12 Ying Liu, Kaiqi Yang, Yue Liu, Michael G. B Drew, The Shackles of Peer Review: Unveiling the Flaws in the Ivory Tower, arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.05966
13 Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, A physics investigation on impedance matching theory in microwave absorption film—Part 1: Theory, Journal of Applied Physics, 2023, 134(4), 045303, DOI: 10.1063/5.0153608
14 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
15 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. (Microwave absorption of film explained accurately by wave cancellation theory, 2023-02-23 | Preprint, Research Square, DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2616469/v2，Supplementary information: Available comments and our responses.)
16 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
17 Ying Liu, Yi Ding, Yue Liu, Michael G. B. Drew. Unexpected Results in Microwave Absorption – Part 2:. Angular effects and the wave cancellation theory, Surfaces and Interfaces, 2023, 40, 103024
18 Ying Liu, Xiangbin Yin, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, Reflection Loss is a Parameter for Film, not Material, Non-Metallic Material Science, 2023, 5(1): 38-48.
19 刘颖，丁一，陈庆阳，刘跃，NiFe2-xMxO4 (M: Ce/Sm/Gd)的制备及其膜的微波吸收性能，沈阳师范大学学报 ( 自然科学版 ), 2023, 41(2)，98 - 103
20 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.
21 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.
22 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.
23 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.
24 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)
25 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.
26 Liu Y, Drew MGB, Li H, Liu Y. An experimental and theoretical investigation into methods concerned with “reflection loss” for microwave absorbing materials. Materials Chemistry and Physics 2020 , 243 : 122624.
27 Liu Y, Lin Y, Zhao K, Drew MGB, Liu Y. Microwave absorption properties of Ag/NiFe2-xCexO4 characterized by an alternative procedure rather than the main stream method using “reflection loss”. Materials Chemistry and Physics 2020 , 243 : 122615
28 赵坤 , 林雨冉 , 刘颖 . 微波吸收复合材料 Ag/NiFe2-xCexO4 的制备与表征. 功能材料 2020 , 51(03) : 03171 - 03175.
29 Liu Y, Drew MGB, Liu Y. Characterization microwave absorption from active carbon/BaSmxFe12−xO19/polypyrrole composites analyzed with a more rigorous method. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics 2019, 30(2) : 1936-1956.
30 Yang K, Liu Y, Drew MGB, Liu Y. Preparation and characterization of BaSmxFe12 − xO19/polypyrrole composites. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics 2018 , 29(15) : 13148-13160, Electronic supplementary material.
31 Liu Y, Zhao K, Drew MGB, Liu Y. A theoretical and practical clarification on the calculation of reflection loss for microwave absorbing materials. AIP Advances 2018 , 8(1) : 015223.
32 Liu Y, Yu H, Drew MGB, Liu Y. A systemized parameter set applicable to microwave absorption for ferrite based materials. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics 2018, 29(2) : 1562-1575,Supplementary material.
33 Liu Y, Tai R, Drew MGB, Liu Y. Several Theoretical Perspectives of Ferrite-Based Materials—Part 1: Transmission Line Theory and Microwave Absorption. Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 2017 , 30(9) : 2489-2504.
34 Liu Y, Jin J, B. Drew MG, Liu Y. Several Theoretical Perspectives of Ferrite-Based Materials—Part 2: Close Packing Model for Crystal Structure. Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 2017, 30(10) : 2777-2789.
35 Liu Y, Liu Y, Yin H, Drew MGB. Several Theoretical Perspectives of Ferrite-Based Materials-Part 3: Crystal Structure and Synthesis. Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 2017 , 30(11) : 3019-3025.