I have had an amusing experience with the Physical Review. My paper was not suitable for its "highly mathematical focus". The editor has admitted that my paper reported on serious scholarly work---but it was unacceptable. This rejection letter has always been a source of inspiration for me and of course ,to some lesser extent, a matter of concern.The letter came in a short while after I informed PRA that I was Mr Palit and they had inadvertently addressed me as Dr Palit. The rejection letter came on March 30th, 2009. Re: AC10636 Spinors and their transformation by Anamitra Palit Dr. Anamitra Palit P-154 Motijheel Ave. Motijheel Housing Coopearative Society FLAT-C4 Kolkata 700074, INDIA Dear Dr. Palit, We regret to inform you that the above manuscript appears to be unsuitable for publication in Physical Review because of its highly mathematical focus. Our current acceptance criteria favor consideration of only those studies that offer clear evidence for important new advances in physics. Papers devoted to the development of formalism, rather than to specific physical problems, are not out of bound, in principle. However, they should prove convincingly that the techniques can be used to solve physics problems more effectively than the existing methods, or to allow a deeper understanding of specific research issues of current interest to our readers. Our judgment is that your manuscript reports on serious, scholarly work, but that the available results do not fulfill this acceptance requirement. We suggest that you submit your paper to a journal with a greater focus on issues of mathematical physics. Yours sincerely, Gordon W.F. Drake Editor Physical Review A Email: pra@ridge.aps.org Fax: 631-591-4141 http://pra.aps.org/ Physics - spotlighting exceptional research: http://physics.aps.org/
Their point appears to be valid. Of course if they're not consistent in applying this standard, then you'd have a valid complaint. Find another journal that's more interested in math-intensive papers.
There was a farmer who had a dog, And Bingo was his name-o. B-I-N-G-O B-I-N-G-O B-I-N-G-O And Bingo was his name-o.
I also tried to publish one theory with the journal Physical Review. They did not publish my theory but addressed me as 'Dr' in their communications, though I am not a PhD. I am really surprised for being addressed as 'Dr'. This is also inspiring to me.
Most of their submissions are by people who hold or will eventually hold PhDs, and they have to respond to a lot of submissions, so I imagine they just call everyone "Dr." instead of personally tailoring every response. I get that too, whenever I submit something for a journal or conference (and once by a researcher emailing me about a paper I'd put on arXiv), despite the fact I shouldn't actually obtain a PhD for another two years or so. So it doesn't really mean anything.
My theory is not published in the journal Physical Review. Perhaps formatting of my paper was not proper or may be my explanation was not very clear. Does it mean that, my theory is wrong?
No, it doesn't. I have absolutely no idea what your theory actually is, but here is something; If your desire is to promote a new idea and have it considered, you need to promote it within the boundaries of what is currently deemed acceptable. Language. Presentation. Evidence. All conducted within the boundaries of those who control the prevailing opinion. Hey, look on the bright side. After you die, people may being to pay more attention. It isn't as if it hasn't happened before.
My Theory which I tried to publish with the journal Physical Review is, "Every action has got an unique technique.".
So, perhaps my theory is right. I posted my theory in the previous post #9. I developed a mathematical proof for this theory. I think this theory is a new idea. Isn't it? Future is really unpredictable, perhaps it follows uncertainty principle.
On it's own, no. You can get rejected by a journal even if your work is correct if it's not judged to be original or interesting enough, or (as someone alluded to earlier) if it falls out of the scope of the journal you submitted to. It is also possible just to get unlucky with grouchy or impatient referees. That said, submitting work to the wrong journal doesn't make a good first impression. The reason is that physics is pursued as a social activity which works something like a dialogue between researchers. Journals have target audiences which may be restricted to part of the physics community or all of it, and it's your job to make sure that what you are submitting is going to be worth the attention of that target audience. Submitting in the wrong place makes you look like you haven't done your homework at best, and makes you come off as someone who just wants to talk but not listen at worst. I don't know if this necessarily means much, but unless you submitted your work decades ago I find it odd that you're talking about publishing in "Physical Review" when nowadays there are really five journals in the Physical Review series published by APS with different specialisations (Physical Review A thru E), as well as Physical Review Letters (meant for higher impact work). APS also gives fairly detailed information on the format they expect for submissions (see the guidelines on file format and the style guide). If you're familiar with what they expect there's no reason you should have a problem in that regard (if you use REVTeX or LaTeX a lot of the more tedious formatting details are automatically taken care of for you). Er, all you posted was From a physicist's perspective that isn't the statement of a theory. The problem is that you don't define anything - what you mean by "action", what you mean by "technique", what it means for an "action" to "have" a "technique", and more importantly, why anyone should care or take notice and what impact it's supposed to have on contemporary physics research. It doesn't help that "action" is a term that already means something specific in the context of the Lagrange formalism, which is probably not what you mean. I have no idea what a "technique" is in physics.
Maybe something was not right. After a long research, i developed this theory. I was not knowing, what to do next. This research i was doing on my own. I consulted one Professor of Physics about this theory. He advised me not to discuss much about this theory with others but to submit the theory in a Physics journal. He gave me the reference of Physical Review A. I submitted my theory in the journal Physical Review A but it was reviewed by Physical Review E. Newton's third Law of Motion is also a one line statement. I thought my theory can be considered as Fourth Law of Motion. To prove my theory i considered, a force is required for an action. I assumed there are 'n' number of forces responsible for the action and the action has a time duration T. With these assumptions i proved my theory. Technique can be considered as about 'how the action is being performed'. It is the variation of all the variables affecting the action over a period of time. Action can be considered as any movement of mass or particle over a period of time. As far as application is concerned, every Theory or Law defines a specific technique of action under certain conditions. So, my theory can generalise all the theories.
Initially I thought, perhaps my theory can be considered as Fourth Law of Motion. Nowadays Physicists are trying to develope a theory, 'which can explain everything' or 'The Theory of Everything'. I think my theory also satisfies this condition to some extent. Or, simply my theory can be known as my theory or Hansda's Theory. Lagrange made specific definition of 'action'. I considered general definition of 'action'. I also considered general definition for the term 'technique'. In wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technique 'technique' is defined as:
After developing this theory, subsequently i made one invention and developed another theory. So, perhaps this theory can help develop new theories or inventions.
Big-bang, HIGGS mechanism, SR, GR, Newton's Laws of motion, every theory or Law of Physics/Science discovered so far or to be discovered, defines a specific 'technique of action'. So, I think my theory should be considered as one of the theories for 'Theory of Everything'.
If a question can be asked as to, 'why Newton and Einstein only could develop their respective Laws and Theories'; what will be the answer? My Theory can explain this answer.
