True, but if you know how the editors usually act, you can deduce a lot about what they think of your paper based on how they reject it. I've published in PRA, and I can tell you that rejection without refereeing or specific qualification is practically unheard of. If it's clearly the wrong journal or you have major formatting issues, the editor might reject it without refereeing, but he/she will tell you exactly why your paper is wrong for PRA at first glance. Otherwise, the standard practice is to send it on to the referees, then include any necessary formatting changes with the referees' responses to be included in a second draft. If the editor rejected your paper for something as vague as "explanation", that means he/she thinks it doesn't meet the basic requirements for publishable science. Sorry. Research doesn't work like that. There are no "copyrights" for scientific theories. If a dispute arises over who gets credit for an idea, it's usually resolved through research by academic integrity boards, and an existing forum post would only help you in such a context. Worst case scenario: if someone else actually tries to publish your idea, I give you my word that I will use my academic connections to make sure you get the credit you deserve. Now please show us the math. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!