本来觉得自己的文章有那么点小发现，之前很多同事也都认为非常有趣，可是被一个愚蠢的审稿人以愚弄编辑的手段给拒了。再次体会到一点，跟风比原创阻力小得多。

下面是审稿意见：

====================

In this article, the authors "re-derive" first-order Fermi's Golden
Rule with resonances. While they even comment very briefly on the
fact, that there are cases where "the non-smoothness effect has been
ob- served previously in the model of a single two-level atom
interacting with a one-dimensional optical cavity," they take the
smooth case (i.e., no resonances) as the default and try to sell the
case where the transition probability between two levels is not very
smooth with a change of energy. I think this has been done in various
forms thousands of times, and does not need a new paper.
In the case that I missed something really important, I am of course
willing to take this into account. But in this case it has to be made
really clear, already in abstract and introduction why this paper
needs to be published. Some calculations involving Fourier transforms
of functions involving the sinc function are definitely not
sufficient.
I would not recommend this article for publication.

=======================

文章在此  http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.4280 

不明白审稿人是没看懂文章还是故意装傻，利用编辑不可能认真看文章这一点，胡说一通。我觉得我们的文章的价值在于澄清了费米黄金规则（fermi golden rule）推导里的一个问题，一个不自洽的地方。