在中科院分区里，AJP只是个三区杂志。但是在博主心目中，它的地位好比五岳之外的黄山。在AJP 发表文章是我十多年的梦想。

不幸的是，之前投AJP的文章 Fermi's golden rule: its derivation and breakdown by an ideal model，又被拒（审稿77天）。

1604.06916v1.pdf

下面是审稿意见和编辑意见。三个审稿人，一正，一负，一中。编辑自己读了下稿子，拒稿。跟上次投稿（曾经的AJP审稿意见）的情况比较类似。AJP不接受作者回信反驳，拒了就拒了。

个人反对那个“反对”的审稿的诸多意见。首先，这个模型不是“我”的模型，是stey和gibberd的模型。在博主眼里是paradigm的模型，被他说成cumbersome。不知道如果是公开审稿，他是否敢这么说。其次，schiff的量子力学我当然看过，但是他对费米黄金规则的处理也没比别人强多少。再次，我文章的要点并非仅仅是指出费米黄金规则的线性行为不能持续，这点很多教程都已经指出了。其他审稿人能够看到，为什么他就看不到。

第三个审稿人认为，文章不够pedagogical，这个我赞同。这也是刘全慧老师之前的意见。

很明显，三个审稿人都来自英语国家，英语很地道。

再次验证一个教训：to be pedagogical is too difficult！

Dear Prof. Jiang Min Zhang,

Attached you will find copies of the reviewers' reports on your manuscript "Fermi's golden rule: its derivation and breakdown by an ideal model," our manuscript #28709.  

As you can see, the reviews are quite mixed:  one in favor of publication, one against, and one "ambivalent".  Faced with this lack of consensus, I have read the manuscript myself and I regret to conclude that although it may be suitable for publication elsewhere, it is too narrowly technical and cumbersome to be useful to most AJP readers.

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 reviewers for further consideration.  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,

Daniel V. Schroeder

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

相关专题：投稿与审稿
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自张江敏科学网博客。
链接地址：https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-100379-990342.html

上一篇：瑕疵之美---放射性元素的半衰期之问
下一篇：一千个审稿人有一千个不同的意见