基于前期的工作[1-2]，笔者最近发现一个描述Cooper电子对的相对论方程，方程的解与实验测量值高精度吻合。不仅如此，方程还给出许多新的预言，它们能够被一一进行检验。一开始，笔者考虑将所有结果写成一篇论文进行投稿。但是后来考虑到这是一个全新的方程，国际同行间竞争激烈，一下子全盘托出的话，过早的暴露了自己的目的，可能并不是一件好事。为了想办法取得方程的优先权，笔者将一篇论文分拆成两篇文章[3]和[4]，以降低发表的风险。论文[3]的优点是精简易懂，一旦发表就取得方程的优先权，缺点是很多细节和新结果无法详细展开，行文较为隐晦。论文[4]是论文[3]的详细展开，优点是主要的新结果和理论预言都详细介绍到，缺点是数学繁复，细枝末节太多。

接下来笔者先后将两篇论文投出去，其中论文[4]引用了论文[3]。论文[3]历经几个期刊，很快发表在实验超导的主流期刊Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism。另外，作为致敬物理学家狄拉克，笔者将论文[4]投稿到数学物理的顶刊《英国皇家学会会刊A》。为什么投这个期刊呢？因为笔者发现的是Cooper电子对的相对论方程，而狄拉克关于单电子的相对论方程正是于1928年发表在此期刊。如果论文[4]能够发表在《英国皇家学会会刊A》肯定是美事一桩。当然投稿到这个期刊的另一个原因是，笔者听说英国皇家学会里卧虎藏龙，抱着切磋的心态，想让里面的顶尖同行为自己的方程挑刺。

最终，担心的事情还是发生了。因为论文[3]与[4]有部分内容重合，导致论文[4]“原创性”不足，从而被《英国皇家学会会刊A》拒稿。拒稿信附在博文最后。

从审稿报告来看，审稿人2非常认可笔者的工作，只是建议了很小的修改。而审稿人1没有给出任何意见，反而是单独向编辑打了一个小报告：投稿论文[4]与已发表论文[3]部分重合，所以不符合原创性要求。

想到如果不将论文分拆成两篇论文，而是直接以一篇完整论文投稿到《英国皇家学会会刊A》，可能现在就录用了，心里会有点遗憾。但是，笔者却不觉得后悔。

为什么呢？

因为论文[3]已经发表在主流物理杂志，这意味着笔者已经是这个方程的第一发现人。相比之下，论文[4]的发表只是一个时间问题，就算最后发不了顶刊，发表在主流物理期刊也不错。而有了这个原创方程，笔者相信顶刊一定不会太远了。

俗话说，鱼与熊掌不可兼得。为了优先权而失去发表顶刊的机会也不失为一种不错的选择。

在笔者发现Cooper电子对的相对论方程之后，对物理学界有了一个很大的改观。现在想来，以前投稿“量子本性”的论文遭遇同行冷遇，总是不能在主流物理杂志发表，还是理论“不接地气”——没有实验的高度支持。现在Cooper电子对的相对论方程完全是另外一番景象，由于理论与实验高精度吻合，各个期刊的审稿人总是不吝惜溢美之词，就算是被编辑拒稿，也不会觉得有什么。做了这么多年的科研，直到现在笔者才终于体会到了来自物理学界同行们的善意，这种感觉真好！感谢你们的善意！

其实物理学界大多数同行对于一些新的理论还是开明的，只要你的理论具有良好的文献传承，并且与实验符合得足够好。

参考文献：

[1]. Y. Tao, Scaling Laws for Thin Films near the Superconducting-to-Insulating Transition. Scientific Reports 6 (2016) 23863

[2]. Y. Tao, BCS quantum critical phenomena. Europhysics Letters 118 (2017) 57007

[3]. Y. Tao, Parabolic Scaling in Overdoped Cuprate Films. Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10948-019-05179-5

[4]. Y. Tao, The two-class scaling in overdoped cuprate films.

《英国皇家学会会刊A》拒稿信：

Dear Dr Tao:

 I am writing to inform you that we have now obtained responses from referees on manuscript entitled "The two-class scaling in overdoped cuprate films" which you submitted to the Proceedings A.

 Unfortunately, your manuscript has been rejected by the Editor following full peer review. Referee 1 has said that large portions of text are taken directly from your previous paper reference 22 and therefore the paper does not meet our requirements for originality. Because of this they have not given a critical evaluation of the whole paper but did mention that the theoretical analyses lack context and there is no examination of the experimental literature beyond one paper. Competition for space in Proceedings A is currently very severe, as many more manuscripts are submitted to us than we have space to print. We are therefore only able to publish those that are exceptional and present significant advances of broad interest, and must reject many good manuscripts.

 Please find below the comments received from referees concerning your manuscript, not including confidential reports to the Editor. I hope you may find these useful should you wish to submit your manuscript elsewhere.

 We are sorry that your manuscript has had an unfavourable outcome, but would like to thank you for offering your work to Proceedings A.

 Yours sincerely

 Raminder Shergill

两位审稿人意见:

Referee: 1

Comments to the Author(s)

n/a

Referee: 2

Comments to the Author(s)

The unexplained normal state and superconducting (SC) properties of the cuprates are still a major unsolved problem in condensed matter physics. These properties are believed to originate from the doping an antiferromagnetic Mott insulator and from the fluctuations of a quantum phase transition of unknown origin within the doping range of the SC (the so-called SC dome region). The cuprates above the maximum Tc doping, and beyond the SC dome, are believed to be conventional Fermi liquid metals. However, recently an unexplained loss of superfluid density was found [Nature 536, 309 (2016)] and the physics of the over doped cuprates has become more controversial and of much greater interest.

In the present manuscript, Author has propose quantum partition function, which yields parabolic scaling for highly overdoped side of dome and these result is tested in the experimental finding of LSCO (Nature 536, 309-311(2016). The work is presented well in the manuscript.

 Here are few minor comments

Comments#1: The linear scaling of Tc with superfluid density is well known behavior, which is verified by both experiments and theory. I suggest “parabolic scaling in overdoped cuprate” would be a better title.

Comments# 2:  I suggest two separate fitting (linear fitting and parabolic fitting with two different colors (avoid yellow color and use thin line for the fitting) of the data presented in the Fig. 1.  It would be better to show the parabolic fitting in separate panel for Tc below 15 K.

Comments# 3: References 20 missing correct arXiv number and the year.