博文
非常不专业的审稿意见：拒稿不是针对稿件的主要论证，而是根据前言背景拒稿
||
Recognizing Problems in Publications Concerned with Microwave Absorption Film
and Providing Corrections: A Focused Review - Article (Preprint v2) by Yue Liu et al. | Qeios
https://doi.org/10.32388/9P8Q56.2
没有什么耻辱，不专业的拒稿是常态，在预料之中。
耻辱的是相关审稿人和学术游戏规则。
一方面，颠覆错误的现行理论的文章很难发表，另一方面顶刊发表文章的（低级）错误从来不被发现
实践反复证明：期刊同行评审很难发现文章中的低级错误，但是能高效阻止新思想的传播（给出最新实例）
期刊同行评审:发现稿件错误很低效，不让颠覆性创新正确稿件发表效率很高
================
Main contents （文章内容：纠正基本物理错误）:
The main contents are to correct the physics errors common in publications in the field of microwave absorption. 也就是从一个新的角度支持以前发表过的结论：从纠正低级物理错误的角度支持我们以前发表过的观点。
专业的拒稿意见应该是：（1）纠错就错了，人家期刊文章是正确的；（2）或者期刊错误与以前结论不存在逻辑论证关系，纠错论证不对。做不到这两点，审稿人就没有理由拒稿。
Significance（纠错的意义）:
(1) Since these errors has not corrected in time, more serious problems occur, such as the establishment of the wrong microwave absorption mechanism, the wrong impedance matching theory, and the wrong quarter-wavelength theory.因为这些低级错误没有及时纠正，建立更加错误微波吸收机理、阻抗匹配理论、四分之一波长理论等。
(2) Because the wrong concepted established from these errors, material scientists cannot understand the correct wave mechanics theory and continue the practice of the wrong theories without mentioning the newly emerged correct theory.因为这些错误建立的错误概念，材料科学家理解不了正确的信理论，继续错误理论的实践，仍然大量错误文章而不提反对观点。
专业的拒稿意见应该是：这些错误都是鸡毛蒜皮的小问题。审稿人说明不了这一点，就没有理由拒稿。
Problems in current system of publication（当今出版界存在的问题）：
(1) Quite a number of comments from the reviewers are not professional since they are usually not on the main arguments of the manuscript but focused on issues provided as background information that has already been addressed in previous published papers.（不专业的拒稿意见）
(2) The science community has a serious problem of dislike questioning published error.（不许质疑）
“The writing flow of the manuscript should be more polite and professional.” 审稿人的评语非常不专业。专业的审稿意见应该指出稿件中那些部分或语言不专业不礼貌。不是指出期刊文章的错误就是不专业不礼貌！
https://doi.org/10.32388/5FRZHG
“Last month, I got a private Twitter message from a postdoc bruised by the clash between science as it is and how it should be. He had published a commentary in which he pointed out errors in a famous researcher’s paper. The critique was accurate, important and measured — a service to his field. But it caused him problems: his adviser told him that publishing the criticism had crossed a line, and he should never do it again.
Scientists are very quick to say that science is self-correcting, but those who do the work behind this correction often get accused of damaging their field, or worse. My impression is that many error detectors are early-career researchers who stumble on mistakes made by eminent scientists, and naively think that they are helping by pointing out those problems — but, after doing so, are treated badly by the community.
Stories of scientists showing unwarranted hostility to error detectors are all too common …
Researchers are often warned against pointing out errors — and sometimes kindness is used as justification. They are told to focus on improving their own research, or to state only the positive aspects of that done by others. If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.
There are several problems with these arguments. First, we scientists present ourselves as a community of individuals committed to scrutinizing each other. Historian of science Naomi Oreskes, in urging non-scientists to trust science, argues that “scientists have a kind of culture of collective distrust”. We cannot tell people to trust us because we monitor each other, and then appeal to kindness to halt that scrutiny.”
Vazire, S., 2020. A toast to the error detectors. Nature. 577, 9.
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03909-2
一方面，颠覆错误的现行理论的文章很难发表，另一方面顶刊发表文章的（低级）错误从来不被发现
---------------
Appendix 1 Reposes to comments of NEXRES-D-24-00042R1
Appendix 2 Reposes to comments of NEXRES-D-24-00042
==============================================
Appendix 1 Reposes to comments of NEXRES-D-24-00042R1
Sent: 26 August 2024 08:10
Subject: Decision on submission to Next Research
Manuscript Number: NEXRES-D-24-00042R1
Recognizing problems in publications concerned with microwave absorption film and providing corrections – A focused review
Dear Prof. Liu,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Next Research.
I regret to inform you that the reviewers recommend against publishing your manuscript, and I must therefore reject it. My comments, and any reviewer comments, are below.
…
Scientific Handling Editor
Next Research
Editor and Reviewer comments:
Reviewer 1: All comments are addressed well.
Reviewer 3: In many previous studies, some researchers indeed attributed microwave absorption to absorbers rather than the corresponding composites consisting of absorbers and polymer substrates wrongly. This may be due to the complexity of the expression, because all researchers know EM parameters cannot be tested in the state of powder directly, and they also know the content of absorber in polymer substrate will affect EM parameters greatly. However, the authors have published too many papers in the same problem to make so-called corrections, and I do not think it is necessary to highlight this problem repeatedly in different journals. In addition, there were too many self-citations, and the authors always supported their viewpoints by their own papers. This does not meet the scientific criteria of a review.（非常不专业的拒稿意见）
Responses
Comments from reviewer 3:
In many previous studies, some researchers indeed attributed microwave absorption to absorbers rather than the corresponding composites consisting of absorbers and polymer substrates wrongly.
Our responses:
Material and film are completely different things and almost all the researchers have confused these two entities. Whether pure substance, mixture, or composite are materials. Film is a simple device composed of material and characterized by the parallel front and ending interfaces. The interfaces between particles within material cannot function the same as the two interfaces of the film. Material with interfaces between particles still behaving as a single phased material with average values of er and mr. For more details, please see:
Liu Y, Zhao K, Drew MGB, Liu Y. A theoretical and practical clarification on the calculation of reflection loss for microwave absorbing materials. AIP Advances 2018, 8(1) : 015223.
无论纯物质、混合物、还是复合物都是材料，膜优材料组成的器件，其特点是由前后两个平行的界面。材料颗粒之间的界面不应该与膜的界面相混淆。均匀的颗粒材料仍然是单相。一块材料的性质可以不是材料本身的性质，因为一块材料可以有前后两个界面，因而一块材料的性质可以不是材料的性质。这些在已经发表的文章中早就讲明白了，审稿人应该阅读参考文献给出的文章。
-------------
似曾相似的审稿意见，见：
科学网—写过一些评述微波吸收错误文章的稿子，基本都被期刊拒绝发表 - 刘跃的博文 (sciencenet.cn)
Paper 1
Perspective
Emerging Materials and Designs for Low- and Multi-Band Electromagnetic Wave Absorbers: The Search for Dielectric and Magnetic Synergy?
Junye Cheng, Huibin Zhang, Mingqiang Ning, Hassan Raza, Deqing Zhang, Guangping Zheng, Qingbin Zheng, Renchao Che
Laboratory of Advanced Materials Shanghai Key Lab of Molecular Catalysis and Innovative Materials, Department of Materials Science,Fudan University, Shanghai, 200438 China
Emerging Materials and Designs .pdf
Emerging Materials and Designs .pdf
纠错文章：
Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, A physics investigation on impedance matching theory in microwave absorption film—Part 2: Problem Analyses, Journal of Applied Physics, 2023, 134(4), 045304
Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew. Review：Wave mechanics of microwave absorption in films: a short review, Optics and Laser Technology, 2024, 178, 111211
-------------------
Comments from reviewer 3:
This may be due to the complexity of the expression, because all researchers know EM parameters cannot be tested in the state of powder directly, and they also know the content of absorber in polymer substrate will affect EM parameters greatly.
Our responses:
The reviewer has used the wrong view to reject the correct view. The real reason is that material and film are confused which is related to the confusion between Zin and ZM that is the main concerns of this manuscript.
Indeed, in the measurement of er and mr, material is often mixed with wax. The reason for this is that it is supposed that wax does not absorb microwaves and the mixture of material and wax is an ideal solid solution, which is unrelated to the argument of the reviewer.
审稿人用错误的观点拒稿正确的观点。
实验测量的底层逻辑是石蜡与材料混合得到理想共熔体，石蜡的存在不会对测量造成太大影响。
另外
不同高分子混合物和不同复合物有不同性质，
与
材料和膜的微波吸收机理不同，
两者不是一回事。
名校的大V认知怎么如此弱智听不懂常识？
上海交通大学杨枫教授：如果学术界是个草台班子，那就一定有草包（即使他有杰青的帽子、即使他是是名牌高校的知名教授）
越有头衔可能越是草包。
之所以编辑采纳明显错误的审稿意见、拒绝真正专业的审稿意见，
原来持错误审稿意见的是更大的大V。
Comments from reviewer 3:
However, the authors have published too many papers in the same problem to make so-called corrections, and I do not think it is necessary to highlight this problem repeatedly in different journals.
Our responses:
Overturning accepted theory is a huge project and it cannot be accomplished with a single paper. Even though our previous papers concern the same subject, each of our published paper has focused on a completely different perspective. For more details, please see:
Liu Y, Liu Y, Drew MGB. A theoretical investigation of the quarter-wavelength model — part 2: verification and extension. Physica Scripta 2022, 97(1) : 015806.
Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew，Wave Mechanics of Microwave Absorption in Films - Distinguishing Film from Material，Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials，2024， 593, 171850
Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew. Review: Wave mechanics of microwave absorption in films: a short review, Optics and Laser Technology, 2024, 178, 111211
Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, A physics investigation on impedance matching theory in microwave absorption film—Part 2: Problem Analyses, Journal of Applied Physics, 2023, 134(4), 045304
Ying Liu, Yi Ding, Yue Liu, Michael G. B. Drew. Unexpected Results in Microwave Absorption – Part 1: Different absorption mechanisms for metal-backed film and for material, Surfaces and Interfaces, 2023, 40, 103022
Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew M.G.B, A re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film – Part 2: The Real mechanism, Mater. Chem. Phys,. 2022, 291, 126601
The main focus of this manuscript is on the basic physics errors common in publications. These errors not having been corrected in time have led to the wrong theoretical framework in the field of microwave absorption research, including the wrong absorption mechanism, the wrong impedance matching theory, and the wrong quarter-wavelength-theory, etc. It is also because the wrong concepts established from these errors that material scientists insist on the wrong theories, not accepting the correct wave mechanics theory for microwave absorption in film.
The reviewer’s comments are not professional since they do not refer to any of the main arguments of this manuscript and the reviewer only commented views in our previous papers mentioned in the Introduction. It is suggested the reviewer to read our previous papers cited in this manuscript since we have already clearly addressed those issues there and cannot repeat those arguments in this manuscript again.
审稿人的意思是：
你发表了这么多反主流理论的文章，但是没有人接受你的观点。
审稿人的用意是置作者于无法反驳的境地。
但是
任何伎俩也不能使正确的变成错误的，
正确的理论不惧任何伎俩。
反主流理论的观点如果是没有新意的重复，就是发表出来也会被主流学者以“自我剽窃”批的体无完肤。
我们每一篇文章，尽管主题都是推翻现行微波吸收理论，但是每一篇都有完全不同的视角。
在这个保守的世界里，能在不同期刊发表这么多反对主流理论的学术文章，说明我们每一篇文章的论证都是坚挺有力的。
相反，该审稿人的拒稿意见不能针对稿件的主要论证，是很不专业的。
Comments from reviewer 3:
In addition, there were too many self-citations, and the authors always supported their viewpoints by their own papers. This does not meet the scientific criteria of a review.
Our responses:
Only our group works on the subject of overturing the established theories in microwave absorption and thus self-citation is inevitable.
In a conservative world like this, that so many papers against the established theories can be published in different journals is an indication that our arguments are robust.
Disruptive innovation is always insisted by minority. Using self-citation as a game rule to reject disruptive innovation is making the current system of publication an academic game platform as expressed in:
https://www.qeios.com/work-supplementary-data/ZKKEZF/supplementary-materials.pdf
审稿人不得不用学术游戏规则将拿不上桌面的东西合法化，说明审稿人在学术论证上是苍白无力的。
-------
Appendix 2 Reposes to comments of NEXRES-D-24-00042
Sent: 26 July 2024 06:22
Subject: Decision on submission to Next Research
Manuscript Number: NEXRES-D-24-00042
Recognizing problems in publications concerned with microwave absorption film and providing corrections – A focused review Dear Prof. Liu,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Next Research.
I have completed my evaluation of your manuscript. The reviewers recommend reconsideration of your manuscript following major revision. I invite you to resubmit your manuscript after addressing the comments below. Please resubmit your revised manuscript by Aug 16, 2024.
When revising your manuscript, please consider all issues mentioned in the reviewers' comments carefully: please outline every change made in response to their comments and provide suitable rebuttals for any comments not addresse
Next Research
Editor and Reviewer comments:
Reviewer 1:
This is an excellent review article that can be published after incorporating the following comments.
1) As the authors realized, the RL is indeed not the absorption. It is only the reflection loss, which was historically believed "being absorbed". Most reflection loss of the films is from the interference mechanism, and therefore showing thickness dependent peak position change. A materials-based real absorption should have increased absorbance while maintaining the same peak position as the thickness increases. The authors should make these points more clearly.
“A materials-based real absorption should have increased absorbance while maintaining the same peak position as the thickness increases”是非常专业的意见。但是正确的审稿意见被拒绝，错误的审稿意见被采纳。
错误经常战胜正确：
2) The following related work can be cited and commented: Materials Chemistry Frontiers 2018, 2 (6), 1119; Materials today chemistry 2018, 9, 140; Journal of Materiomics 2019, 5 (1), 133; Nano Materials Science 2019, 1 (1), 48; Materials Today Nano 2018, 1, 1;Composites Science and Technology 2020, 199, 108332; Carbon 2023, 212, 118124; Advanced Materials Interfaces 2020, 7 (3), 1901270.
Reviewer 2: In this work, the authors use wave dynamics to develop a new theory to describe the physics of microwave absorption. I appreciate the author's point of view. However, the manuscript is too simplistic to support the conclusions. For its current state, it is not recommended for publication in Next Research.
1. In the introduction, the authors cite literature 55-62 to validate the idea of "replacing impedance matching theory with wave dynamics". The dates cited in the references cover 2012, 2018, 2023, and 2024, and it is not clear whether these are the only articles included or whether there are others not listed. To verify the validity of the theory, the majority of the published relevant literature should be covered and not just rely on the few articles listed as evidence. Moreover, it is unclear whether there are other theories that are equally consistent with the Law. The authors should indicate the inapplicability of other relevant theories, not just state that the theory is correct.
2. Generally, the universality of a theory must be verified through a large amount of experimental data. However, this article did not fully utilize experimental data for analysis to draw conclusions, which lacks persuasiveness, and its argument is only based on data in the literature that is unfavorable for impedance matching.
3. Throughout the manuscript, the authors emphasize that microwave absorption decreases with increasing film thickness, based on existing research. It is not convincing to use it to prove the universality of wave dynamics.
4. When explaining equations (26) and (27), the authors believe that the impedance matching theory is difficult to verify, while wave dynamics theory can be verified. However, in most cases, there are errors in the experimental and testing process, which may lead to deviations between the experimental results and theoretical calculations. Therefore, this discrepancy obviously cannot be taken as strong evidence for the authors' viewpoint.
5. The manuscript presents numerous formatting problems, especially in the references section.
Responses
Reviewer 1: This is an excellent review article that can be published after incorporating the following comments.
1) As the authors realized, the RL is indeed not the absorption. It is only the reflection loss, which was historically believed "being absorbed". Most reflection loss of the films is from the interference mechanism, and therefore showing thickness dependent peak position change. A materials-based real absorption should have increased absorbance while maintaining the same peak position as the thickness increases. The authors should make these points more clearly.
Response
As the reviewer has said, interface does not absorb microwaves and thus the reflection coefficient for the interface does not represent absorption.
The reflection coefficient RL of metal-backed film is reflection loss of metal-backed film when it is expressed in the units of dB, RL/dB. It characterizes reflection loss rather than absorption. However, this parameter connects to the absorption from metal backed film rather than the absorption from the material. The absorption curve represented by |RL| or RL/dB has a wave form since the phase effects from the optical path and the two parallel interfaces are the main factors in determining the cancellation of beams r1 and r2. For material, the absorption mechanism is different and there is no absorption peak at all when film thickness d is increased with frequency fixed since the attenuation power of material is a constant everywhere in uniform material and the amplitude of the microwaves traveled in the material is a monotonic decaying function with power attenuation coefficient aP.
When er = mr, the metal-backed film behaves as material and RL/dB becomes a monotonic decaying function.
All these points raised by the reviewer have been clarified in the new version.
2) The following related work can be cited and commented: Materials Chemistry Frontiers 2018, 2 (6), 1119; Materials today chemistry 2018, 9, 140; Journal of Materiomics 2019, 5 (1), 133; Nano Materials Science 2019, 1 (1), 48; Materials Today Nano 2018, 1, 1;Composites Science and Technology 2020, 199, 108332; Carbon 2023, 212, 118124; Advanced Materials Interfaces 2020, 7 (3), 1901270.
Response
We thank the reviewer for drawing our attention to these valuable and relevant papers. They have been cited in the modified version.
Reviewer 2: In this work, the authors use wave dynamics to develop a new theory to describe the physics of microwave absorption. I appreciate the author's point of view. However, the manuscript is too simplistic to support the conclusions. For its current state, it is not recommended for publication in Next Research.
Response
We do not believe the comments from reviewer 2 are professional since the comments only focused on the issues mentioned in the Introduction which are the topics of our previous published papers and he has not commented on any of the main arguments in this manuscript.
Over the years, we have published a set of papers from different perspectives to overturn the current theoretical framework for microwave absorption. These papers have been cited in the manuscript. Our conclusions are reliable since they are based on transmission line theory while the current theories have been developed on the significant misunderstanding of the theory. That the absorption mechanism of film originates from wave mechanics has already clearly demonstrated by the derivation of the formula of RL in a manner that has not previously been understood in the field of microwave absorption. Indeed, we only recently rediscovered from studying transmission line theory in detail. Our contributions involve establishing a set of new concepts in which wave mechanics are applied to film.
This work provides another perspective on the subject to support our previous conclusions.
1. In the introduction, the authors cite literature 55-62 to validate the idea of "replacing impedance matching theory with wave dynamics". The dates cited in the references cover 2012, 2018, 2023, and 2024, and it is not clear whether these are the only articles included or whether there are others not listed. To verify the validity of the theory, the majority of the published relevant literature should be covered and not just rely on the few articles listed as evidence.
Response
In the field of microwave absorption, confusion between Zin and ZM is a significant common problem in the field of microwave absorption and is found in too many references to mention them all individually so we have included a select few which we consider to be most relevant in introducing the confusion between film and material, and between interface in its isolated state and in film and also between the reflection coefficients of interface and of film. The two coefficients are distinctly different as the former by itself is not related to absorption while the latter is related to absorption of metal-backed film.
Specifically, a comment on Ref. 107 has been added in this new version.
Moreover, it is unclear whether there are other theories that are equally consistent with the Law. The authors should indicate the inapplicability of other relevant theories, not just state that the theory is correct.
Response
Over the years with many published papers in reputable journals, we have overturned the current theoretical framework and established the correct theory of wave mechanics. This work offers a different perspective from our previous work.
A theory can only be correct or incorrect, although there may be other forms of a correct theory for microwave absorption, yet to be discovered, what is clear is that as elaborated in our previous papers the current theory related to impedance matching is wrong.
2. Generally, the universality of a theory must be verified through a large amount of experimental data. However, this article did not fully utilize experimental data for analysis to draw conclusions, which lacks persuasiveness, and its argument is only based on data in the literature that is unfavorable for impedance matching.
Response
The current theory is wrong. However, people do not believe the fundamental theory used in modern research can be wrong and they require large amount of experimental data to support the views contrary to established theory even convincing evidence has already provided as shown by many of our previous papers. This attitude also prevent editors and reviewers to accept manuscripts overturning accepted theories. Therefore, we believe the task of overturning wrong dominant theories cannot be accomplished by one paper and should be allowed to be accumulated.
The impetus for the development of our new theory was the recognition that the current theory had significant theoretical flaws and also did not correctly explain experimental data. We returned to transmission line theory and by studying its basic tenets developed our theory based on wave mechanics. Then our theory was confirmed by establishing that it was consistent with experimental data and importantly successfully explained all the problems that were apparent with the current impedance matching theory.
Our theory has universal application and can be confirmed from all the published data. Indeed, we have not found any set that cannot be explained by our new theory. It is regrettable that published data were often used to support the current theories despite obvious inconsistences. For example, impedance matching theory is designed to explain absorption peaks, However, under impedance matching conditions, all incident microwaves enter the film but no absorption peak can be found. In addition, impedance matching theory cannot explain that when Zin = Z0 all the incident microwaves have been absorbed by the film while not all penetrate. All the reported experimental data demonstrated that none of the reported absorption peaks can be achieved by the impedance matching condition Zin = Z0. This result does not come from experimental error and the significant of the result has not been identified.
3. Throughout the manuscript, the authors emphasize that microwave absorption decreases with increasing film thickness, based on existing research. It is not convincing to use it to prove the universality of wave dynamics.
Response
The absorption curve of film has a wave pattern which provides strong evidence that the impedance matching theory is wrong. The wave mechanics theory is supported by theory and experimental results. No evidence against the theory has been published even though the new theory has been put forward for several years though of course we would welcome critical comments.
4. When explaining equations (26) and (27), the authors believe that the impedance matching theory is difficult to verify, while wave dynamics theory can be verified. However, in most cases, there are errors in the experimental and testing process, which may lead to deviations between the experimental results and theoretical calculations. Therefore, this discrepancy obviously cannot be taken as strong evidence for the authors' viewpoint.
Response
Eqs 26 and 27 were used in the work to demonstrate that there are problems in current theory for multi-layer film.
As shown in our previous papers, the invalidation of impedance matching theory cannot explained by experimental error. Our arguments have their foundations in theory and experiments
Our main emphasis in this work is on theoretical research. While we accept that some experimental data may have significant errors, the basic inconsistences between experimental data and the current impedance matching theory are too commonplace to be due to inaccurate data.
5. The manuscript presents numerous formatting problems, especially in the references section.
Response
The formatting problems have been solved.
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1448316.html
上一篇：一方面，颠覆错误的现行理论的文章很难发表，另一方面顶刊发表文章的（低级）错误从来不被发现
