Suppression of Mathematical Rigor: Analysis of Preprints.org’s Rejection of a Logically Rigorous Proof Challenging Mainstream Theory (2)

Preprint

Liu, Yue, Monotonic Decrease of Reflection Loss with Thickness When Material Characteristic Impedance Matches That of Free Space: A Mathematical Proof (November 21, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5780922 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5780922

Re:Re: [Preprints.org] Preprints ID: preprints-186039 - Your Preprint Is Declined for Announcement

• 2025年11月24日 18:44 (星期一)

Dear Ms. Jade Zhou,

I am writing to respond to your rejection of my manuscript, Monotonic Decrease of Reflection Loss with Thickness When Material Characteristic Impedance Matches That of Free Space: A Mathematical Proof.

I appreciate your explicit acknowledgment of the “mathematical rigor and careful reasoning” presented in my article. However, I fundamentally reject the decision to decline the manuscript based solely on the composition of the reference list.

You stated that 9 out of 9 citations are to my previous work and suggested I incorporate a broader range of studies to “enhance objectivity.” This requirement reflects the ridiculous nature of the contemporary publication system, which has devolved into an “academic game” driven by SCI Impact Factors rather than the pursuit of truth.

1. Scholarship vs. Academic Games

True scholarship is about identifying and solving correct problems. It is not about following arbitrary rules that require authors to cite “authorities,” “high-impact journals,” or “recent papers” simply to satisfy an algorithm or a reviewer’s preference. When a paper is a rigorous mathematical proof—as you admitted mine is—its validity depends entirely on logic, not on a popularity contest of external references.

2. The Right to Academic Freedom

An author has the fundamental right to determine the bibliography of their own work. If my work builds exclusively upon a specific theoretical path I have developed, and if the logical chain requires only those references, then citing unrelated or unnecessary external works acts against the principle of scientific precision.

The author has the right to cite no one if the work is self-contained.

The author has the right to cite only their own work if that is the only relevant prior art.

Forcing authors to add external citations merely to “look” objective is a suppression of academic freedom and amounts to forced artificiality.

3. The Nature of this Proof

This manuscript provides a mathematical proof challenging a mainstream theory. Since this is a pioneering correction of a long-standing error, there are no “authorities” to cite who have solved this specific problem. Citing others would be irrelevant and misleading.

I have detailed these views on the decline of academic integrity and the suppression of rigor in my recent articles:

1. Liu, Yue, The Right to Academic Freedom: Why Scholarly Articles Should Not Require Citations and the Critique of the Academic Gaming System (September 06, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5452134 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5452134

2. Liu, Yue, Self-Citation Versus External Citation in Academic Publishing: A Critical Analysis of Citation Reliability, Publication Biases, And Scientific Quality Assessment (August 14, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5392646 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5392646

Since you have acknowledged the mathematical rigor of the work, I request that Preprints.org focus on the scientific content rather than citation metrics. Preprints are intended for the rapid dissemination of research, not for playing the gatekeeping games of the traditional peer-review industry.

I ask that you reconsider this declination and allow the mathematical community to judge the proof on its own merits.

Respectfully,

Yue Liu

===

2025年11月24日 16:32 (星期一)