of quantum de Sitter symmetry. The purpose of my short letter to FOOP is to present arguments that will be understandable to a wide range of readers. Therefore, I hoped that my paper would be considered by the editors of the FOOP on the merits.

In the rejection letter, Dr. Fletcher first describes five criteria that a paper submitted to FOOP must meet:

1) Is the topic of research suitable for this journal?

2) Does the paper contain original ideas and new results?

3) Are the arguments and calculations accurate and correct?

4) Is the exposition sufficiently well organized, and worded well?

5) Does the overall quality agree with our very tough standards?

and then he writes: “I regret to inform you that the editors had to conclude that this work is not suitable for publication in Foundations of Physics.”

The rejection letter does not explicitly say that my paper does not satisfy conditions 1)-5). However, since the paper is rejected, it is understood that it does not meet these conditions. Then the question arises, does it not satisfy all conditions 1)-5) or only some of them? Apparently, according to the meaning of the letter, one must understand that Dr. Fletcher thinks that all of them.

If Dr. Fletcher considers himself a scientist, does he understand that scientific ethics requires that any negative statement in an official rejection letter must be substantiated? The rejection letter does not contain any hint that someone from the editorial board was trying or was able to understand the meaning of my paper. One of the reasons why I sent my paper to FOOP was that since Professor Rovelli is an expert on the subject then at least he can judge the paper. However, members of the editorial board responsible for my paper either did not read the paper carefully or were not able to understand it.

I hope that if the editorial board wants FOOP to have a reputation as a journal that respects scientific ethics, then the decision on my paper will be reconsidered.

и в ответ получил письмо от самого Rovelli. Он пишет, что сразу отвергает мою статью из-за "unacceptable tone" (неприемлимый тон):

Dear Dr Felix Lev,

your appeal has been forwarded to me.

Given the unacceptable tone of your letter ("If Dr. Fletcher considers himself a scientist,"…, "if the editorial board wants FOOP to have a reputation as a journal that respects scientific ethics, I have decided not to follow up on it and confirm rejection definitively.

Regards,

Carlo Rovelli

as FOP Chief Editor.

То есть Rovelli, наверное, очень горд собой, что он отверг статью из-за моего тона. А то, что со мной поступили по-хамски т.к. статью держали более двух недель, никто ее не рассматривал и написали дурацкое отклонение – это уже не так важно. И у него даже нет намерения извиниться, что такое отношение к автору противоречит всем принципам научной порядочности. А мой ответ – не тот тон. И для него главное не то является ли статья важной, какие там результаты, а то что мой тон неприемлимый. Это один из примеров, что Rovelli не соблюдает научную этику. Другие примеры будут даны ниже.

Следующая попытка: журнал Letters in Mathematical Physics. Оттуда сразу пришел такой ответ:

Dear Dr Lev,

Your manuscript, MATH-D-22–00107 titled: "Discussion of cosmological acceleration and dark energy"

Author(s): Felix M. Lev

submitted for publication in Letters in Mathematical Physics on 07 Apr 2022 has been carefully considered by the Editors of LMP.

In their opinion, the content does not meet the high standards of our journal and we regret that we are not able to consider your manuscript for publication. Below, please find their comments for your perusal.

I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration and wish you every success in finding an alternative place of publication.

Comments to the author (if any):

This manuscript does not appear to contain new significant mathematical physics of the type published in Letters in Mathematical Physics. I suggest transferring to Gen Rel Grav or similar.

Sincerely Yours,

Christopher Fewster

Editor in Chief

Letters in Mathematical Physics

То есть вначале говорят, что, якобы, внимательно рассмотрели статью, но потом без всякого объяснения говорят, что статья не удовлетворяет высоким критериям журнала. И, конечно, проблемы с научной этикой их не волнуют.

Моя следующая попытка – журнал General Relativity and Gravitation. Оттуда довольно быстро пришел такой ответ:

Reviewer comments on your work have now been received. In view of the report and the recommendation of the Associate Editor who handled the paper I regret to inform you that your submission is not suitable for publication in GERG. The reviewer comments can be found at the end of this email or can be accessed by following the provided link.

Thank you for your interest in GERG.

Yours sincerely

Mairi Sakellariadou

Editor-in-Chief

General Relativity and Gravitation

Reviewer comments:

Associate Editor:

The submission is not appropriate for GRG.

Ясно, что это просто отписка. Хотя говорится, что "The reviewer comments can be found at the end of this email", но никаких комментариев рецензента нет. А фраза Associate Editor никак не объясняет почему статья не подходит для журнала. Ясно, что я написал протест:

…Such an attitude to the author fully contradicts scientific ethics because:

Although the email says that “The reviewer comments can be found at the end of this email”, in fact there are no reviewer comments.

The phrase of the Associate Editor: “The submission is not appropriate for GRG.” is given without any explanation and contradicts the editorial policy of GERG according to which “Theoretical and observational cosmology” and “Relativistic astrophysics” are in the scope of GERG.

My paper gives a solution to the problem of cosmological acceleration, and my approach