Фраза из второй рецензии “Is that not done in analysis all the time?” показывает, что рецензент даже не понимает о чем идет речь. Но первый рецензент, вроде бы, понимает, что проблема фундаментальная. В таком случае, казалось бы, он должен просто сказать, являются ли результаты новыми и правильными. Но он конкретно результаты не рассматривает, а говорит, что статья больше подходит для философского журнала.

Я послал вопрос секретарю журнала Mr Zhang:

Thank you for your email informing about the editorial decision. The referee reports seem to be strange for the following reasons. The referees say that my results are not for a math journal but they do not judge a paper as a math paper. My paper contains new mathematical statements and in my understanding the main goal of the reports is to say whether the proofs are correct and new. However, the reports say nothing specific about this. The referees discuss philosophy, advise me to consider constructive math, finitism etc. but nothing specific is said about my results and one of the referees even says a strange phrase that “Is that not done in analysis all the time?”. As noted in the paper, philosophy is discussed only for illustration while the results are mathematical and do not depend on philosophy.

Let me also note that the special issue is titled «Mathematical Physics II» and I prove that standard quantum theory is a degenerated special case of FQT. This is a fully new result but the referees even do not mention this result. From the reports it is not clear to me whether the referees treat their recommendation as final or they accept that the author has a right to appeal. If I have a chance to appeal, I could try to submit a revised version. Is this acceptable? But to be honest I am puzzled because the reports say nothing specific on whether my results are correct or not. I can include the discussion of constructive math, finitism etc., but the main problem is whether the referees agree that my results are correct and new. Unfortunately, I could not find a clear explanation of this point. I would be grateful for your explanation.

Редактор этого special issue “Mathematical Physics II” – Dr. Enrico De Micheli. Mr Zhang ответил так:

The final decision was made by our academic editor according to his opinion along with the collected reports during the peer review. Hope your gentle understanding. We would like to thank you for having considered Mathematics and wish you every success in the future.

Т.е., редактор принял окончательное решение даже не дав автору права на appeal.

Выше я писал о своей попытке опубликовать статью о проблеме времени в Journal of Physics Communications. После этого решил, что иметь с ними дело бессмысленно. Но получил от них стандартное письмо (которое, наверняка было послано многим) с приглашением послать статью в журнал. Ответил им, что после моего первого опыта не планировал больше посылать им. Но если редакция пришлет мне официальное приглашение на статью https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02262153 в HAL, то эту статью пошлю. И получил такой ответ:

Dear Dr Lev,

Thank you very much for your recent message. We are very sorry to hear about your unfavourable experience with your previous submission to Journal of Physics Communications (JPCO).

With regards to your Article submitted in April-2018, we can see that an Editorial Board member was approached to expedite the review process as a result of difficulty obtaining reviewer reports of a high standard however, none were available to do so. This is a rare occurrence and we apologise for any inconvenience the delayed and ultimately withdrawn article caused. In response to your latter query, we'd be glad to consider your new paper and will strive to obtain quality and efficient reviews to report on the manuscript. Our Editor has viewed the article via the link you provided and advised that it would be a great fit for JPCO. We hope this helps. If there is anything we can assist you with, please don't hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards,

Isabella Formisano & Blythe Rowley

Editorial Assistants

Т.е., теперь они дают уже новое объяснение почему отвергли мою статью в апреле 2018 г.: потому что не могли найти рецензента. А дальше они клянутся, что сделают все чтобы получить квалифицированную рецензию на новую статью, что ее смотрел Editor и решил, что она будет a great fit для журнала. Казалось бы, после такого ответа есть надежда, что статья будет рассмотрена по существу. Но после того как послал статью, сразу получил стандартный ответ:

Dear Dr Lev,

Re: "Why Finite Mathematics Is More Fundamental Than Classical One" by Lev, Felix

Article reference: JPCO-101317

Thank you for your submission to Journal of Physics Communications.

To be publishable in this journal, articles must be of high scientific quality and be recognised as making a positive contribution to the literature.

Your Paper has been assessed and has been found not to meet these criteria. It therefore does not warrant publication in Journal of Physics Communications and has been withdrawn from consideration.

We are sorry that we cannot respond more positively and wish you luck in publishing your article elsewhere.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Hunter

Мой ответ на это письмо был такой:

Dear Editors,

After my first experience with JPCO I did not plan to submit new papers. However, in response to Dr. Messaritaki’s invitation I wrote that will submit my paper https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02262153 only if I receive an official invitation to submit this particular paper. In your response of Sep 18th you wrote «In response to your latter query, we'd be glad to consider your new paper and will strive to obtain quality and efficient reviews to report on the manuscript. Our Editor has viewed the article via the link you provided and advised that it would be a great fit for JPCO». However, when I submitted this