Back

ARTICLE REJECTION

[Heading for magazine]

 

March 4, 2005

Mr. Lew Price
P O Box 88
Garden Valley, CA 85633

Dear Lew:

Thank you for submitting your paper, "Gravity," to [magazine].

I regret to inform you that the paper has not been accepted for publication. The reviewer, an expert in Newtonian and quantum physics, perhaps did not provide as much technical substance as you would like to see to better understand the reason for the rejection of the paper. I will, however, share some of his comments with you.

In addition to the paper being too lengthy with too much use of first person, the reviewer had the following critiques:

In the beginning of the paper, the author defines "m=M/t" and "M=mt" with "m" for mass, "t" for time, and "M" for Mass of medium inflow per unit of time; however, these equations are a dimensional absurdity, given these definitions for variables. Later in the same paragraph, M is redefined to the Mass of the medium. This is very inconsistent and confusing.

A dynamic ether can be considered simply to be an ether; there is no need to give it some new name such as "nether."

There are several examples of what can only be considered as modernistic gibberish, including: "...it is possible that matter is a rupture creating a hole in the nether that allows nether to flow backward along the fourth dimension..." and "...the circle is the entrance to the fourth dimension..."

The author seems to to go off-track at one point, stating": "...the product of 256 and the square root of two is the frequency of an octave of F sharp in the musical scale of ancient China. This is the note upon which their musical and astrological scales were based - which causes me to wonder what they knew that we do not know..." Not to nit-pick on this minor point of all things, but I am not sure what "an octave" of F sharp is supposed to be; usually one says an octave above F sharp or an octave below F sharp.

The author makes a number of sweeping claims, speculations, and generalizations without any theory or serious explanation to back up these claims. There are no references listed within the text of the paper to back up any of these claims.

I know that this will likely not be the feedback you were hoping for. Our editors, based on their brief look at the paper and on the reviewer's comments, have agreed that the paper is not best suited for publication in [magazine].

Thank you for your patience in awaiting the decision on your manuscript.
 

Sincerely,

 

[Name]
Managing Editor
 

Back