17年前因为读爱因斯坦的传记，笔者立志要走上科研的道路，17年后梦想成真了，但是让人意想不到的是：笔者最早的兴趣是分析学和物理学，但后来却撞进了经济学的研究队伍。以前的兴趣放不下，现在的兴趣又丢不了，翻来弄去，最终稳定在了四个研究方向：量子起源、分形微积分、自发经济秩序、超导的量子临界现象。具体可见博文《我写在祖国的四篇代表性论文》：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1253715-984083.html

说起写论文，笔者认认真真看的第一篇论文是谁写的呢？是爱因斯坦，大二时笔者在学校图书馆借了一本《爱因斯坦奇迹年：改变物理学面貌的五篇论文》。看过这本书的人可能都知道，爱因斯坦的这五篇论文基本不引用文献。所以从那时候起，在笔者的潜意识中总认为：除非真的与我写的论文有直接关系，否则不故作姿态的去引用其他人的论文。这也是笔者早期的论文写作观：现在笔者把它叫作“自我为中心”（self-centered）主义。显然，爱因斯坦就是一位成功的“自我为中心”主义者。要知道，在爱因斯坦之前，洛伦兹和庞加莱就已经分别提出了建立狭义相对论的基建——洛伦兹变换和相对性原理（包括光速不变假说）。但是在面对前人文献（牛顿理论）的时候，他们退却了。相对比而言，爱因斯坦的“自我为中心”却获得了胜利。在他的狭义相对论论文中甚至没有引用洛伦兹或者庞加莱的工作，狭义相对论仿佛来自天际之外。

说老实话，“自我为中心”主义者其实是容易被“边缘化”的，他们的论文往往会有很少的引用率。不信大家可以查一下爱因斯坦在Physical Review发表的独立作者论文，这些论文的作者尽管是大名鼎鼎的爱因斯坦，但是引用率非常之低（见图1）。

                                                                                         图1

很不幸的是，受爱因斯坦的影响，笔者自踏入科研界开始就成为了一个“自我为中心”主义者：除非真的与我写的论文有直接关系，否则不故作姿态的去引用其他人的论文，因为自己的目标就是做原创工作，而不是刻意去“编故事”。

当然，这样做的后果就是：拒稿！

后来得到学界前辈指点，才知道写论文不能够这样“自己玩”。文献本身是记录和增加科学知识的过程，记录别人的知识也是论文写作的义务之一。所以在写经济学论文的时候，笔者还是会尽可能的做到穷尽文献，毕竟在科研考核中“论文发表”是王道，这也源于笔者在经济系工作，要保证自己每年一定数量的发表记录。

除了经济学论文之外，笔者也发表数学和物理学方面的论文：包括量子起源、分形微积分、超导的量子临界现象、量子绝热定律、自旋霍尔效应。数学、物理方面的工作不同于经济学，笔者发表它们纯属兴趣，与考核无关（数学和物理学论文不进入笔者所在院系的考核范围），所以写作也要随性得多。但是为了能够发表，多年历练下来慢慢也变得比较“规矩”了。特别像量子绝热定律、自旋霍尔效应等工作，笔者本身是在别人工作的基础上做的，引用全面，所以发表起来还是比较顺利的。当然，相比于在别人理论的基础上做东西，做自己的原创总是更让人兴奋和激动。

不久前，笔者受邀开始担任一家物理学期刊的副主编。由于是新成立的期刊，需要确定一些好的选题，笔者认为“量子起源”是一个很不错的选题。这是笔者的原创工作，也是笔者最初走上科研道路所想要解决的第一个问题。经过10多年的努力，为了尝试解决这个问题，笔者发展了“分形微积分”这一数学工具，并最终在分形时空（3.99…维时空）的背景下导出了量子力学的基础——普朗克能量子公式。当然，这些工作已经在前些年发表了。笔者认为新的期刊要想脱颖而出，选题上下功夫也是很重要的：在一些有趣而主流期刊不敢刊登的领域中选一些逻辑严谨的论文，一样可以满足一部分读者群的需求。说不定这部分读者群的数量可观呢？

“量子起源”这个选题既然不错，那么笔者就来写吧，写完之后按照杂志正常程序进入匿名审稿（笔者并不知道审稿人是谁）。下面就是两位审稿人的意见：

Reviewer #1: I cannot recommend this paper for several reasons. It is too self-centered without any reference to past literature on fractional calculus (does the calculus proposed here differ with respect to others?) or recent results on fractal spacetimes. It is hard to accept the naming "theory" for this very preliminary proposal. Moreover, the main result seems to have substantial overlap with an older work where the uncertainty principle was found from nowhere differentiability; see 1204.1877. The fact that the author invokes WMAP rather than Planck to get constraints on his model does not help.

Reviewer #2: Except for minor stylistic English language related points (for instance the author refers to himself in a way which could make one think he is referring to somebody else with coincidentally the same name), this is an excellent paper on a hot subject intensively researched in the last quarter of a century and I do recommend its publication regardless of whether or not the Author takes into account the various points which I will expand upon in the next section of this report. The reason I am that liberal on this point is the firm belief of the present reviewer that no referee, not even one very familiar with the subject, could understand in depth a paper by reading it in his spare time for a couple of hours more than the serious Author who pondered his own research for years and years. Consequently it is more the case than not that a supercilious referee causes more harm than good for an original and deep idea which could change scientific research for the better.

Having due respect for the above I must say that there have been many successful attempts in the same direction of the present paper.  In the opinion of the Reviewer the most important after Garnet Ord, a student of Richard Feynman discovered the importance of space filling fractal curves for quantum mechanics, there is no doubt that the ‘tHooft-Veltman proposal as well as Kenneth Wilson computation are the most important pioneering papers in this field. The Author has well understood the importance of ‘tHooft’s work which is duly represented in the references. However neither the fundamental work of Ord nor Lauren Nottale were considered. It would be good if the Author looked into this point.

Another potentially crucial point that supports the Author’s thesis is dark energy.  The logical sequence is as follows: if time is fractal then if flows with different speeds and this can create fluctuation resulting in gravity and energy. Since the density of dark energy is slightly less than unity, then assuming space is not fractal, time must be slightly less than one as conjectured and attested to in the present paper.

‘tHooft and Veltman researched the subject and were trying to see if their dimensional regularization could be more than a neat mathematical trick. At the end they gave up. However others have taken the ideas and went as far as proposing a new elementary particle christened renormalon. This line of research was published in many journals in the last five years.

The Referee could go on and on in similar points but it is not the intention to indoctrinate a good work nor to see the idea through the eyes of his own interests and understanding. The intention of this report is only to stimulate the Author to possibly improve the presentation and the wide acceptance of an excellent idea.

For the avoidance of any misunderstanding this Reviewer accepts the work in all events as original and worth publishing.

各位读者可以看到，一共两位审稿人。审稿人1不同意发表，审稿人2同意发表。

审稿人1是笔者职业生涯中遇到的第一位指出我太过“自我为中心”（self-centered）的人。确实，在写这篇论文的时候，笔者纯粹是出于兴趣，而没有任何“发表”的压力（要是前期成果没有发表，笔者恐怕就不会如此随性）。所以，写下来的东西就真的是笑傲江湖中的“任我行”了。毕竟这是笔者已发表的原创工作的扩展，能真正挂上勾的文献可以说是凤毛菱角。但是让笔者惊奇的是，审稿人1居然可以指出相关文献。说老实话，笔者此时内心的高兴远大于惊奇：终于有同行开始向这个方向靠拢了。

审稿人2是强烈推荐发表笔者的论文。他指出：一位潜心科研的作者往往耗费数年甚至数十年思考一个问题，好不容易取得些许进展，却往往被自大傲慢（supercilious）的审稿人在匆匆阅读几个小时之后就轻易拒稿，双方付出的心血不可同日而语。审稿人2的话确实也值得笔者深思。

老实说，以前笔者投稿得到的意见往往都是评论性的和技术性的，直到这次投稿才看到了审稿人流露的“感情”。这让笔者不得不更深的去思考一些东西，并分享给大家。