文章已经放在预印本平台Qeios上：
Corrections of Common Errors in Current Theories of Microwave Absorption Caused by Confusing Film and Material - Article (Preprint v1) by Yue Liu et al. | Qeios
1 问题的提出：
在各级各类期刊有海量文章发表，其中90%是错的。
------------------------------------------
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False | PLOS Medicine
https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.xhtml?fileId=5112613&version=1.1
https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.xhtml?fileId=5112614&version=1.1
诺奖得主本庶佑：CNS这些顶刊观点有九成不正确，不要盲从迷信，搞科研做到六个C更重要_研究生 (sohu.com)
诺奖得主本庶佑：CNS顶刊观点九成不正确，搞科研要做到六个C|科学|学术|论文_网易订阅 (163.com)
为什么大多是期刊论文是错的--包括物理学科 （科技英文听力资料，英汉对照）
-----------------------------
J Mater Sci: Mater Electron (2022) 33:2889–2898
Comment on the relationship between electrical and optical conductivity used in several recent papers
published in the journal of materials science: materials in electronics
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10854-021-07496-9
文章截图
由于现代研究者更重视依赖先进仪器的表面工作，相当多数不重视依靠数学逻辑的深入理论研究，
因此有这么多的低级错误的文章经常发表在各级各类期刊上。
------------------------
-----------------------------
然而，面对如此多的错误文章，学术界的共识是不能发表纠错文章，综述文章很少纠正文章的错误：
-------------------
Vazire, S., 2020. A toast to the error detectors. Nature. 577, 9.
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03909-2
A toast to the error detectors (nature.com)
-------------------------
主要是因为学术大咖认为纠正他们的错误会毁了他们的个人前程、毁了整个学科，
因而这种不能纠错的观点得到主流科学家们的认同：
==============
在微波吸收领域，由于大学本科知识水平的低级错误，导致研究领域整个理论体系（阻抗匹配理论、四分之一波长理论、膜的微波吸收机理等等）都错了。研究者不乏物理专业的、微波工程专业的。但是由于研究者不关心理论、不关系他们实验背后的理论，导致这个错误的理论体系统治了该领域很多年没有被发现。
同时纠错文章很难发表。
文章被拒稿的资料很少报道，提供这种数据作为记录，有利于历史学家研究历史事件，以指导建立更合理的审稿、初审拒稿、和外审后拒稿的规章制度，更有利于颠覆性创新文章的发表。
学术界，每每拒稿，都是指责作为弱者一方（稿件作者）不够完美，很少有人敢于指出强者编辑和审稿人一方的不公正。
因此这里提供这个数据并将持续跟踪，供后人研究
====================
2. 投稿退稿历史记录：
2024年02月29日 16:45 (星期四)
Your submission entitled "Clarifications of specific and common errors in current theories of microwave absorption" has been received by Applied Physics A
The submission id is: APYA-D-24-00492
---------------------------
2024年03月11日 18:04 (星期一)
Ref.: Ms. No. APYA-D-24-00492
Clarifications of specific and common errors in current theories of microwave absorption Applied Physics A Dear Dr. Liu,
Dear Dr. Liu, The reviewers' comments/recommendation of member of the Board of Editors can be found at the end of this email or can be accessed by following the provided link. Your paper "Clarifications of specific and common errors in current theories of microwave absorption" unfortunately cannot be accepted for publication in Applied Physics A. I am really very sorry that I cannot give you a better answer. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work. Yours sincerely xxx Member of the Board of Editors Applied Physics A Reviewer #1: The authors do not present any significant contribution to the existing knowledge: 1. The literature survey almost does not exist.
2. Gaps in the literature are not well justified. 3. Formulation of the problem and results are simple without significant contribution to the literature. 4. Comprehensive experimental section could appear in the manuscript. 5. It is more a short report than full-lenght scientific paper. I recommend rejection of the paper
--------------------------
2024年03月12日 00:06 (星期二)
Dear Professor Liu, Your submission entitled "Corrections of common errors found in current theories of microwave absorption" has been received by Applied Physics A
The submission id is:APYA-D-24-00575
我们的Cover Letter全文 （对审稿意见的回复）：
We submit our manuscript, titled " Corrections of common errors found in current theories of microwave absorption " for your consideration. The authors of this manuscript are Yue Liu, Ying Liu, and Michael G. B. Drew.
This is a resubmission of the manuscript “Clarifications of specific and common errors in current theory of microwave absorption” APYA-D-24-00492
The main contents of the manuscript are mainly concerned with errors in the two recent papers [ 41, 42] published in your journal along with associated problems common in publications.
[41] S. Saikia, H. Saikia, N.S. Bhattacharyya, Revertible wideband hydrogel-based meta-structure absorber, Applied Physics A, 130 (2024) 189.
[42] P.P. Singh, A.K. Dash, G. Nath, Dielectric characterization analysis of natural fiber based hybrid composite for microwave absorption in X-band frequency, Applied Physics A, 130 (2024) 171.
As shown by our rebuttals below, we do not believe the comments of the reviewer to recommend rejection of the paper can be justified.
Related references [41 – 43, 47, 54] have been attached as Supplementary Materials for the convenience of reviewers.
Responses to the comments of the reviewer for the previous version
Reviewer #1: The authors do not present any significant contribution to the existing knowledge:
Response:
The problems identified negate the conclusions claimed in the papers [41, 42] which are associated with the common errors in the field. Thus, the issues are significant.
We have identified significant mistakes in the conclusions claimed in papers [41, 42]. We have also provided corrections for these mistakes. Because these errors are commonplace in the literature we believe that our solutions are timely and relevant to scientists interested in microwave research.
1. The literature survey almost does not exist.
Response:
It is hard to see how we could have included more relevant references for this work. Papers [41, 42] which include the mistakes with the problems have been clearly indicated in the manuscript.
The papers such as ref. [43, 47, 54] which include similar errors to those in [41,42] are clearly stated.
The references with correct theory from published papers such as in refs. [33, 38] have also clearly cited along with refs. [27, 29, 31, 32].
[33] Yue Liu, Michael G. B Drew,Ying Liu, A Theoretical Exploration of Impedance Matching Coefficients for Interfaces and Films, Applied Physics A, 2024, 130, 212, Please see Eq. 9 in this paper.
[38] Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew M.G.B, A re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film – Part 1: Energy conservation, Mater. Chem. Phys. 2022, 290,126576. Please see Eq. 13 in this paper.
2. Gaps in the literature are not well justified.
Responses:
The problems identified are justified.
It is difficult to respond to this criticism as the referee provides
no clues as to what gaps in the literature he is referring to.
We have based our discussion in this paper on the problems in refs 41 and 42 which are representative of much work in the literature. Because these
identified problems are critical to understanding microwave absorption,
we think they are of sufficient importance to restrict our study to them.
The problems in ref. [41]
Equation (1) in [41] is repeated below:
A(w) = 1 − R(w) − T(w) （1） .
For interface, R(w) is not given correctly by Eq. (3) in [41] and
needs to be replaced by Eq. (3’) shown below.
However, T(w) for interface is not “T(w) = |S21|2 = 0” as claimed in [41]. The correct formula should be:
Interface does not absorb microwaves at any value of w. This result can be checked by inserting the formulae of R(w) and T(w) into Eq. (1). Similar errors occur in ref. [54].
[54] Y. Prima Hardianto, R. Nur Iman, A. Hidayat, N. Mufti, N. Hidayat, S. Sunaryono, T. Amrillah, W. Ari Adi, A. Taufiq, A Facile Route Preparation of Fe3O4/MWCNT/ZnO/PANI Nanocomposite and its Characterization for Enhanced Microwave Absorption Properties, ChemistrySelect, 9 (2024) e202304748. (see Eq. (5) in this paper )
For metal backed film,
Thus, ref. [41] has confused film from interface. For more details, please see refs. [33, 38]
The problems in ref. [42]
Equation (9) in ref. [42] is listed below as Eqs. (9-1) and (9-2):
But Eq. (9-1) should be used only for an interface and here F is RM for reflection coefficient of the interface and T is gM for the transmission coefficient of the interface. This conclusion can be checked by inserting the above formulae for RM and gM into Eq. (9-1).
However, Zin in Eq. (9-2) is the input impedance of metal-backed film and F is RL of the film instead of RM of the interface. Thus Eq. (9) in Ref. [42] is wrong.
3. Formulation of the problem and results are simple without significant contribution to the literature.
Response:
As shown above, the theory underlying refs. [41, 42] is wrong. Thus, the conclusions of the two papers are not reliable.
It should be noted that interface does not absorb microwaves thus the errors in [41, 42, 54] are significant and need correction particularly as they are representative of other papers in the literature.
The problems mentioned in section “2.3 Common errors” such as in refs. [43, 47] are also important since they are common problems which have continued to be expressed in publications though the problems have been identified previously. Thus, corrections are necessary to draw the attention of researchers.
[43] W. Andriyanti, M.A. Choir Hidayati Nur, D.L. Puspitarum, T. Sujitno, H. Suprihatin, S. Purwanto, E. Suharyadi, Microstructures, magnetic properties and microwave absorption of ion-implanted bismuth ferrite thin films, Physica B: Condensed Matter, 676 (2024) 415690. See Fig. 12 in this paper.
[47] D. Zuo, Y. Jia, J. Xu, J. Fu, High-Performance Microwave Absorption Materials: Theory, Fabrication, and Functionalization, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 62 (2023) 14791-14817. See Fig. 2c in this paper.
In refs. [43, 47] it is stated that maximum absorption is achieved when both beam r1 and r2, shown in the above diagram, are vanished out But as we have shown previously this is not true.to obtain.
The false conclusion is a consequence of confusing film with material.
The absorptions of film and material are quite different.
The absorption of material originates from the attenuation power of material while the absorption of film originates from the wave cancellation of beams r1 and r2 rather than the simultaneous vanishing out of the two beams. For more details, please see:
[29] Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew，Wave Mechanics of Microwave Absorption in Films - Distinguishing Film from Material，Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials，2024，593, 171850
[31] Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew M.G.B, A re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film – Part 2: The Real mechanism, Mater. Chem. Phys,. 2022, 291, 126601.
[32] Ying Liu, Yi Ding, Yue Liu, Michael G. B. Drew. Unexpected Results in Microwave Absorption – Part 1: Different absorption mechanisms for metal-backed film and for material, Surfaces and Interfaces, 2023, 40, 103022
[27] Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, A physics investigation on impedance matching theory in microwave absorption film—Part 2: Problem Analyses, Journal of Applied Physics, 2023, 134(4), 045304
4 Comprehensive experimental section could appear in the manuscript.
Response:
The theories described in this manuscript have already been published in several papers e.g refs. [27, 29, 31 - 33,38] cited in this manuscript. These papers include details of how experimental data provides extensive support for our theories. Despite these proofs, the problems continue to occur in publications which shows that the well-defined corrections addressed in this manuscript are necessary.
The theoretical studies and their experimental verifications are not necessarily repeated here. Citations surely provide sufficient background for the purposes of this manuscript.
5. It is more a short report than full-lenght scientific paper.
Response:
Yes we accept that this is a short report but the subject is important and sufficient information is clearly provided to prove that the present theories of microwave absorption are seriously flawed and require immediate correction.
Reviewer：
I recommend rejection of the paper.
Response:
From our above rebuttals, we do not believe the suggestion is justified.
Sincerely,
Yue Liu
----------------------------
2024年04月06日 14:48 (星期六)
Ref.: Ms. No. APYA-D-24-00575
Corrections of common errors found in current theories of microwave absorption
Applied Physics A
Dear Dr. Liu,
The reviewers' comments/recommendation of member of the Board of Editors can be found at the end of this email or can be accessed by following the provided link. Your paper "Corrections of common errors found in current theories of microwave absorption" unfortunately cannot be accepted for publication in Applied Physics A. I am really very sorry that I cannot give you a better answer. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.
Yours sincerely
XXXXXX
Member of the Board of Editors
Applied Physics A
Reviewer #1:
The author proposed corrections of common errors found in current theories of microwave absorption. Based on the proposed work - which is need some improvement within its novelty, there are some points should be highlighted and more information should be added. *The abstract should be reconsidered please in terms of the following points: The research gab should be reconsidered. The main findings should be inserted within the abstract. The contribution of the current work should be clearly highlighted. *The authors build weak introduction and literature review. please re consider it ,
it is regarded as very weak.
*The distribution of the references in the introduction is not accurate. Please re- consider it.
---------
背景文章我们引用了大量发表在顶刊Advanced Materials， Advanced Func7onal Materials
上的错误文章，其它刊物有更多的错误文章，
审稿人是回避这个问题还是顶刊错误文章太多让人的脸挂不住了？
我们2017年就指出现代微波吸收理论的错误，而且在有影响的专业期刊发表了几十篇相关文章，
指出主流理论错了是个严重的问题，作为领域内审稿专家，你是不是只读顶刊，不读其它专业期刊？
------
*More physical explanation should be added regarded each figure. This work is missing the physical explanation and the comparison of it with previous studies. *The conclusion part is adequate. Is there any study limitation or future work. *Please, be careful of the spelling mistake. English language should be revised. *The references are relevant. Overall, major revision is required.
Reviewer #2: Not acceptable as a Regular Paper.
Reviewer #4:
The authors, in their manuscript entitled "Corrections of common errors found in current theories of microwave absorption," discuss specific and common errors/misconceptions regarding films or bulk materials, conventional theories of microwave absorption, and propose corrections. Although I appreciate some of the concepts that the authors explained, in my view, this type of manuscript should not be published as a regular research article. The authors have not conducted a comprehensive theoretical or experimental investigation, analysed data, and reached final conclusions. Instead, they have highlighted instances of potential errors and suggested corrections based on the literature. The organization of the paper deviates from that of a typical article.
====================
绝大多数优秀的论文都是建立在正确的理论的基础上的。
不是只有实验研究才是科学研究，理论研究是独立于实验研究的一种科学研究方法。
化学不是实验科学、物理不是实验科学、正确的理论才是检验科学的唯一标准
====================
Additionally,the authors critique numerous published papers. Therefore, I believe this work would be better suited for publication as a perspective or comment. However, the content does not meet the standards of a mini-review. Hence, the authors should reconsider the mode of publication and involve known experts in the field.
===============
主流学术权威的错误不能纠正？
对于大多数主流权威犯的浅显而严重的错误视而不见是现代科学界的一个严重问题
在科学上，多数人的错误（无论是学术上的还是学术道德上的），能不能纠正
=====================
I propose this because publishing a paper that challenges certain analyses and assumptions to pass a verdict without affording the concerned authors an opportunity to present their viewpoints is unfair.
编辑部已经知道所涉及的错误的严重性，审稿人也已经知道错误的性质。但是人家仍然不给你发，就没有再次回投该刊物的必要了。
如果出错文章的作者与编辑部的重要人物有密切关系，这是很棘手的事。这方面的不透明是同行评审被公认的缺陷之一。
上海交通大学杨枫教授-把学术界改造成美丽世界-科学网视频-科学网 (sciencenet.cn)
甚至预印本也不给发纠错的文章：
2024年04月08日 08:08 (星期一)
Dear Prof. Yue Liu,
Your manuscript, "Corrections of common errors in current theories of microwave absorption caused by confusing film and material," has been submitted to Research Square, a preprint platform that lets you share your work early, gain feedback, and improve your manuscript before you submit it to a journal. We know how hard you have worked to get to this point, and we are delighted that you have chosen to post a preprint with us.
2024年04月08日 20:02 (星期一)
Dear Prof. Yue Liu,
Thank you for your recent preprint submission "Corrections of common errors in current theories of microwave absorption caused by confusing film and material" to Research Square. Unfortunately, our screeners have determined that the manuscript type or its content is not suitable for posting as a preprint on Research Square. Please note that this decision does not reflect the quality or importance of the work and is made on the basis of our editorial policies with respect to content type and screening.
3 预印本网址
文章已经放在放在预印本平台：
文章标题：
Corrections of Common Errors in Current Theories of Microwave Absorption Caused by Confusing Film and Material
https://doi.org/10.32388/QQ1MFF
pdf：
https://www.qeios.com/read/QQ1MFF/pdf
补充材料：
https://www.qeios.com/work-supplementary-data/QQ1MFF/supplementary.pdf
4 关于Qeios
科学网—[转载]《Qeios：寻求减少科学出版中的偏见》 - 张成岗的博文 (sciencenet.cn)
科学网—海外又一新招：Qeios比Preprints漂亮，何等有趣！ - 刘永红的博文 (sciencenet.cn)
Qeios' mission is to provide the world with Open Access, neutral, and reliable scientific information and to maximise the dependability, transparency, and trustworthiness of the peer review system.
To this aim, Qeios has adopted a post-publication, open peer review model, in which the authors' and reviewers' identities are disclosed not only to one another but also to the wider public of readers. We believe that open peer review favours more honest reviewing, preventing reviewers from following their individual agendas, helps detect conflicts of interest, and increases transparency in the manuscript valuation process.
Qeios' model and continuous publishing schedule enables researchers to publish research rapidly while facilitating and encouraging the most valuable discussion around it.
Qeios is committed to Open Science and transparency. The principle we operate is that rather than censoring scientific discourse using an unreliable pre-publication peer review system, we promote post-publication open evaluation and discussion. We encourage those who are critical of articles and definitions published on Qeios to post their reviews using the platform where they will be linked with the publication and with other reviews and comments.
Qeios' editorial team provides strategic insights and direction for the platform. In an effort to remove editorial bias, on Qeios, reviewers alone decide on the validity of the papers, and publicly communicate with the authors with no intermediary. Therefore, Qeios' editorial team does not make accept/reject decisions. The approval of papers published on Qeios is reviewers' responsibility, in accordance with our post-publication, open peer review model.
5 不准许纠错的后果
当代科学界普遍存在的严重问题是不能揭露的，主流理论的错误是不能纠正的。谁揭露、谁纠正，谁就是“像个怨妇一样的牢骚满腹”。主流科学家的学术道德问题，因为涉及大多数，谁都不敢揭露，使得：历史反复告诫我们科学界是一个保守的体系，科学家并不愿意接受新思想，但是科学界始终没有吸取教训，历史惊人地重复。
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1421220.html
普朗克时代是这样，现在仍然是这样，学界一点进步都没有。问题就在于人们不敢指出尖锐的问题：
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”M. Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Paper, William & Norgate, London, 1950, pp. 33 -34.
https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/407998797
https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/363487648
在学术上，面对反对意见，搞微波吸收专业的审稿人，提不出任何学术上的见解，他们提的意见与不是微波吸收专业的人提出的惊人的一致，与非微波吸收专业的编辑（不予送审决定者）的观点完全相同。说明现在的主流科学家不重视自己理论水平的提升，热衷于依靠高精尖仪器做表面文章
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1419277.html
所以他们的文章90%是错的，但是他们不让别人指出他们的错误：
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1420723.html
A toast to the error detectors. Nature. 577, 9.
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03909-2
=============
当专业解释已经很充分的时侯，主流科学仍然能凭借自己的势力找出各种理由维护已经凋零的错误理论。
当专业解释已经很充分的时侯，正确理论仍然需要非主流学者努力传播这些被压制的正确理论。
无论怎么说，错的就是错的，对的就是对的。
"Wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it. Right is right, even if no one is doing it."
https://www.peeref.com/hubs/219
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1140604-moral-principles-do-not-depend-on-a-majority-vote-wrong
“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.”― Fulton J. Sheenh
“Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”
https://www.peeref.com/hubs/218
科学是不怕犯错误，科学有自我清洁功能
“Beyond these considerations, the importance of many of the more recent developments cannot be evaluated objectively at this time. The history of mathematics teaches us that many subjects which aroused tremendous enthusiasm and engaged the attention of the best mathematicians ultimately faded into oblivion ... Indeed one of the interesting questions that the history answers is what survives in mathematics. History makes its own and sounder evaluations.”
--Morris Kline, Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, 1972, ISBN 0-19-506136-5
引申：
历史是最公正的。历史反复证明，那些在当世喧嚣尘上的东西往往是主流学者刻意炒作的糟粕，而那些被当世打压的经常是真金白银。 Expansion: History serves as the ultimate arbiter. It consistently reveals that what is often overemphasized by the prominent scholars of an era is often merely the intentional promotion of mediocrity, while that which is suppressed by the prevailing contemporary scholars often reveals itself to be authentic and of true value.
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自刘跃科学网博客。
链接地址：https://wap.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1429081.html?mobile=1
收藏
