A. 同行评审需要上升到学术不端的高度对待：

To All Who Believe in Science as an Open Discussion of New Ideas: 

A Call for Reforms to Reverse the Politicization of Science

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10805-025-09646-8

文章摘要，文章认为同行评审需要上升到学术不端的高度对待

“Science seems to be flourishing like never before. However, science has become politicized up to the point where it has become the rule rather than the exception that dissenting submissions—i.e. manuscripts submitted for publication and research proposals submitted for funding that are critical of an accepted view or that propose a new view—are rejected by pseudoskeptical review, which is distinctly unethical. As this is detrimental not only to the career perspectives of those who dare to question the mainstream but also to the development of knowledge, in this opinion piece we call for reforms in science to the”

Ethical problems in academic peer review - Peeref

B. Chemical Engineering Journal的同行评审学术不端案例记录

Yue Liu. Non-Mainstream Scientific Viewpoints in Microwave Absorption Research: Peer Review, Academic Integrity, and Cargo Cult Science, Preprints.org, preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202507.0015.v2, Supplementary Materials

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202507.0015/v2

出版界的问题：不敢面对期刊的错误、不敢面对大多数人的错误。

“

It is the unsaid rule in publication to systematically avoid criticizing established figures, journals, and misconducts committed by the majority. To ensure self-correcting rather than maintaining the academic silence that protects established paradigms, the scientific community must systematically document cases where criticism of established work faces resistance, as such documentation "is not good to make improvement" when it remains hidden. Creating public databases of editorial bias cases, reviewer misconduct, and institutional resistance to error correction would help the community learn from these problems.

”

文章大块摘录：

Supplementary material 1: Documentation of the information of a rejected paper by Chemical Engineering Journal

2023年01月31日 04:11 (星期二)

Ms. Ref. No.: CEJ-D-22-28163

Title: Reflection loss is a parameter for film, not material

Chemical Engineering Journal

Dear Dr. Liu,

Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. Eight reviewers in total reviewed your manuscript, of which four suggested rejection. My opinion is that your work would be more suitable for a physics journal where the debate originating from your manuscript would find more suitable ground and audience. For your guidance, I append the reviewers' comments below.

In view of the comments made, I regret to inform you that I must reject it and your manuscript cannot be further consideroured for publication in the Chemical Engineering Journal.

I am sorry not to have better news on this occasion and thank you for choosing the Chemical Engineering Journal as a publishing medium.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Theophilos Ioannides

Executive Editor

Chemical Engineering Journal

Research Director

Institute of Chemical Engineering Sciences

FORTH

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: This manuscript is a comment on Reference [5] based on References [13 - 21].

The basis of Reference [5] is the current theory used by many research papers. The basis of this manuscript from References [13 - 21] is the new theory proposed by the authors themselves recently. For such a subject, it is important that the comments (from reviewers) should be based on an evaluation of the validity of the newly proposed theory.

Subtitle: "Reflection loss should not be used to characterize material"

In the authors' view, the common practice of using RL/dB to characterize the microwave absorption of the material is inappropriate ("The purpose of the paper by Du et al. [5] was to establish the amount of Mo2C that would provide the best microwave absorption material based on Mo2C/Co/C composite."). I agree with the authors. Reflection loss RL is a parameter for a portion of the material but cannot extend as a parameter for the material itself. Layered material should be viewed as a film. Property of material with thickness d may not be the property of the material itself. A property characterizing a material should be an intensive property, such as permittivity or permeability，that is independent of the size of the material. As seen from Equations 2 and 5, RL is related to d. Take Figure 4 in [5] for example, at a fixed frequency, RL has different values for the same material at different d. If that is the case, which values among those for RL should be used to characterize the innate behavior of material where d should not involved? Thus, I agree with the authors that "using RL to characterize material is inappropriate and the conclusions obtained are misleading."

Subtitles: "Input and the characteristic impedances" and "Impedance matching for interface and for film"

The related issues in [5] were based on the impedance matching theory accepted in the field of microwave absorption. The comments in the manuscript have their basis in Reference [15] and Figure 5 in [18].

The problems of impedance matching theory can be identified in Figure 4 in Reference [5]. At fixed frequency, the amount of microwaves entering the material is fixed for different d of the same material backed with a metal plate since the front interface of the material is the same. However, RL has different values at different d when the frequency is fixed. It should also be noted that RL/dB can increase (less absorption) when d increases. The impedance matching theory cannot explain why RL/dB can increase with increasing d while the amount of penetration is fixed for the same material with different d.

I agree with the authors that the problems of impedance matching theory are related to the confusion between Zin (input impedance) and ZM (intrinsic impedance of the material). As shown by Equation 1, the amount of microwave penetration is related to ZM - Z0, while the amount of microwave absorption is related to Zin - Z0 from Equation 2. It should be noted that the two conditions of Zin = Z0 and ZM = Z0 are independent of each other and thus Zin = Z0 cannot ensure ZM = Z0. So, as stated in Reference [17] that "According to the impedance matching theory, all the incident microwave energy can be absorbed in the metal-backed film by adjusting the thickness of the film d (together with other means) until the input impedance equals Z0, or the normalized input impedance Zin/Z0 equals 1. But this theory cannot explain why all the energy is absorbed by the film while not all the microwaves penetrate the film.".

Noted other arguments against impedance matching theory from authors in [18] that the effect of Zin + Z0 in Equation 2 cannot be neglected.

The comments in the Section "The delta function" are related to these issues.

Subtitle" "The quarter-wavelength model cannot be universally applied"

I have noted that the quarter wavelength theory is also an accepted theory in the field. However, the comments have their basis from References [17, 18, 21], that is, the quarter wavelength theory has overlooked the phase effects from the two interfaces in the film.

Thus, I agree with the comment in the manuscript that the following claim in [5] is incorrect: "In that case, if the phase difference at the air-medium interface between incident EM waves and reflected waves from a metal-backed layer is 180°, there will be intensive consumption of EM energy due to interference cancellation, and the matched coating thickness of EM absorption materials (tm) and the frequency of maximum absorption peak (fm) may satisfy the following equation [14,55]".

The manuscript is informative and I recommend its publication.

Reviewer #2: This comment elaborates some viewpoints on studies of absorption material, and declares that the theories on some published paper are not correct. I find some expresses in the paper are not strict and not convincing. Additionally, this work is not suitable for publication on Chemical Engineering Journal. It should be submitted to the journals on physics studies after careful modification.

1. There are some writing errors. This paper should be written carefully.

2. RL is a parameter of absorber device other than material. This is right(This work has been done in 2012, J. Appl. Phys. 112, 104903 ). A absorber device includes a material layer and a terminated metal plane. The RL of a absorber device depends on material properties (permittivity and permeability) and layer thickness. I think the title of this work should be changed into "Reflection loss is a parameter for absorber device, not material".

3. The authors declare that reflection loss, impedance matching, the delta function, and quarter-wavelength model have been inappropriately applied. This declaration is not strict. RL comes from transmission-line theory and the Zin equation is absolutely right. The authors in Ref. 5 use the Zin to calculate the RL curve. I cannot find the incorrect application.

Quarter-wavelength model is the experimental result and of course right. The inappropriate issue is the wavelength formula inside material rather than Quarter-wavelength model.

4. The authors declare that the impedance matching in the interface cannot be achieved by adjusting Zin. This sentence is not right. The impedance matching reveals the zero reflection on the interface between material layer and air. Zin is a parameter of absorber device include the material properties, material thickness and the backed metal. Impedance matching in the interface can be surely achieved by adjusting Zin.

5. "using s11 and s21 to obtain permittivity and permeability and using s11 and s21 to characterize material are not the same." The permittivity and permeability is obtained by using S11, S21, and thickness of material. If material thickness is known, we can use S11 and S21 to characterize material. If thickness is unknown, permittivity and permeability cannot be obtained by S11 and S21.

6. The results of Fig. 5c in ref.[5] are obviously the incorrect measurement data. If the device is not calibrated correctly, researches often get the incorrect data like results in ref.[5]. Please do not comment these incorrect data from your viewpoint. For soft magnetic composite, the real part of permeability should have higher values at low frequency and lower values at high frequency except the resonance region.

Reviewer #3: The authors present their viewpoint against the current theories of reflection loss, impedance matching, the delta function, and the quarter-wavelength model in this letter. I appreciate their spirit of exploration and thought of criticalness. For prudential reasons, I am afraid that the letter cannot be accepted before more convincing evidences being added. I have several comments as follows:

1. I agree that the reflection loss is a property of coatings or films, which I think it is wide accepted in the field of microwave absorption. In ref.[5], they point out that the RL concerns with the coating thickness and frequency, and the RL of coating can be optimized by adjusting d value. I do not think the ref.[5] use RL to characterize the intrinsic quality of a pure materials.

2. Regarding to the imaginary permeability, there are many publications discussing the reason and mechanism of the negative imaginary permeability, but no unified conclusion is widely agreed. The authors' opinion of 'the magnetic loss is determined by the absolute value of mr"' may make sense, but I found that the references to support this opinion are written by the authors themselves. For prudential reasons, I think it is not convincing enough to refute ref.[5]. Then for the quarter-wavelength model, the authors also refer themselves' papers to support their view. I think more references are needed such as monographs to support their opinions if they want to change the widely accepted method in a field.

Reviewer #4: This manuscript is a critique of a published paper with its significance not limited to the particular paper since the issues raised are representative.

First of all, the title "Reflection loss is a parameter for film, not material" is meaningful.

Reflection loss RL has been commonly used in microwave absorption to characterize the material. However, RL is a parameter to characterize the device. Thus, it can be used to characterize the film which is device composed of material and two parallel interfaces but cannot be used to characterize material itself.

Input impedance Zin of the film is different from characteristic impedance such as the characteristic impedance of free space Z0 and characteristic impedance of film ZM. Zin = Z0 is related to microwave absorption. But in the published report, the condition is commonly used as a criterion for the amount of microwave penetration of the front interface of the film. In fact, such penetration amount should be measured by ZM = Z0. The delta function is established due to the confusion between Zin = Z0 and ZM = Z0. Thus, the analysis in [5] related to the delta function is not correct. As said by the author, microwave absorption from the film is not determined by impedance matching theory, but "It is determined by how close are the two amplitudes of beam r reflected from the interface at x1 and of beam t reflected from the interface at x1 + d in Fig. 1 when the two beams are out of phase by 180, which is determined by the property of the film."

A film is not just composed of material. There are also two parallel interfaces in a film. The quarter-wavelength theory cannot be correct though it is commonly used since it ignored the phase effects of interfaces. The wavelength calculation in [5] is a low-level mistake in physics but this mistake is common in published reports. The claim in [5] that maximum absorption occurs when the incident and reflected microwaves are out of phase by 180 is apparently wrong though this claim is also common.

The manuscript demonstrates that in the literature, evidence disproving the accepted theory has been used to support it.

Reviewer #8: The criticisms included in the manuscript, such as reflection loss, impedance matching, the delta function, and the quarter-wavelength model, but I think in this feild, we use different method to evaluate its microwave absorbing properties. I think the Reflection loss could also be used to characterize material and film.

there are some grammar mistakes in the manuscript.

Reviewer #9: The manuscript "Reflection loss is a parameter for film, not Material" (CEJ-D-22-28163) by Liu et al. concerns theory against the mainstream one used in the field. The views expressed seem radical and interesting. Although the reasoning seems flawless and there is also support from previous work as indicated by Refs. [17 - 21], the views are relatively new, while the mainstream theory has existed for a long time. So, I do not sure whether other aspects that are not involved in these materials still support the accepted mainstream theory. Some related papers, such as Carbon, 2023, 202, 244-253; Carbon, 2023, 204, 305-314; Adv. Funct. Mater., 2022, 32, 2202588; Adv. Funct. Mater., 2021, 31, 2102812, should be cited. I have done some work in microwave absorption material which was based on the mainstream theory. However, I support the publication of this manuscript because the different perspectives there deserve to be recorded in publications.

Reviewer #10: Recommendation: Reject

Comments: This Letter tries to point out the so-called theoretical problem in a recent paper as well as the whole microwave absorption realm. However, it severely misunderstands the characterization and the related theory in these works and misjudges the results. It should not be published. Detailed comments include the follows:

(1) In the adduced papers, the electromagnetic parameters are measured from the absorbent/paraffin rather than the pure absorbent. The calculated reflection loss definitely represents the performance of the film made of the prepared absorbent and polymer matrix. In this letter, the authors misunderstand these works and believe that the reflection loss is the performance of the pure absorbent, which is a false conclusion.

(2) The impedance matching theory tries to find the relationship between the intrinsic electromagnetic properties of composite film and its microwave absorption property. It can widely guide the synthesis of nano/microsized absorbents in the material realm. In the letter, the authors judge the impedance matching and the reflection loss, from the point of engineering science, by the maximum amplitude of voltage at the surface/interface. These two theories have their own character and applying scope, which can not be used to demonstrate the inaccuracy of the published papers.

Overall, the scientific debate and doubt are welcome since they can somehow promote the progress in all the research realms. However, we wish the debate and doubt are made after carefully reading, thinking, and understanding. Besides, some scientific results maybe demonstrated to tbe wrong in the future, even though they are right at present due to the limitation of current theories. These mistakes should be allowed. Without them, the truth will never be found.

Reviewer #11: In this paper, the researchers highlight inadequacies in the theory that has been applied in a recent paper and others to experimental data concerned with microwave absorption and provide detailed corrections that can be used to correctly interpret such experimental data. I considered it can be published in Chemical Engineering Journal after a major revision:

(1) I hope the author can overview the accurate definition of "material" in the manuscript, and whether the film material belongs to "material"? In addition, it is necessary to describe the relationship between the application scope of transmission line theory and the thickness or surface properties of materials.

(2) There are some corresponding pictures missing in the manuscript, so it is necessary to supplement them in appropriate places. For example, on the page 2, "... a result which can be readily obtained from the innate properties of the composites shown by Figs. 5b, 6, and S11 in ref. [5]."

(3) It is pointed out in the manuscript that the value of film RL will change with its thickness, and then it is pointed out that " The absorption mechanism of film is related to angular and amplitude effects unique to film [20].". What is the grafting bridge between the two?

(4) There are some mistakes in text expression in this paper. For example, on the page 2, "The purpose of this Comment is to draw attention to the subject and to shorten the period for the practice of the wrong theory." I hope the author will take these errors seriously and correct them.

(5) some references in this paper have lost their timeliness, and a small number of references have certain format errors and lack necessary hyperlinks. For example, ref. [25]. add some references such as "Carbon, 2019, 152: 827-836., DOI: 10.1007/s42114-022-00615-y., J Mater Chem C, 2015,3(29):7677-7690., Chemical Engineering Journal, 2018, 333: 519-528., Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2019, 536: 548-555., doi:10.1002/adfm.202204499., Nature Communications, 2021, 12(1): 834., Journal of Materials Chemistry A,2021, 9 (35): 19710-19718."

The author must carefully check the statements in the manuscript and correct the mistakes pointed out in it.

C. 从这些评审意见能看出期刊同行评审的问题

要点：

8个审稿人；

拒稿决定；

编辑的这种决定很常见，可以定性为普遍的期刊的编辑学术不端的典型案例。

以下是文章观点摘录：

The rejected paper was finally published in Non-Metallic Material Science⁶:

Ying Liu, Xiangbin Yin, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, Reflection Loss is a Parameter for Film, not Material, Non-Metallic Material Science, 2023, 5(1): 38-48. https://doi.org/10.30564/nmms.v5i1.5602

Here we analyze the above documented Chemical Engineering Journal rejection involving eight reviewers (four suggesting rejection) where the executive editor explicitly stated the work "would be more suitable for a physics journal where the debate originating from your manuscript would find more suitable ground and audience". Drawing on journal rejection correspondence, detailed analysis of individual reviewer comments ranging from supportive ("I recommend its publication") to dismissive ("This declaration is not strict"), revealing systematic patterns in how mainstream theory challenges are evaluated, and ethical guidelines, the analysis highlights systemic flaws in current peer review processes. The study demonstrates how the same manuscript can receive contradictory evaluations from multiple reviewers, with some acknowledging the validity of the criticism while others defend established theories without addressing the mathematical arguments presented.

1 Introduction

The Chemical Engineering Journal case provides extraordinary documentation of how peer review operates when confronted with fundamental challenges to established theories. The journal assigned eight reviewers to evaluate a manuscript challenging mainstream microwave absorption theory - an unusually high number that suggests the controversial nature of the work. Despite receiving support from multiple reviewers who acknowledged the validity of the criticism, the manuscript was ultimately rejected with the editor's statement that "the debate originating from your manuscript would find more suitable ground and audience" in a physics journal. This case exemplifies how journals compartmentalize scientific disciplines to avoid engaging with fundamental theoretical challenges, effectively protecting mainstream paradigms by deflecting criticism to "more appropriate" venues.

2. Detailed Analysis of Reviewer Comments and Responses

2.1 Supportive Reviewer Recognition (Reviewer #1)

Reviewer #1 provided comprehensive support for the manuscript's main arguments, stating "The manuscript is informative and I recommend its publication." This reviewer acknowledged key points:

- "I agree with the authors. Reflection loss RL is a parameter for a portion of the material but cannot extend as a parameter for the material itself"

- "I agree with the authors that the problems of impedance matching theory are related to the confusion between Zin (input impedance) and ZM (intrinsic impedance of the material)"

- "I agree with the comment in the manuscript that the following claim in [5] is incorrect"

This reviewer's analysis demonstrates that when expert reviewers carefully examine the mathematical arguments, they recognize the validity of the criticism. The reviewer's support for the core theoretical arguments contradicts claims that the work lacks scientific merit.

2.2 Defensive Responses from Mainstream Theory Supporters

Reviewer #2 exemplified defensive responses to theoretical challenges, making claims that reveal misunderstanding of the fundamental issues:

- "RL comes from transmission-line theory and the Zin equation is absolutely right"

- missing the point that the criticism concerns inappropriate application, not mathematical correctness

- "The authors declare that reflection loss, impedance matching... have been inappropriately applied. This declaration is not strict"

- providing no mathematical counterargument

- "The authors declare that the impedance matching in the interface cannot be achieved by adjusting Zin. This sentence is not right"

- demonstrating confusion between interface matching and film matching

Response to Reviewer #2 Comments:

1. Writing Quality: While acknowledging potential improvements in writing, fundamental mathematical and theoretical arguments remain valid regardless of stylistic issues. Scientific validity should be evaluated based on mathematical rigor, not presentation preferences.

2. Absorber Device vs. Material: The reviewer's suggestion to change "material" to "absorber device" actually supports our argument - it confirms that RL characterizes the device (film) rather than the intrinsic material properties, which is precisely our point.

3. Transmission Line Theory Application: The reviewer states "RL comes from transmission-line theory and the Zin equation is absolutely right." This misses our argument: we do not claim the equations are mathematically incorrect, but that their application to characterize material properties (rather than film properties) is inappropriate.

4. Quarter-Wavelength Model: The reviewer claims "Quarter-wavelength model is the experimental result and of course right." However, experimental observations do not validate theoretical explanations. The quarter-wavelength correlation exists, but the standard explanation ignoring phase effects from interfaces is theoretically flawed.

2.3 Prudential Skepticism (Reviewer #3)

Reviewer #3 demonstrated "prudential" skepticism, acknowledging the validity of some arguments while expressing reservations:

- "I appreciate their spirit of exploration and thought of criticalness"

- "I agree that the reflection loss is a property of coatings or films"

- But requested "more convincing evidences" and criticized reliance on authors' own references

Response to Reviewer #3 Comments:

1. Self-Citation Concern: The criticism of citing our own work reveals a fundamental bias in peer review. When researchers develop new theoretical frameworks, they necessarily build upon their previous work. Rejecting theories because they are "new" or citing the developers' previous work creates an impossible standard for theoretical innovation.

2. Need for "More Convincing Evidence": The reviewer acknowledges mathematical arguments in the paper are sound but requests additional evidence. However, mathematical proof should be sufficient for theoretical validation. The reviewer's prudential approach, while seemingly reasonable, effectively raises the bar for non-mainstream theories beyond what is required for mainstream work.

2.4 Recognition of Representative Significance (Reviewer #4)

Reviewer #4 recognized the broader implications: "This manuscript is a critique of a published paper with its significance not limited to the particular paper since the issues raised are representative."

This reviewer provided detailed support:

- "The title 'Reflection loss is a parameter for film, not material' is meaningful"

- "A film is not just composed of material. There are also two parallel interfaces in a film"

- "The manuscript demonstrates that in the literature, evidence disproving the accepted theory has been used to support it"

Reviewer #4's analysis confirms that the issues raised extend far beyond a single paper, representing systematic problems in the field.

2.5 Dismissive Rejection (Reviewer #10)

Reviewer #10 provided the most hostile response, making false claims:

- "This Letter tries to point out the so-called theoretical problem... However, it severely misunderstands the characterization"

- "In the adduced papers, the electromagnetic parameters are measured from the absorbent/paraffin rather than the pure absorbent"

Response to Reviewer #10 Comments:

1. Misunderstanding Claims: The reviewer claims we "misunderstand" the characterization without providing specific mathematical counterarguments. This represents assertion without proof, a pattern common in defensive responses to theoretical challenges.¹

2. Absorbent/Paraffin Measurement: The reviewer's claim about paraffin measurements misses the fundamental point that RL values are still being used to characterize "material" properties regardless of the measurement method. The confusion between film and material properties persists regardless of whether pure material or composite measurements are used.

3. Scope and Application: The reviewer argues that impedance matching theory and reflection loss have different "character and applying scope." This actually supports our argument that these concepts are being inappropriately mixed and applied beyond their valid domains.

3. Analysis of Editorial Decision Pattern

3.1 The Eight-Reviewer Anomaly

Chemical Engineering Journal's decision to assign eight reviewers represents an unusual acknowledgment of the manuscript's significance and controversial nature. Standard practice typically involves 2-3 reviewers⁷. The high reviewer count suggests editorial recognition that the manuscript raised fundamental questions requiring broad expert input.

3.2 Editorial Deflection Strategy

Executive Editor Dr. Theophilos Ioannides' response reveals a systematic deflection strategy: "My opinion is that your work would be more suitable for a physics journal where the debate originating from your manuscript would find more suitable ground and audience".

This response demonstrates how journals avoid engaging with fundamental theoretical challenges by:

1. Acknowledging the work constitutes legitimate "debate"

2. Deflecting to other disciplines rather than engaging with the arguments⁸

3. Protecting established paradigms through jurisdictional boundaries

3.3 Contradictory Reviewer Evaluations

The eight reviewer responses reveal systematic bias patterns:

- Supportive reviewers (1, 4, 9, 11) acknowledged mathematical validity and recommended publication

- Defensive reviewers (2, 10) attacked the work without engaging mathematical arguments

- Prudential reviewers (3) applied higher standards to non-mainstream theories

- Dismissive reviewers (8) provided minimal engagement

This pattern demonstrates that manuscript evaluation depends more on reviewers' theoretical commitments than scientific merit.

4. The "Correctness is Not Enough" Problem

4.1 Beyond the Chemical Engineering Journal Case

The Chemical Engineering Journal rejection, while not using the explicit language "correctness is not enough," demonstrates the same underlying problem through reviewer patterns. Reviewer #9 stated: "Although the reasoning seems flawless and there is also support from previous work... the views are relatively new, while the mainstream theory has existed for a long time".

This reveals the systematic devaluation of correctness in favor of established consensus. Mathematical rigor becomes secondary to theoretical familiarity and disciplinary comfort.

4.2 Reviewer Bias Against Innovation

Multiple reviewers demonstrated bias against theoretical innovation:

- Reviewer #3: Requested "more convincing evidences" beyond mathematical proof

- Reviewer #9: Acknowledged "flawless reasoning" but expressed concern about "relatively new" views

- Reviewer #2: Dismissed fundamental arguments as "not strict" without counterargument

These patterns reveal how peer review systematically discriminates against innovative theoretical work, requiring higher standards of proof than established theories.

5. Systematic Problems in Current Peer Review

5.1 The Multi-Reviewer Paradox

The Chemical Engineering Journal case demonstrates a fundamental paradox: when journals recognize manuscript importance through extensive reviewer assignment, they simultaneously create conditions for rejection through reviewer diversity. The more reviewers assigned, the higher the probability that some will defend mainstream paradigms regardless of mathematical merit.

5.2 Disciplinary Boundary Protection

The editorial deflection to "physics journals" reveals how disciplinary boundaries protect established theories. By claiming theoretical challenges belong in other fields, journals avoid engaging with fundamental critiques while maintaining the appearance of reasonable editorial judgment.

5.3 The False Equivalence Problem

Treating supportive and hostile reviewer comments as equivalent creates false balance. When Reviewer #1 provides detailed mathematical support and Reviewer #10 makes unsubstantiated claims, editorial decisions should weight mathematical rigor more heavily than defensive assertions.

6. Implications for Scientific Progress

6.1 The Innovation Suppression Mechanism

The Chemical Engineering Journal case documents a systematic mechanism for suppressing theoretical innovation:

1. Assign multiple reviewers to controversial work

2. Weight defensive responses equally with supportive analysis

3. Use disciplinary boundaries to deflect rather than engage

4. Maintain editorial neutrality while protecting established paradigms

This mechanism allows journals to appear fair while systematically rejecting theoretical challenges.

6.2 The Cargo Cult Science Connection

The reviewer patterns exemplify Feynman's cargo cult science warning. Reviewers follow the forms of scientific evaluation (checking equations, requesting evidence) while missing the essential element of scientific integrity - honestly engaging with contradictory evidence and theoretical challenges.

7. Recommendations for Reform

7.1 Editorial Decision Weighting

Journals should implement weighted evaluation systems that prioritize mathematical rigor over consensus defense. When reviewers provide detailed mathematical support versus unsubstantiated criticism, editorial decisions should reflect this qualitative difference.

7.2 Cross-Disciplinary Engagement

Rather than deflecting theoretical challenges to other disciplines, journals should engage with fundamental critiques that transcend disciplinary boundaries. Microwave absorption theory involves physics, engineering, and material science - rejecting on disciplinary grounds avoids necessary scientific discourse.

7.3 Innovation Protection Protocols

Journals should establish explicit protocols protecting theoretical innovation from consensus bias. When established theories face mathematical challenge, the burden of proof should shift to defending the mainstream position rather than requiring extraordinary evidence from challengers.

8. Conclusion

The Chemical Engineering Journal case provides exceptional documentation of how peer review operates when confronted with fundamental theoretical challenges. The assignment of eight reviewers, their contradictory evaluations, and the ultimate editorial deflection reveal systematic mechanisms for protecting established paradigms while maintaining the appearance of fair evaluation.

The case demonstrates that when reviewers engage seriously with mathematical arguments (Reviewers #1, #4), they often recognize the validity of challenges to mainstream theories. However, when reviewers respond defensively (Reviewers #2, #10) or apply prudential skepticism (Reviewer #3), they effectively protect established theories from rigorous examination.

Most significantly, the editorial decision to deflect the work to "physics journals" rather than engage with the theoretical arguments reveals how disciplinary boundaries serve to protect established paradigms⁸. This represents a fundamental corruption of scientific discourse - theories should be evaluated based on mathematical rigor and empirical validity, not disciplinary comfort or theoretical familiarity.

The documented reviewer bias patterns - from supportive recognition to defensive dismissal - demonstrate that manuscript evaluation depends more on reviewers' theoretical commitments than scientific merit. This violates the fundamental principle that scientific truth should be evaluated independently of consensus opinion.

The Chemical Engineering Journal case thus provides concrete evidence supporting William Penn's principle that "right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." When mathematical arguments are sound but theoretically challenging, they deserve engagement rather than deflection, regardless of how many reviewers prefer familiar paradigms.

Supplementary material 2: Documentation of the information of a rejected paper by ACS Applied Electronic Materials

Related to Preprints:

1.       Yue Liu, Michael G.B. Drew, Ying Liu,Theoretical Insights Manifested by Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption—Part 1: A Theoretical Perspective, Preprints.org, Preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202503.0314.v4, supplementary.docx (919.54KB ).

2.       Yue Liu, Michael G.B. Drew, Ying Liu, Theoretical Insights Manifested by Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption—Part 2: A Perspective Based on the Responses from DeepSeek, Preprints.org, Preprint, 2025, DOI:10.20944/preprints202504.0447.v3, Supplementary Materials IVB. 

D 参考文献

看美国物理学会编审如何评价我的反对相对论的论文 - 知乎

美国物理评论B一次不负责的拒稿经历 - 知乎

绝对真实,卢家人了挑战爱因斯坦,卢氏就是牛!

“后来我父亲又把论文寄到美国物理评论（Physics Review），杂志编辑很重视这篇文章，先后5次提出这样那样的问题，质疑论文的各项立论，都被我父亲圆满解答，这就是后来所说的“五个回合的较量”。最后编辑理屈词穷，由总编辑出面答复我父亲，承认无法再提问题，承认您的文章无懈可击，但因考虑该刊为主流物理杂志，不适宜刊登，建议到别的杂志社。”

Liu, Y.; Yang, K.; Liu, Y.; Drew, M. G. B. The Shackles of Peer Review: Unveiling the Flaws in the Ivory Tower. arXiv 2023. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.05966.

A calm review turned into academic chaos - Peeref

https://www.peeref.com/notes/2725ec42-d2fe-4588-bbee-66c8c3e7e826

Non-mainstream viewpoints - Peeref

peer review - Editorial rejection: should I write back? - Academia Stack Exchange