In my previous post I introduced the concept of all photoreactions being explained by the interactions of rings of light with supramolecular shells. Roughly at the same time I received another rejection for the latest manuscript.
While I did send an objection about the manuscript being rejected without peer review, I decided that the rejection had some merit, because I didn't give a mathematical account for a single photophysical phenomenon.
So I decided to once again rewrite the manuscript and used Blender to make this image to illustrate the concept.
I also removed everything from the main text that I could not verify using standard physical equations.
I had to leave my Waterman clusters to the supplementary information, because otherwise the I felt the graph relating the density of water and its proton concentration would mean nothing to the reader.
I'm still not very optimistic that I would reach peer review, because it seems that while the manuscript is better, in a sense I am not saying anything new in comparison to the previous manuscript. The text is just mathematically more rigorous.
Here is the main paper:
And here is the supplementary information:
Update from 30th of August 2022:
As I feared, the manuscript was once again rejected without peer review. Today I submitted it to another journal, with a ravised supplementary information. I also wrote a Cover Letter describing the experimental background relating to my experiments with CLPs. I also wrote Related Data document describing the results with the CLP experiments (sound quite the same as the Cover Letter, but isn't really). Hopefully the Related Data makes the manuscript sufficiently 'scientifically sound' to warrant peer review.
I also added the Pesky Postulates to the Supplementary information:
If the manuscript is still rejected from peer review as scientifically unsound, I have to consider an alternative approach. What that would be, I don't yet know...
Update from 1st of September 2022:
The manuscript is now at the "Editors Invited" stage. This is very early stages and means that it is far from being sent for peer review. However, I haven't seen this stage before, so I am cautiously optimistic.
Update from 14th of September 2022:
The manuscript is finally under review! It took three and a half months after the submission of the first version. Considering how revolutionary the claims are in the manuscript, I consider this to be a significant milestone. Now, for the first time someone has to read the manuscript and determine how well I have managed the data and whether the data backs my conclusions. I think I have never been as nervous about any of my other manuscrpits (over twenty already, although not all of them with me as first author) as I am with this.
Commenti