I just received the knowledge that after a brief period of the Theory of Everything manuscript being under consideration, it is currently changed its status to being under review.
The comical thing is that I just realized that I titled the paper "The Mathematical Principles of All Physical Interactions Based on the Refraction of Elemental Particles of Energy". I'm pretty sure I was supposed to use the word Elementary instead of Elemental, but this might be a case of autocorrect run amok. The elemental isn't a bad word, but it really isn't the correct word either.
This is great news! It means that there should be no 'ad hominem' arguments against the theory. Just proper scientific debate.
However, I still can't show you the preprint of the article. While Scientific Reports usually allows preprints of papers under review to be available on Research Square, with my paper I received the following message:
Dear Dr. Kalle Lintinen,
Thank you for your recent preprint submission "The Mathematical Principles of All Physical Interactions Based on the Refraction of Elemental Particles of Energy" 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.
This means that apparently they feel that if the manuscript is rejected under review, they don't want anyone to see the paper. That is, the ideas contained within the paper are only worthwhile if the content is 'perfect enough' to be publishable.
While I somehow understand this sentiment, it reflects an irrational fear of being wrong. It should be understandable that a paper under review could be wrong and anyone reading a preprint should be well aware of that. But here it seems that if the paper is wrong, letting it be visible as a preprint would give it the sort of credence that they don't wish to give, unless an authority gives it a mark of approval.
But really, I don't mind too much. In some sense it is rational to be wary. If you allow articles that later on prove to be pseudo-scientific to be published, it can later on turn sour, like it did with the publication linking vaccination and autism.
The only really negative effect of this is that I can't really apply for funding based on the publication, if its not even available as a preprint. But I really haven't even thought of doing it.
Based on the long wait with the Counterevidence Paper, it might take quite a while until I hear from the reviewers. It will be an exciting wait for sure.
Comments