science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 04 May 2005
|Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:55 pm Post subject:
Journal of the Optical Society of America defends corporate interests
Optics Letters does not consider papers that have been rejected from
other OSA journals.
This policy has as its object to block publishing of disagreeable
The policy helps to cover the truth about editors' mistakes up.
Being powerless to raise an objection, they simply refuse to publish
For example, Dr. Anthony Campillo, Editor of Optics Letters rejected my
paper "Moment of the Poynting vector is not spin" (72638) because Dr.
Allan Boardman (JOSA B) rejected this paper from JOSA B (66941) on
February 10, 2006. Dr. Allan Boardman used reviewers' groundless
comments. The comments did not satisfy scientific standard. No my
statement was disproved. You may verify this fact.
Nothing can be said against the reviewer's opinion, for example:
"The manuscript comes laden with kilogrammes of slag. This slag is the
detritus collected by the author from repeatedly from various journals.
Whereas it may be attractive to a sociologist of science, it is
unattractive to scientists. Furthermore, it does not enhance the
scientific content of the manuscript. Therefore, in its present form,
the manuscript must be rejected. The author should be asked to prepare
a manuscript from the present one, keeping entirely to the scientific
issues. That, much shorter, manuscript could be published as a Comment
Thus, my answer to Allan Boardman was:
"For adapting my paper to the level of your Referees, I have rewritten
the paper. Sorry, I am forced to lengthen it a little. I have improved
it methodically. I hope you will be satisfied." (It was 68611).
But I failed to descend onto the referee level. The referees seem to be
completely impotent. Allan Boardman forwarded referees' new comments to
me on April 23, 2006:
I have already recently rejected the paper by Khrapko from another
Please see my review of manuscript no. 66941. I see no reason to repeat
my comments for that manuscript here, as this manuscrip (no. 68611) is
trvially different from its predecessor."
My answer was:
"Dear Allan Boardman,
L. Allen et al., M. J. Padgett, R. Loudon, R. Zambrini, S. M. Barnett,
J D Jackson, J. W. Simmons, M. J. Guttmann, A. M. Stewart, H. C.
Ohanian, J. H. Crichton, P. L. Marston, W. Heitler, and others assert
that moment of the Poynting vector is spin. For example, H. C. Ohanian
wrote, "This angular momentum is the spin of the wave". However, I
prove that moment of the Poynting vector is NOT spin. I prove that spin
must be added to the moment of the Poynting vector. Against this
background your decision seems to be a disgrace to JOSAB. Your decision
encourages poverty of your reviewers. They could not write a new word
since March 1 to April 23. However, possibly, they gave the false
comments knowingly for the sake of defending of the corporate
interests. I ask for changing the decision and publishing my paper. It
would be a good thing to include a figure into the page 2 (see the
attachment 75-4fJOSAB. Note, this is not a resubmission)."
As a result, Debra Herron forwarded Boardman's reply on May 2, 2006:
"Dr. Khrapko: The negative responses that I have received concerning
you paper compel me to stand by my decision to reject your paper. I am
not able to find a reason to reverse my decision which is now final."
My conclusion is: OL defends corporate interests rather than interests
This paper is published at
www.sciprint.org and www.mai.ru/projects/mai_works/