133 views

Skip to first unread message

Nov 1, 2002, 4:23:51 PM11/1/02

to

It's interesting that the Bogdanovs distance themselves from the PDF

version of their paper in *Classical and Quantum Gravity*, on the grounds

that it supposedly has typos. For two reasons. First, I've never heard

of a published paper that has more typos in the PDF copy than in the

printed copy, only the other way around. Maybe the editors of CQG can

comment on this claim about their typesetting.

version of their paper in *Classical and Quantum Gravity*, on the grounds

that it supposedly has typos. For two reasons. First, I've never heard

of a published paper that has more typos in the PDF copy than in the

printed copy, only the other way around. Maybe the editors of CQG can

comment on this claim about their typesetting.

Second, CQG has also distanced itself from this paper, on entirely

different grounds. I am attaching its official repudiation below.

This the first time that I personally have seen a refereed journal

repudiate the decision to publish a paper. I've seen other papers that

I think should have been repudiated by the journal, but I've never seen

it actually happen.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Classical and Quantum Gravity and the paper "Topological theory of the

initial singularity of spacetime" by G Bogdanov and I Bogdanov, Class.

Quant. Grav. 18 4341-4372 (2001)

A number of our readers have contacted us regarding the above paper

and in response we have decided to issue the following statement.

Classical and Quantum Gravity endeavours to publish original research

of the highest calibre on gravitational physics. It is not possible for the

Editorial Board to consider every article submitted and so, in common

with many journals, we consult among a worldwide pool of over 1000

referees asking two independent experts to review each paper. Regrettably,

despite the best efforts, the refereeing process cannot be 100% effective.

Thus the paper "Topological theory of the initial singularity of spacetime"

by G Bogdanov and I Bogdanov, Classical and Quantum Gravity 18

4341-4372 (2001) made it through the review process even though, in

retrospect, it does not meet the standards expected of articles in this

journal.

The journal's Editorial Board became aware of this situation already in

April 2002. The paper was discussed extensively at the annual Editorial

Board meeting in September 2002, and there was general agreement that

it should not have been published. Since then several steps have been

taken to further improve the peer review process in order to improve the

quality assessment on articles submitted to the journal and reduce the

likelihood that this could happen again. However, there are at this time

no plans to withdraw the article. Rather, the journal publishes refereed

Comments and Replies by readers and authors as a means to comment

on and correct mistakes in published material.

We are also grateful to our readers, contributors and reviewers for their

vigilance and assistance both before and after publication.

Dr Andrew Wray

Senior Publisher

Classical and Quantum Gravity

Institute of Physics Publishing

Professor Hermann Nicolai

Honorary Editor

Classical and Quantum Gravity

Albert Einstein Institute

--

/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)

/ \

\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/

\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

Nov 4, 2002, 2:18:59 PM11/4/02

to

gr...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu (Greg Kuperberg) wrote in message news:<apu93q$2a2$1...@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu>...

> It's interesting that the Bogdanovs distance themselves from the PDF

> version of their paper in *Classical and Quantum Gravity*, on the grounds

> that it supposedly has typos. For two reasons. First, I've never heard

> of a published paper that has more typos in the PDF copy than in the

> printed copy, only the other way around. Maybe the editors of CQG can

> comment on this claim about their typesetting.

>

> Second, CQG has also distanced itself from this paper, on entirely

> different grounds. I am attaching its official repudiation below.

> This the first time that I personally have seen a refereed journal

> repudiate the decision to publish a paper. I've seen other papers that

> I think should have been repudiated by the journal, but I've never seen

> it actually happen.

>

> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

>

>Regarding this decision, we send you hereafter all the reports that

were induced by the submission of our paper in Classical and Quantum

Gravity.

As you will see, it took 7 month of exchanges and very hard work

before

the paper could be accepted in this high standards journal.

> It's interesting that the Bogdanovs distance themselves from the PDF

> version of their paper in *Classical and Quantum Gravity*, on the grounds

> that it supposedly has typos. For two reasons. First, I've never heard

> of a published paper that has more typos in the PDF copy than in the

> printed copy, only the other way around. Maybe the editors of CQG can

> comment on this claim about their typesetting.

>

> Second, CQG has also distanced itself from this paper, on entirely

> different grounds. I am attaching its official repudiation below.

> This the first time that I personally have seen a refereed journal

> repudiate the decision to publish a paper. I've seen other papers that

> I think should have been repudiated by the journal, but I've never seen

> it actually happen.

>

> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

>

were induced by the submission of our paper in Classical and Quantum

Gravity.

As you will see, it took 7 month of exchanges and very hard work

before

the paper could be accepted in this high standards journal.

Subject:

CQG/119461/PAP

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:45:22 +0000

From: "Imported For: Class. Quantum Grav. --By: IOPP.API"

<c...@iop.org>

To: <igor.b...@free.fr>

Ref: CQG/119461/PAP

15 February 2001

Dr I Bogdanov

Laboratoire Gevrey de Mathematique

Physique

Universite de Bourgogne

CNRS UPRES A 5029

5 avenue de Montespan

75016 Paris

FRANCE

Dear Dr Bogdanov

TITLE: Topological theory of the initial ...

AUTHORS: G Bogdanov et al

We have now received advice from our referees on this Paper, which is

under consideration for Classical and Quantum Gravity, and are

enclosing copies of the relevant report(s) recommending substantial

changes.

First Referee's Report

According to the cover page of the manuscript sent to this referee,

this paper was received electronically. I believe there are several

typographical errors that may have be due to the transmission or

software problems (e.g., possibly some extra h's). Thus, if this

paper is accepted, then the authors and editors may wish to be extra

careful in going over the printed proof copy.

Page 7 line 4: There is an extra "h" after the sentence at the end

of the first paragraph.This may be a transmission or software error.

Page 9 line 3: There is an extra "h" after the sentence

which ends with "a topological invariant."

Page 12 line 7: "filed" (after the word quantum) should be "field".

Page 12 line 10: "symmetric" (after Euclidean) should be

"signature".

Page 20 line at bottom: There is an extra "h" after the last sentence

on the page.

Pages 22-24 (References): The references on the manuscript sent to

this referee are not quite in the usual style of the journal. Also,

they are not even given in a consistent style. In particular, some

multiple authored articles have a comma between the authors names

(see for example reference #5) and some multiple authored papers do

not have a comma between the authors names (see for example reference

#7). For unknown reasons the references #11, #12 and #14 have

parens around the letter of the first name of the author.

Second Referee's Report

QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Q2, Sound, original and of interest.

RECOMMENDATION: R4: Revise substantially, along the lines indicated;

with these revisions I expect the paper to be suitable for

publication.

The author's make the interesting observation that, in the limit of

infinite temperature, a field theory is reduced to a topological

field theory which may be a suitable description of the initial phase

of the universe. I recommend the following points be clarified in the

paper before publication:

(1) Through out the paper, \beta = 0 is stated and it would be much

clearer if \beta -> 0 is considered which better describes the limit

of infinite temperature.

(2) On page 4 (and other pages e.g. page 6) \beta -> \dot which

should presumable be replaced by \beta -> \infty? There is also a

reference missing on page 4.

(3) Much of the details in section 2, regarding the metric

independence of the partition function, are standard details which

could be omitted. Also, the form of the energy - momentum tensor

T_{\alpha\beta}, given on page 8, is true for a specific type of field

theory. The authors' provide no information of the nature of field

theories being considered in the paper. For example, are they

supersymmetric etc.?

(4) The authors' point out the H=0 (or L, which is typical for

topological field theories) can, more or less, be viewed as the same

as \beta H =0 for \beta =0 (in the limit of infinite temperature).

This crucial and interesting observation needs to be supplemented

with more detailed analysis since it is crucial for their ideas to

work. It would be very helpful and more convincing if the authors'

could provide further support. For example, can contact be made with

general covariance or topology on taking the \beta->0 limit of some

established standard results?

(5) I can almost accept that in the limit of infinite temperature,

contact can be made with a topological phase of some field theory

(the type of field theory needs to be elaborated on however). The

crucial question, however, is how does the initial topological phase

break down to a universe we see today. I would be of great interest

if the authors' could at least worry about this issue.

(6) The scale of metric mentioned in proposition 2.2 is not easy to

understand.

(7) In some places, the grammar used needs to be re-worded. Also, the

various "black dots" which appear throughout the paper are confusing

and need clarifying.

If the author's can successfully rectify the above, I will recommend

the paper for publication.

Subject: CQG/119461/PAP

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 14:52:13 +0100

From: "Imported For: Class. Quantum Grav. --By: IOPP.API"

<c...@iop.org>

To: <igor.b...@free.fr>

COMMENT : On the basis of this very detailed set of questions /

corrections and requests of modifications 5 month of work was

necessary

to meet all the requests of the referees. We sent the revised version

mid June and received the second report on July 23 as follows :

Ref: CQG/119461/PAP

23 July 2001

Dr I Bogdanov

Laboratoire Gevrey de Mathematique

Physique

Universite de Bourgogne

CNRS UPRES A 5029

5 avenue de Montespan

75016 Paris

FRANCE

Dear Dr Bogdanov

TITLE: Topological theory of the initial ...

AUTHORS: G Bogdanov et al

We have now received advice from our referees on this Paper, which is

under consideration for Classical and Quantum Gravity, and are

enclosing copies of the relevant report(s).

--

Second Referee's Second Report

The revised manuscript is much better but still requires some

re-working on the grammar, which I will not make an issue of.

In a few places, however, the authors need to make it clear what they

are referring to, for example on page 33, the line after equation

(77)

states: "Then, as showed in (2.1), ....". Are the

authors referring to example (2.1)? I will assume such issues will be

rectified.

Regarding content, the authors have addressed my original questions

(1) Through out the paper, \beta = 0 is stated and it would be much

clearer if \beta -> 0 is considered which better describes the limit

of infinite temperature.

(2) On page 4 (and other pages e.g. page 6) \beta -> \dot which

should presumable be replaced by \beta -> \infty? There is also a

reference missing on page 4.

(3) Much of the details in section 2, regarding the metric

independence of the partition function, are standard details which

could be omitted. Also, the form of the energy - momentum tensor

T_{\alpha\beta}, given on page 8, is true for a specific type of field

theory. The authors' provide no information of the nature of field

theories being considered in the paper. For example, are they

supersymmetric etc.?

(4) The authors' point out the H=0 (or L, which is typical for

topological field theories) can, more or less, be viewed as the same

as \beta H =0 for \beta =0 (in the limit of infinite temperature).

This crucial and interesting observation needs to be supplemented

with more detailed analysis since it is crucial for their ideas to

work. It would be very helpful and more convincing if the authors'

could provide further support. For example, can contact be made with

general covariance or topology on taking the \beta->0 limit of some

established standard results?

(5) I can almost accept that in the limit of infinite temperature,

contact can be made with a topological phase of some field theory

(the type of field theory needs to be elaborated on however). The

crucial question, however, is how does the initial topological phase

break down to a universe we see today. I would be of great interest

if the authors' could at least worry about this issue.

(6) The scale of metric mentioned in proposition 2.2 is not easy to

understand.

(7) In some places, the grammar used needs to be re-worded. Also, the

various "black dots" which appear throughout the paper are confusing

and need clarifying.

and I feel that by doing so (authors) have needed to include a lot

more detail

than they originally intended, but I feel the paper may be made more

accessible if the following was considered:

Section 5 is very important and interesting but I feel it can be

simplified. Is it possible to provide a specific example or toy-model

of the ideas here? Then, perhaps, an outline of the detailed results

could be given? The authors point out that there are further details

in ref. 2, and I feel that many of the details of section 5 could be

left their, but this may not be possible?

COMMENT : We worked again during a whole month before sending the new

substantially revised version to CQG (Aug 15). Then we received the

accetance of the paper on Aug 24 :

Subject: CQG/119461/PAP

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:19:56 +0100

From: "Imported For: Class. Quantum Grav. --By: IOPP.API"

<c...@iop.org>

To: <igor.b...@free.fr>

Ref: CQG/119461/PAP

24 August 2001

Dr I Bogdanov

Laboratoire Gevrey de Mathematique

Physique

Universite de Bourgogne

CNRS UPRES A 5029

5 avenue de Montespan

75016 Paris

FRANCE

Dear Dr Bogdanov

TITLE: Topological theory of the initial ...

AUTHORS: G Bogdanov et al

We are pleased to inform you that we have accepted your article for

publication in Classical and Quantum Gravity as a Paper.

COMMENT : It took 7 month of very detailed work before we could

address

all the questions raised in the various reports and get a version of

the paper that could satisfy the referee.

After having read the referee's report, everyone who is familiar with

topological field theory would immediately realize that the referee

understood perfectly well the paper. His question raised in point 4

demontrates that not only the referee obviously knows the principles

of

topological field theory but also understood the idea presented in the

paper : " The authors' point out the H=0 (or L, which is typical for

topological field theories) can, more or less, be viewed as the same

as

\beta H =0 for \beta =0 (in the limit of infinite temperature)."

IN CONCLUSION : It seems totally unfair to pretend :

1) that the referee did not read the paper

2) that the referee did not understand its content

3) that the referee was not demanding profound corrections and

modifications

for the paper to meet the standards of the journal.

Thank you for your attention,

Best regards,

Igor BOGDANOFF Grichka BOGDANOFF

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu