"Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, dass ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären, sondern dadurch, dass die Gegner allmählich aussterben und dass die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist."
Maybe they think, it is not necessary to investigate work into interference networks neglecting Heinz, neglecting the world of non-materialistic waves, of interference integrals, wave field simulations, the principles of interference locations, the demonstrations, applications and the hole idea.
"2) The author defined an interference net as a network in which time functions interact with each other under some operations. He explained several operations such as non-orthogonal vector/matrix notation, self-and cross-interference, interference integrals, but the reviewer thinks that an interference net with such simple and ordinary operators does not work so nice as the author argues in Abstract."
It is a deep insinuation, to suggest that "simple and ordinary operators does not work so nice". I said nothing about a 'nice work' of such operators. Developing the acoustic photo- and cinematography, I think I know better then everybody else, how complex the parameter structure of such network is. I have no words. Only I know, I'm not a good writer. I think, the conference organizer should carefully inspect his reviewing personal: it is out of any respect to write such impertinent, stupid things.
Because different reviewers have inspected the paper and the ideas, the paper appears published de-facto. Independent of my will I have to put it into the web to open it for other scientists too.
I removed some mistakes (wrong references), made some corrections and added some remarks.
Berlin, April 2007
Gerd Heinz
|
From: Jose Mira Subject: Paper rejected from IWINAC2007 (ref. IW07-135).. To: "Gerd Heinz" Reply-To: iwinac@dia.uned.es Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:19:43 +0200 [--- sorry for repeated message due to email problems ---] Dear Prof. Heinz, I regret to inform you that your paper: * "Time Function Waves, Interference Integrals and Abstract Field Theory" has been rejected for IWINAC2007 conference. Please, note that the rejection decision has been based on the recommendations of the referees who have used several criteria such as technical quality, fitness to IWINAC2007 topics, newness, clarity, format requirements, etc. The opinions of the referees have also been weighted according to the degree of expertise declared about themselves and their confidence on the subject. In some cases, the referees have added a few specific comments on your paper. All these comments are now included together below for your information. Please, note that in some cases the referees suggest a set of improvements, but unfortunately, changes on the paper are not considered after the evaluation. Also, please mind that these comments are not the only justification for the rejection decission. The Scientific Committee also has taken into account other scientific reasons not included in the "comments for authors" field. I kindly ask for your understanding on the consequences of the peer review process. At the same time, I value your effort and interest in the IWINAC conference and encourage you to apply again in the next venue, if this is of your interest. Yours sincerely, Jose Mira IWINAC2007 General Chairman http://www.iwinac.uned.es/ ------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments for authors from referees about paper (ref. IW07-135) "Time Function Waves, Interference Integrals and Abstract Field Theory": - - - 1) It is difficult to find any scitific and experimentally verifiable proposal in this paper. There is no physiological evidence for the proposal. 2) The author defined an interference net as a network in which time functions interact with each other under some operations. He explained several operations such as non-orthogonal vector/matrix notation, self-and cross-interference, interference integrals, but the reviewer thinks that an interference net with such simple and ordinary operators does not work so nice as the author argues in Abstract. 3) Figures are not understandably presented. 4) There is a lack of external references, outside self-reference. Mention of McCulloch, Lashley and Kohonen is not clearly justified. - - - Please write your manuscript according to a standard way of writing a scientific paper. Readers may not understand your paper. - - - The paper uses a difficult to understand jargon and makes unjustified claims about the kind of results it ought to achieve. The biggest problem of the paper is that it lacks an sufficienty argued comparison with other works in the literature. - - - There are some details observed in the paper: -\tLashley[11] should be Lashley[12] -\tReferences 11,13,14,15,16,17,18 and 19 are not cited in the text. ------------------------------------------------------------------- |