I submitted some material to CPS. After of some time, I had problems with my affiliation to University of Vigo, and my work was rejected for preprint. However, the problems were rapidly solved (I thank the interest of James Weeks, Chemistry Preprint Server Co-ordinator) and I continued to submit some material to chemweb whereas continued my research. However, the chemistry preprint (2000-2004) was forced to close!!!!! As a member, I received the official communication (18 May 2004). Now I cannot submit new articles, neither modify/alter the previous preprints.
“Hyle” is a good journal for the philosophical part that arises of my work. For example, from canonical chemistry we can derive quantum mechanics as a special case. Moreover, my work introduces strong generalizations of theories of physics as “advanced” as string theory (the most advanced theory of fundamental physics). This breaks the usual hierarchical interpretation of sciences. Now physics is NOT the most fundamental of sciences with chemistry as an “applied” branch of it. The situation is more “horizontal”, with chemistry as a proper science, outside of the shadow of physics. Of course, this opens a new epistemological interpretation of science hierarchy. The journal “Foundations of chemistry” is also good.
But the main problem is with the publication of research articles. I have again problems of affiliation. Moreover, some high-level journals support their activities introducing standard publication charges to authors. An example is $100 per article plus $100 for per journal page. The journal where chemist Pauling and chemist Zewail, between others, published part of their initial works requests $55 per page and an article charge of $20 per article, with a page charge of $150 for each page in excess of 12 pages. I communicated with its editor. Donald H. Levy said: “We will consider all papers on their scientific merits regardless of the position or academic background of the author”. Fortunately, they valuate just the work and not who do it; others request an adequate affiliation first! But my second research article, where I show more detail about canonical chemistry and show how quantum transport or the master equation of particle physics are special cases of our basic equations has 20 pages. Note that I do not receive funding or grants for supporting those very elevated costs!
I also have great problems with the peer-review of usual scientific journals. Many revolutionary works were rejected for publication or rejected by chemical community (See above cited article about canonical education), For example, Zewail’s work was rejected by chemists, but now he won a Nobel Prize for Chemistry. His fascinating work, revolutionary “only” in the field of transitions states, lasers, and all that, led intact over the “90%” of chemistry and all of physics. Imagine the reject of my ideas if I claim for a revolution on a “70%” of both!!
Moreover, my work is multidisciplinary, I am working in relativity, scattering, quantum theory, thermodynamics, statistics, math, cosmochemistry and astrochemistry, adsorption kinetics, philosophy, ecology, biophysics, basic epistemological questions of chemistry (such as definition of chemical reaction), etc. In a future, I want address the problem of definition of atoms (Bader def. is not very convincing for me), computation, applied laser chemistry, engineering models for efficient transport, and others. It is very difficult for me to publish in dozens of journals, and would be difficult for people (specially students) to recollect all my work, even if were published! I see also a problem of time; the time of appearing is much more large for revolutionary theories. Once, an article appeared in 1957 in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, 25 years after it was initially submitted!
Do you know that the law of conservation of energy was rejected for publication in a journal of physics, and then resubmitted to a journal of chemistry edited by Liebig and Wöhler? Unfortunately, that was in the past (when chemistry was in the cutting-edge side of physics); now many referees have a more “closed mind” and consider that all of fundamental chemistry is already known. In fact, the previous manuscript of the theory have received more interest from some physicists that from chemists. In my first research article (posted as preprint at chemweb), a famous chemist said that I “would” be wrong. Note that he said not exactly in that: “Perhaps the referees of the journal to which you submitted this article will point out the error in your discussion.” A recognized specialist (physicist), working with equations “similar” to mine, said, “I like your approach... and that use of your extension seems to work for mesoscopic systems where it may not be justified by Keizer’s original thinking. However, we found long ago that the fluctuation theory worked down to the angstrom level and could give results in agreement with neutron scattering. Thus your extension may be valid for related reasons.”
Recently, a group of four celebrated investigators of the Research School of Chemistry in cooperation with other investigator has published a sound paper with the claim of experimental violation of the second law for small systems. As said in my first article, they understood incorrectly the evolution of the small system, because they used “19th century” thermodynamics, but we are at the 21st century! The claim is incorrect; two or three specialists (physicists) have already published comments on Wang et al. paper. I have checked the fifth version of celebrated manual on physical chemistry by Levine and one can read a WRONG presentation of the law. Even Wang et al. claim of that the second law is violated in small chemical systems appears as obvious one! Other specialist (physicist) said me: “I agree with you that ‘experimental demonstration of violation of the second law’ is only in the title of the paper by Wang et al.”
Has been 20th century theoretical chemistry somewhat an “archaic” field? Is the usual chemical education adequate? Imagine that you (perhaps a student or young researcher) read Levine or other manual, and after you publish a research paper as that of Wang et al. and physicists show that you are completely wrong because you are learned “archaic” topics. It appears clear that canonical chemistry is needed for the above-introduced 5) objective.
Now, the manuscript about thermodynamics has been enlarged and improved with further research. I even received (March 2004) a formal invitation for participating in an international conference about the topic (but the lack of funding and affiliation...). Of course, I am not saying that the work was perfect. I simply say that when more revolutionary is a work more rejection one receives. Young chemist interested in nanothermodynamics (“senior” academics have claimed that thermodynamics is only a macroscopic science) would check my own work on the topic and see if it is useful for understanding the thermal properties of small chemical systems.
In fact, the chemist Stuart Schreiber has said in public that one of the problems of current (20th century) chemistry was the attitude of some senior academics. Those senior academic with “closed minds” have ignored some emerging areas of chemistry and would reject (I am sure) canonical chemistry because is too novel for them. This is a great problem; fortunately, young people have minds that are more “open”. Note that canonical chemistry is even more revolutionary that the new quantum mechanics developed recently by the chemist Ilya Prigogine. In fact, during some time Gonzalo Ordonez (Ilya Prigogine Center for Studies in Statistical Mechanics and Complex Systems and International Solvay Institutes for Physics and Chemistry) and I look for a mathematical link between my theoretical ideas and Brussels theories. We never find it. After of a new recent research, I found that canonical chemistry cannot be reduced to Brussels theory, because one needs to modify the so-called Liouville equation. Canonical chemistry is more general. All this is directly inspired in chemistry! This is fascinating!
Prigogine said in his last book “The end of certainty”, that physicist were always very hostile with his work on a new physics; work mainly “inspired” in his previous work in chemistry (Nobel Prize for chemistry 1977). He did none direct contribution to string theory and mathematically his new theory is very similar to the own of Dirac, Gamow, Poincare, Gelfand, Bohm, and others (for example he “complements” the usual Liouville equation by a set of markovian equations based in his novel non-unitary operator lambda). Simply imagine the reject of canonical chemistry by the same physicists! We substitute directly the basic equation of advanced quantum mechanics by a rate equation somewhat similar to the chemical equation for a bimolecular reaction A + B = C + D but with a revolutionary vectorial stoichiometry in Liouville space.
I am founding a new independent Center for supporting this research and for posting this new view of chemistry, including manuals and articles on canonical chemistry. Moreover, it is an objective of the center to facilitate free access to both educative and viewpoint articles. Now chemical students can access only to journals “sited” in the library of their university! For example, when I was a student in the University of Vigo I could not access to articles of Journal of Chemical Education prior to 1990 aprox.