The paper explores a new principle related to Einstein’s theory of relativity. According to the authors, after the Canadian Journal of Physics notified them on July 17 about the decision to retract the paper, they asked the editor to publish their objection “to defend our sound point of view, and beyond this, our scientific reputation.” But Kholmetskii—who lists his affiliation at Belarus State University in Minsk, and Yarman, a professor at Okan University in Istanbul—told us that the editor found their response “inappropriate.” As a result, the authors turned to aiXiv to protest the retraction.
It has been brought to the attention of the Editor that this paper contains several scientific errors. Thus, the editor requested that the paper be rejected. However, as the Can. J. Phys. version of the paper has already been published, this is not possible, and so the Editor of Can. J. Phys. is retracting it.
The paper, accepted on June 15 and published July 5, has not yet been indexed by Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science.
The notice, accepted on July 21 and published September 5, does not provide any details about the errors. We’re also not sure why an editor would try to reject a paper that had already been published, and why the journal said it “accepted” a retraction notice that wasn’t submitted by the original authors. The editor of the journal, Michael Steinitz, declined to comment.
In the arXiv post, published September 20, Kholmetskii and Yarman discuss what happened and defend their work. In the post, Kholmetskii and Yarman include a comment they received from one of the associate editors at the journal, who flagged the errors in the paper:
The authors use the example of electromagnetic and gravitational forces cancelling. This is impossible. They have different spins and different polarizations. Their physics is wrong.
The authors acknowledge that the associate editor’s claim is “understandable” and in general “do not argue against this statement.” But the authors clarify that, in the context of their paper, the editor’s comment does not apply. They note:
Recently, Canadian Journal of Physics (CJP) published the retraction with respect to our paper, stating that “this paper contains several scientific errors”. We absolutely disagree with this statement, and continue to be sure that the paper is fully correct. In any case, the readers have the right to be aware about the claimed “several scientific errors” (which are not indicated) and, on the other hand, we have further the responsibility to defend our scientific reputation….we believe that our paper is fully correct from the physical viewpoint, and it contains some results of the principal importance. In these conditions, we actually regret with respect to the decision of CJP to retract this paper, which we believe is interesting and important.
The authors declined to share their correspondence with the journal.
Hat tip: Rolf Degen
Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here. If you have comments or feedback, you can reach us at email@example.com.