Why this article was rejected by a peer reviewed physical journal one year after the submission

            The objections for publishing are numbered, following the logical answers.

  1. The article is too long.

Answer: How to present in a limited volume of a few pages a completely new theory based on a different concept of the physical vacuum that affects all different fields of theoretical physics?

  1. The author “should present clearly his fundamental theme in a logically or mathematically convincing fashion” instead of wide range of poorly-evidenced speculations concerning a loose variety of topics such as superconductivity, molecular structure, and astronomical or cosmological speculations.

Answer: A narrow scope article could not provide a clear vision about the whole aspect of the theory, so it could not be an abstract paper about a unified theory. Another reason: Presently, the common unified concept is missing and different fields are advancing independently. As a result the different field are higly diversified. The physicists are usually experts in one narrow field, using sofisticated mathematical methods, while lacking the knowledge in other fields.  In such case, they confidently adopt the accepted common concept. Then if some physicist try to introduce some correction, this is accepted as a speculation, despite the reasonable arguments.

  1. There is not detailed analysis in the abstract paper and lack of references.

Answer: How to provide detailed analysis covering the different fields in a limited volume? How to cite references, while they are not discussed in the text of the paper? The detailed analysis is provided in the full version of the theory where enough references are sited.

Conclusion: Presently, the main stream peer reviewed journals are not adapted for discussion of fundamental issue that may shake the bases of modern physics. Not only articles, but even short letters are rejected with thanks (?). For some topics a censorship evidently exists.

P.S. The article” Brief introduction of Basic Structures of Matter theory and derive atomic models, published in Journal of Theoretics (an independent on-line peer reviewed journal) may partly serve instead of the abstract paper, but it could not replace it. The abstract paper is useful in order to get a vision how many fields are affected when changing the concept of the physical vacuum. It comes to show how important is this topic, that presently is outside of the vision of many physicists. The question is, how long one 100 years old and plagued of problems concept of physical vacuum will be artificially supported by censorship in publishing and discussions. How much this will cost for the advancement of science an humanity? Only the future could answer this question.