So, since we only have your interpretation of the response you got, is it possible that the response you actually got was on the order of "You are making a claim that disagrees with current thought, and provide insufficient support for that claim"? Because that's a reasonable thing to say, I think.
And, yes, the peer review process is not perfect. Anything involving humans is not perfect, because *humans* aren't perfect.
It would help if you posted a verbatim response and ideally a link to your paper. Without that it’s a case of “I said, he said…”.
The impression you’re giving is that you had a paper rejected (or at least not accepted as submitted) which you feel was unjust. Your conclusion therefore is that the peer-review process is flawed and anyone who disagrees with you is a “freak”. If you adopted that approach with your submission then no wonder it wasn’t accepted.
The peer-review system isn’t perfect and never will be, what alternative do you suggest?
PS – Did you modify your paper at all, have you resubmitted it, has it subsequently been accepted/published?
What credentials exactly do you have that would make your paper qualify for publication in a peer reviewed journal. That may have something to do with the rejection??
You're wrong and always will be, deal with it
I actually sent in an important paper that got the response that what I wrote disagreed with current thought and therefore must be wrong.
They REALLY wrote that.
I have sent in other papers with other studid responses.
That EMPIRICALLY is what happens under "peer review".
Meanwhile people who cannoty do freshman phyasics mindlessly defend a process that screens out serious discussion.
