PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

Case Study:

Reviewer suggests publishing in the form of a short report.

The author's response to the reviewer's comment: Whether to publish in the form of a short report depends on the editor, not you.

The second reviewer wrote a three-page review, criticizing the previously described "very interesting" article from beginning to end, even questioning the title.

Case analysis:
In this incident, the author did not make any major mistakes, at most, they were a bit careless. In contrast, the second reviewer clearly had a narrow mindset, and the editor's decision showed a close relationship between the second reviewer and the editor, a corrupt network.

In reality, the Physical Review series of journals operate under a system where the editors and reviewers, who have relationships with each other, dominate over the weaker authors. They have the power to do whatever they want, while authors have no say. When will someone address the ethical issues of editors and reviewers with relationships?!

This comment is very fair. From my personal experience: some truly innovative and groundbreaking articles that genuinely surpass previous theories, if submitted by a newly graduated PhD, are directly rejected by the editors. After multiple appeals, they finally agree to send it for review, but the article is only sent to one reviewer, possibly someone who is being challenged and exceeded by the new theory, and they reject it again with a long and fallacious review. At this point, there is basically no chance of getting published in journals like PRL and PRX. This is the true face of PRL and PRX. It is filled with discrimination against the authors' backgrounds, protection of existing powers in the academic community, and lacks any pursuit and criticism of true scientific truth. There is no self-reflection whatsoever. PRL and PRX are not pure scientific territories and no longer earn my respect. In fact, it is now a very opportunistic and corrupt academic swamp.