Standard practice is that, if a reviewer has prior acquaintance with a research project, or has some kind of interaction with the authors, they decline the review. It is, in most cases, unethical to review a paper for a person you know. 

Standard practice is that, if a reviewer has prior acquaintance with a research project, or has some kind of interaction with the authors, they decline the review. It is, in most cases, unethical to review a paper for a person you know. 

Dear Achilleas loannis Kostoulas:

           Thank you very much for your attention!

           Yes, I agree with you,  so I called for some responsible reviewer who I don't know him before. 

      I think it is most important that he should be a honest resercher. I met a editors before, he told me that my paper is good , but editor  checked that the reviewer who disagree with me reject my paper, simply because many his own published paper is based on a method which I pointed out it has some problem.

    If he point out what I mention is wrong and give the reasons, I would feel happy.

But if a reviewer reject other people's paper with no reasons, this reviewer is not honest researcher.

The proper process is to not discuss this work with anyone associated with a publisher. Simply give seminars on the paper and get feedback from your colleagues, and perhaps also give a conference presentation in order to get even more feedback. THEN you send it to a journal, and let the journal editors deal with who shall be referees. Good luck! :-)

Dear Michael patriksson,

        However, in China,due to our gorvenment support Global warming, experts who disagree with GW is difficult to apply for any funding even if the project is not about GW.

      The recent discovery of my work has already to give presentation in a conference of our institute, many students stood by my sides but the professors of our department were unwilling to be as reviewers for this paper. I told them that all the data can be opened to them , even calculation scheme.

      But no one are willing to be reviewer of this paper. Some good friend of mine told me that if you want me to be one reviewer of your paper, but I can't say positive words to your paper simply because I don't want to be in your status : who nobody dared to cooperate with you and no fundings would be given to.(It passed 6 years which I can't obtain fundings,even my publications can indicated that I have made some progress on research fields).

     That is why I made a message here to call for reviewer who is a honest person.

     Anyway, thank you for your attentions!

Regards

Tan

my colleagues are all supporting global climate warming due to anthropological reasons. When I finished my presentation in the annual academic meeting,all the students gave me warm applause while those all professors with cold faces!

to @Ji Qing Tan

Do not be afraid to send an article  to a good journal - the  editor will evaluate it as necessary in due course. I guess you will win if your arguments are true!

Dear Anatolij  K.  Prykarpatski,

        Thank you very much for your message.

        It would take about several days for me asking some others to check my paper again, and I will send to Science, I guess this is a good journal, isn't it?

Regards

Tan

 In science, if we want to investigate any scientific problem, major influence factors should be given more priority to be investigated. However, only one field is an exception: that is global climate warming. Many scientists ignore the major climate influence factors and consider greenhouse effect  due to human reasons to be the main reason , although they knew it is much smaller than the major climate factors.

     Their logic is that the recent unusual trend of land surface temperature is non-periodic, major periodic factors only cause periodic changes.

     Recently, after more than a half year's effort, we prove that the monthly anomaly of global land surface temperature can be fitted perfectly by a group of periodic functions, the verification results indicate that the correlated coefficients of more than 15,000 periodic functions are all more than 0.9.(Last year, I mentioned I found a function which its the correlated coefficient is 0.8)

    I send the paper to one of the toppest IF magazines, the editor said" we know  your reseach result is absolutely right,but many people already believe in this view, thousands of papers have already published , so we have to reject your paper. And we also tell you that  no magazine is willing to publish your paper".

    One anonymous email is send to me with the following word :

         "Birth is much, but breeding is more."