To my fellow researchers worldwide,

What happened to me today may happen to you tomorrow. I am a researcher from Yemen. I submitted a manuscript to Elsevier's Physics Open . What followed was not merely a rejection — it was a documented chain of ten violations of every ethical policy in scientific publishing.

The Ten Documented Violations:

1. Misrepresentation of Reviewer Recommendation The rejection letter states: "The reviewers recommend against publishing." In the same document, the sole reviewer explicitly recommends publication: "The article satisfies the high standards of the journal." How can two contradictory recommendations exist in one document?

2. Misleading the Reviewer The Editor-in-Chief sent the reviewer a letter stating: "With your help, I have reached a reject decision." The reviewer — who had recommended acceptance — was shocked. Is misleading a reviewer acceptable editorial practice?

3. Documented False Statement The Editor-in-Chief claimed he had received "NO communication" from me. Yet Elsevier's own records show he communicated with the support team the previous day. How is "no communication" possible when records prove the opposite?

4. Hostile and Unprofessional Conduct When I used official complaint channels, the Editor-in-Chief described me as "trying to bully" and making "false accusations." Is using official complaint channels "bullying"?

5. Retaliatory Timing The second manuscript was rejected on the very same day I accepted a compromise resolution for my first manuscript. Is this scientific timing, or a message?

6. Failure to Establish a Transparent Appeal Mechanism I requested five times that the case be referred to the independent Research Integrity team. Instead, the Publisher intervened personally — overseeing the very journal whose Editor-in-Chief was the subject of the complaint. Is this an appeal, or a conflict of interest?

7. Undisclosed Conflict of Interest The Editor-in-Chief personally attacked my scientific theory, describing it as "a widely discredited claim" without evidence. The reviewer found it of "potential significance." Where was this bias disclosed during editorial assignment?

8. Three Contradictory Reasons in One Document The rejection states: "Reviewers recommend against publishing" + "The manuscript does not meet required quality standards" + "We were not able to find the required number of reviewers." Which of these is the true reason? How can all three be true simultaneously?

9. Rejection Not Based on Scientific Validity The sole reviewer recommended publication. The Editor-in-Chief rejected without providing any scientific reason. Is this an editorial decision or a personal one?

10. Unauthorized Access to a Confidential Cover Letter After rejection, I transferred the manuscript to Annals of Physics via Elsevier's system. I wrote a confidential cover letter addressed exclusively to the new journal's editors.

That same day, I received an email from the Editor-in-Chief of Physics Open (who had rejected the original manuscript) describing the content of my private cover letter as "a highly inaccurate account of the editorial process."

The simple question: How did the Editor-in-Chief of one journal know the content of a letter addressed exclusively to another journal?

I Ask Only Two Questions:

First: How did the Editor-in-Chief of Physics Open access the content of a confidential cover letter submitted to Annals of Physics ?

Second: If system logs show "no breach," how do you explain the documented evidence — the Editor-in-Chief's own email quoting a private document he was never meant to see?

What I Did and What Happened:

I asked Elsevier to investigate: The Publisher closed the case as "miscommunication" without answering a single question.

I asked COPE to intervene: They closed the case as "beyond their remit."

I asked the ICO to investigate: The case is under review.

I asked Elsevier Support to direct questions to the three parties: Only circular referrals between departments.

I received not one evidence-based answer.

I Ask You:

1. Verify for yourselves.

All evidence is attached. Read the rejection letter, read the reviewer report, read the Editor-in-Chief's email, and compare. If you find anything incorrect in my evidence — any contradiction, any false claim — I take full responsibility before you.

2. Help me find the answer.

If any of you can explain these incidents — technically, editorially, or legally — please share. I am open to any logical explanation.

3. Stand with me if you believe the evidence speaks for itself.

Not for me alone. If an Editor-in-Chief can write contradictory reasons in one document, mislead a reviewer, describe official complaints as "bullying," and access confidential correspondence meant for another journal — who guarantees this will not happen to you?

Conclusion:

I do not seek revenge. I seek an answer. Two questions. And if the answer is "no breach," then I ask for one thing: How did he know?

Share your advice and opinions. Is there something I missed? Is there another path I should take? I am listening.

If there is a lawyer who can help me with this privacy violation, I am happy to provide them with the evidence. 

Respectfully,

Raheb Ali Mohammed Saleh Aoudh

Sana'a University, Yemen

Documented violations and breaches of privacy by a scientific journal and publishing house