Let us see how AIAA Journal editor Greg Blaisdell uses this technique in his response to our submitted article New Theory of Flight:
- I believe the reviewers have treated your paper fairly and have given thoughtful, well-reasoned critiques of your paper. They have not been simply dismissive in their response. I hope you will follow their suggestions for further reading so that you may better understand the basis of their remarks.
- Given the criticisms the reviewers have brought up, I do not see how you could successfully rebut their comments. However, I am willing to read a rebuttal, if you think you can refute what they have said. Before doing so, I would encourage you to read the references the reviewers cite and to discuss the issues with your colleagues in the Aeronautics or Mechanics Departments at KTH, as the reviewers suggested.
- If after having done that, you think the comments of the reviewers are not valid, then I would be willing to listen. However, I think you would have a difficult time convincing me that the reviewers are mistaken.
- I do not want you to waste your time, since I seriously doubt any rebuttal would be successful. However, in the spirit of scientific inquiry, if you truly think the reviewers' comments are not valid and can prove that, then I would be willing to listen.