RealQM vs StdQM under Review

The review process of a first article presenting RealQM to the world of theoretical physics/chemistry, is now under way at the Springer journal Foundations of Chemistry. Five reviewers have been invited and two have accepted so far. 

The review takes place from a background of textbook Standard Quantum Mechanics StdQM from which RealQM will be measured. The consensus is that there is no prediction by StdQM which is in conflict with observation. 

For example, the consensus is that the Heitler-London first StdQM prediction of the binding energy of the Hydrogen molecule $H_2$, which is 35% too small, is not in conflict with observation, because the accuracy of the prediction is very low. The consensus is that improved HL predictions will agree to any given accuracy. 

RealQM for $H_2$ gives on a coarse mesh and energy within 1% deviation, but will meet the high standard of consensus of StdQM of no deviation at all. 

So RealQM will not be able to compete with numbers against high standard of StdQM. But RealQM has an advantage by having linear computational complexity and by offering a clear theoretical explanation of the physics of the covalent bond forming the molecule, because RealQM is based on assumptions of clear physical nature, which is not the case for StdQM. 

It will be interesting to follow the reviewers argumentation expected to be based on the consensus.