my submission plan and history:
<table border="1">
<tr>
<td>Revista</td>
<td>coefic.2002</td>
<td>status
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Proc. Roy. Soc. A  </td>
<td>1.4,0.3 </td>
<td>Submitted 1/12; as of 15/12 it was unacknowledged yet, thus I withdrew it; still, a confirmation
  of rejection was received in <a href="/blog/research/npub/1902prs.txt">february</a>. 
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Nature</td>
<td>30.4,7.5</td>
<td>PreSubmision request; kindly rejected (thanks Karen!) 2/12/03
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Phys. Rev. Lett.</td>
<td>7.3,1.5</td>
<td>Submitted 15/12,
rejected by editors <a href="/blog/research/npub/2212.txt">22/12</a> and <a href="/blog/research/npub/2412.txt">24/12</a>.
Appeal <a href="/blog/research/npub/0701.tex">0701</a>(<a href="/blog/research/npub/0701.ps">ps</a>).
Final <a href="/blog/research/npub/2402.txt">24/02</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Phys. Lett. B</td>
<td>4.2,1.48</td>
<td>Submitted <a href="/blog/research/npub/2402.submit">2402</a> rejected by editors <a href="/blog/research/npub/0803.txt">0803</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>EuroPhysicsLetters</td>
<td>2.36,0.5?</td>
<td>submitted 3103, rejected by editors <a href="/blog/research/npub/0104.txt">0104</a>, protested <a href="/blog/research/npub/1904.txt">1904</a>, answer received <a href="/blog/research/npub/1205.txt">1205</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Nuc. Phys A</td>
<td>1.56,1.02</td>
<td>submitted 0104 Rejected by editors <a href="/blog/research/npub/0604.txt">0604</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mod Phys Let A</td>
<td>1.4 0.5</td>
<td>submitted <a href="/blog/research/npub/0604.submit">0604</a>, rejected <a href="/blog/research/npub/0605.txt">0605</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Eur Phys J A (nuclear)</td>
<td>1.65, 0.16</td>
<td>submitted 0605. Rejected <a href="/blog/research/npub/1205b.txt">1205</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="3">Here I surrender; please check the call for <a href="http://www.infoaragon.net/servicios/blogs/arivero/index.php?idarticulo=200405191">Esau 
Miniprizes</a> awarding related publications.
</td></tr>
</table>
As you see, most editors avoid content, judging crackpottery from style, 
and sometimes looking for an excuse a posteriori. So improvement of the
paper from editorial comments is practically impossible
<p> 
Here, the point is subtle. Nucleons orbiting (bound!) in a nucleus
 suffer
self-energy and vertex corrections from any interacting boson. Rule
of thumb is to forget about any boson whose mass is above the proton
mass. On other hand, the system being bound, the recoil mass of the
center of force is the mass of the whole nucleus, and this could invalidate
the naive scale at the proton mass.
The paper could indicate that 
vertex or self-energy corrections are relevant in some situations.
 But I have 
avoided specific technical claims, limiting the article to show the experimental
status. It seems honest to point out this status to the community, but 
editorial procedures are against this kind of production. 

<p>In any case, one must remember that editorial procedures are just
a reflect of the community. And then wonder how have we come to this
situation.

<p>Other journals:

<table border="1">
<tr>
<td>PHIL Trans Roy Soc</td>
<td>1.6, 1.0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>JHEP</td>
<td>6.8,2.9 (era gratuito al principio, aunque ya empezo con un 6.7)
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>njp.iop.org</td>
<td>1.768, 0.376 (acaba de empezar, se mantendra gratuito)
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Nuc Phys B</td>
<td>5.4, 2.1
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>ANP</td>
<td>10.5,-
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>ARNPS</td>
<td>7.17,0,4
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>E Ph J C (particle)</td>
<td>6.1,1.0
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Science</td>
<td>28.9,5.86</td>
<td>Letter 2 Editor, 3/12/03
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<pre>
While it is clear that spin-orbit coupling can be get for nuclear
forces by using a relativistic approach, practitioners known that the huge
spin orbit separations at big magic numbers do still need of an empirical
adjust. So I considered interesting to take a look to nuclei for magic
numbers 50, 82 and 126 by looking at the sub-shells that are responsible
of the magicity. These are, respectively, g9/2, h11/2 and i13/2.

I considered to evaluate the average weight of nuclei while they are
filling these sub-shells. As the filling happens for neutrons and protons,
this double process drives to consider rectangles. Of the possible nine
rectangles, only three touch the valley of stability, and they happen of
course near the doubly magic nuclei, ie:

A) Near P=50,N=50,
B) Near P=50,N=82, and
C) Near P=82,N=126.

Using the filing order for instance from Cottinghan/Greenwood, one sees that
the respective average number of nucleons in each rectangle
is 90, 115, and 181.

The corresponding masses show a intriguing pattern.

A) 90 amu is about 83,8 GeV, which is about a -4% of the mass of the W
                               or/and about a  8% of the mass of the Z0.
B) 115 amu is about 107 GeV, which is about a  6% of LEP Higgs Events.
C) 181 amu is about 167 GeV, which is about a  3% of the mass of the Top
</pre>
<hr>
Authors:
<p>Also, the following related autors have been sent a copy of the
preprint, or notifyed of it:

<p>
npaar.ph.tum, bonnie.godiva.physics.fsu,
Georgios_Lalazissis.Physik.TU-Muenchen
serot.iucf.indiana
tbuerven.lanl.gov
jsheikh.wotan.t30.physik.tu-muenchen, npaar.ph.tum
ptimu01.uni-tuebingen
furnstahl.1.osu
wiringa.anl, spieper.anl
machleid.uidaho
glozman.tanashi.kek (bounced)
u.meissner.fz-juelich
WJSwiateckilbl
pfbedaque.lb

<p>
(full email addresses are not shown, to avoid spamming)

<p>
Also, via ordinary mail:
W Greiner. 
INT library,
German Rodrigo (CERN phencl)
t'hooft,
Oset,

<p>
Addenda 2005. I have finally got to read the pdf of 
Palazzi's <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0301074">
physics/0301074</a>; la figura 3 tiene su punto para indicar
como en N=28 empieza a torcerse la cosa, pero no veo mucho
que rascar de ahi.