From: "Jorge E. Hirsch" <jhirsch@physics.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: Your submission to Annalen der Physik (andp.202000007) - [EMID:c876e3418321ffc9]
Date: January 7, 2020 at 15:58:08 PST
To: AdP <ann-phys@wiley.com>
Cc: "Jorge E. Hirsch" <jhirsch@ucsd.edu>
Bcc: jhirsch@physics.ucsd.edu

Dear Dr. Hildebrandt,

Thank you for your notification. I would like to make the following comments:

1) I submitted this paper for publication to Physical Review Research back in September, when I also posted it in arXiv (arXiv:1909.11443). As you  can see in the arXiv version posted back then, Section II was not part of it at that time. Then I got a referee report stating:
“However, Eq. 2 does not consider the diamagnetic response of perfect conductors. This response (which for superconductors is known as London equation) is not phenomenological as the author hints. Rather, it is rigorously derived for superconductors.”
I responded to the referee saying:
"The "proof" of the London equation and the Meissner effect in BCS theory is based on linear response, starting with the system in the BCS state and then applying a magnetic field. That is not the Meissner effect, the Meissner effect is the process by which a normal metal expels magnetic field in the process of becoming superconducting...I have explained it at length in other papers, in particular refs. 11, 14, 15, 16, 18 of this paper. I could add a section at the beginning of this paper explaining why BCS theory nor London equations explain the Meissner effect, if that is what would be required to publish this paper.”
But, the PRR editor did not send my response back to the referee, instead rejected the paper. So, when I decided to send it to AdP, I decided to add sect. II, explaining why BCS does not explain the Meissner effect, to preclude such comments from referees, even though I had given the same explanation in the reference you mention, J. Supercond. Novel Magn. 2019, that clearly the referee mentioned above was not aware of. Please note that my paper in J. Supercond. Novel Magn. 2019 is a Festschrift paper in honor of Ted Geballe, with very different focus than this paper, not a “research paper”, and not widely known.
So, I certainly grant you that it was an error on my part, a non-deliberate oversight, not to cite that reference, but other than that I don’t understand why it would be “not acceptable” to include Sct. II, I think it helps the reader to understand the significance of this paper.

2) The paper I submitted to AdP has 13 sections and 14 figures. Yes Figs. 9 and 10 are also in Ref. 24, however it is absolutely not true that this is “without attribution” as you stated, instead the paper clearly states on the same page next to those figures "We review the physics here, discussed in earlier references [17 -24].” Those figures are essential to explain the relationship between the new results in this paper and the earlier work in Ref. 24, and I think it is entirely appropriate to include them with attribution, as I did, in this comprehensive paper.

So I certainly would have understood if you had asked me for clarification on the issues you raised in your email. Instead you say "We hope for your understanding” and deny consideration, Well, you may continue to hope but it will not happen. 

Sincerely,
Jorge E. Hirsch