I happened to find a paper published in American Journal of Physics, which states the Bohr-van Leeuwen's theorem is incorrect and Meissner effect is explained by classical physics. The journal is published for physics education, read by high school teachers, so I think this paper is quite harmful. I tried to publish a paper pointing out quite clear flaws in the paper, but could not persuade the editor for the publication of my paper. The editor apparently did not want to clarify his mistake to have published an incorrect paper, and succeeded to select ignorant reviewers to reject my paper. The following is the record of the review process that clarify how my paper is rejected.
I originally submitted a short comment on March 10, 2012, arXiv:1203.2227v1, which was soon rejected without giving me a chance to clarify misunderstandings of reviewers. This first version was too short, so although it can be understood by ordinary physicists, it might be hard to be understood by high school teachers. So I wrote a more educational longer version. I submitted this version, arXiv:1203.2227v2, on September 18, 2012. I recommended five candidates for reviewers, who are Anthony Leggett, Chandra Varma, Elihu Abrahams, Steven Girvin, and Allan MacDonald.
On November 18, I received a mail from the editor stating that he cannot find a reviewer. I sent a mail in reply pointing out that I have recommended five good reviewers in the submission process. It is clear the editor did not try these established physicists.
On January 28, 2013, I received a mail from the editor together with referee reports.
I resubmitted revised manuscript, arXiv:1203.2227v4, on March 5, 2013.
On April 11, 2013, I received a mail from the editor together with referee reports. As stated in his mail below, the clever editor excluded referee 3. He decided to reject my paper so that he missed an opportunity to correct his mistake to have published Essen and Fiolhais's incorrect paper.
Mail from the editor
My reply mail
Mail from the editor
Referee 1's report
Referee 2's report
Referee 3's report
Referee 4's report
Among these referees, referee 3 suggested publication of my paper as it is.
Mail from the editor
Referee 1's report
Referee 2's report
Referee 4's report
Referee 1 pointed out two trivial typographical errors. These are corrected in arXiv:1203.2227v5.