from "Paul Mezey" (paul.mezey@gmail.com)
Thu, Sep 3, 2:41 PM
to "Paul" (paul.mezey@gmail.com), "me" (lorentz.jantschi@gmail.com), Journal (sharan.ravi@springernature.com)

Dear  Prof. Lorentz Jäntschi,

regarding your letter concerning your manuscript that has not been accepted fpr publication in J. Math. Chem.,  please note that a major deficiency of molecular graph theory, as compared to many, much more advanced current molecular theories, is indeed the fact,  yes, evident fact,  that any unlabelled graph has information  content,  that is, indeed,  fewer  independent bits than  n x n / 2  of the  n-dimensional adjacency matrix.   Without extra information,  this is very-very,  VERY  poor  representation of a complicated entity, such as a molecule.  
By turning around the graph data in the adjacency matrix, and representing the molecular graph in a different way, including, for example, polynomials,  this does not solve the problem of the original "trap"  of the molecular graph, and the constraints inherent in such a basis, even if some extensions are tried afterwards.  Today, by far, the most respectable molecular theories, hence mathematical chemistry, have strong quantum chemistry components.

In your letter, you do not seem to consider this elementary fact.
In your case, especially in connection to your comments on the usual adjacency matrices, I recommend to take a closer look at the number of independent bits in such (of course, symmetric, and zero diagonal) matrices.
The past history of molecular graph theory,  before quantum chemistry methods have become extremely powerful, is not a good quality measure today.
The huge number of "indices" published in the past,  based on the same type of primitive graphs, that is, on the same type of simplistic and restricted information equivalent to that of the adjacency matrix, is not an indication of scientific ingenuity, rather, modifications for the sake of another useless modification, hey, another publication !  Your manuscript appears better than that, but the main connection to chemical graph theory is still dominant.
Yes, mathematical chemistry has a past with molecular graphs, but science has not stopped there, and a huge amount of far more advanced math. chem.  research followed during the past several decades.
Well, even today, it is not impossible to produce useful and valuable graph-based advances in mathematical chemistry, but the flood of index-based manuscripts of the past was harmful for the reputation of mathematics in chemistry.
I do agree with the opinion of the reviewer of your manuscript.
Best regards,
Paul G. Mezey
Editor,  JOMC

from Lorentz JÄNTSCHI (lorentz.jantschi@gmail.com)
Sep 3, 2026, 4:18 PM
to Paul (paul.mezey@gmail.com)

Dear Professor Paul Mezey,
Thank you very much for your detailed explanation.
I am sorry to say that you did not convinced me. If graph theory is not suited for structures containing only Carbon atoms, then, according to your analysis, we must press delete for most of the works of much greater scientists than me, you and the well-respected reviewer.
I am not prepared to do that, not without a fight.
So, for your information,
I have decided to post the incident online for other people to know and not make the same mistake as me submitting their works to the journal.
Sincerely yours,
Prof. Lorentz Jäntschi