The ''Telephone Game'' Effect in Modern Gravity Research

Andronikos Paliathanasis

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 21 references

The ''Telephone Game'' Effect in Modern Gravity Research

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Several published f(Q)-gravity studies choose a linear f(Q) and thereby quietly re-derive GR/STEGR results without acknowledging the equivalence.

desk verdict A short, correct reminder that linear f(Q) is just STEGR/GR, but the paper's list of offending papers is asserted, not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16682 v1 pith:GOBS75UI submitted 2025-08-21 gr-qc

Andronikos Paliathanasis This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc

keywords modifiedgravitysymmetricteleparalleltrinityoff(Q)STEGRboundarytermsGRequivalencetelephonegame

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that a basic fact from the 'trinity of gravity' — that the nonmetricity scalar Q differs from the Ricci scalar R only by a boundary term — has been lost in parts of the recent f(Q)-gravity literature. Several studies pick the linear form f(Q)=β0Q+β1, which makes the theory identical to Symmetric Teleparallel Equivalent General Relativity (STEGR) and hence to general relativity. Their results are therefore not new modified-gravity results but re-derivations of Einstein's equations, often without acknowledging the equivalence. The author compares this to the 'Telephone Game,' where information gets distorted as it passes from paper to paper, and asks readers and reviewers to check for this silent reduction.

What carries the argument

The trinity-of-gravity identities T=R+B_T and Q=R+B_Q, combined with the variational principle that boundary terms do not affect the equations of motion. These identities turn 'linear f(Q)' into a silent switch back to STEGR/GR: any study that assumes f(Q)=β0Q+β1 is testing Einstein's equations, not a modified theory. The paper uses this equivalence as a diagnostic, checking the assumed form of f(Q) in published studies.

What would settle it

Take any cited paper, such as the compact-star study [5], and write out its full field equations for f(Q)=β0Q+β1, including the connection (teleparallel) variation. If the resulting system has extra independent equations beyond Einstein's field equations, or if the reported metric is not a solution of GR, the claim that the paper silently reduced to GR fails. A direct way to test: check whether the solution in [5] is exactly the Krori-Barua metric from [6]; if it differs in any physical prediction, the equivalence claim for that case is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the three gravitational scalars R, T, and Q come from the three components of a generic connection — Levi-Civita, antisymmetric, and nonmetricity — and are related by T=R+B_T and Q=R+B_Q, where B_T and B_Q are topological boundary terms. Since a boundary term in the action does not change the Euler-Lagrange equations, a theory based on a linear f(Q) is dynamically indistinguishable from STEGR, which is equivalent to GR. The paper identifies a series of recent publications in f(Q)-gravity that adopt f(Q)=β0Q+β1 and therefore reproduce STEGR/GR results, including one that recovers an analytic solution found decades earlier in GR. The point is that these works are pres

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the assumption that every cited paper actually uses a linear f(Q) and that its field equations exactly match STEGR/GR in the spacetimes considered, not merely approximate or similar results.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any solution or physical prediction in the cited linear-f(Q) papers is already contained in the GR/STEGR literature, often from decades earlier.
Readers of f(Q)-gravity papers should first inspect the assumed f(Q); a linear choice means the theory is STEGR/GR and should be labeled as such.
Reviewers carry part of the responsibility: requiring authors to state when f(Q) is linear could end the telephone-game effect.
The same caution applies to f(Q,B_Q) studies where a linear dependence on B_Q collapses the theory back to f(Q) gravity, and a linear dependence on both scalars collapses it to STEGR.
Some journals have already been informed of this issue, but not all have acted on it, so community-level vigilance may be needed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The pattern likely extends beyond f(Q) to any modified-gravity action linear in a boundary-term-connected scalar; the author hints at T and B_T but does not enumerate examples.
The reduction is local and classical; if boundary terms were ever shown to affect observable quantities through boundary conditions or quantum effects, the blanket equivalence would need qualification.
A simple editorial check — flagging any paper whose f(Q) ansatz is linear and whose abstract claims modified gravity — could catch most of these cases before publication.
The telephone-game metaphor implies the problem is self-reinforcing: later papers cite earlier linear-f(Q) works as if they were genuine modified-gravity results, further obscuring the equivalence.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The useful core is the math, not the commentary: Q = R + B_Q, so a linear f(Q) = b0 Q + b1 is GR/STEGR up to a boundary term. That's textbook and the author states it plainly. The genuinely new part is the claim that a string of recent f(Q) papers accidentally studied this linear case and reproduced old GR results without noticing. That claim is plausible and worth making, but the paper does not actually make the case for any individual paper. It gives no field equations from [4] or [5], no quotes, no check of whether those authors acknowledged the equivalence, and no analysis of whether the connection variation in those specific models leaves any residual constraints. The list is labeled non-exhaustive, which limits the scope, but it does not verify the examples. If even one flagship case uses a different f(Q) or explicitly mentions the equivalence, the generalization has to be weakened. So the bookkeeping is soft where it matters most.

What the paper earns credit for: it is short, clear, and honest about its own limitations. The author correctly observes that reviewers and journals share responsibility for letting this kind of duplication through. The boundary-term relations are standard, and the warning to readers is sensible. It is a commentary, not a research result, and it should be evaluated as such.

Where I would push back: the rhetorical framing is doing work the evidence doesn't support. Saying the information was "lost" because of a "telephone game" implies a causal chain of miscommunication, but the paper only shows a few examples that may or may not fit. It also doesn't engage with the possibility that some of the cited papers are using a linear f(Q) as a test case while also discussing nonlinear forms. That's a common pattern in the literature and would make the accusation too broad.

Who is this for? Someone working in f(Q) gravity who wants a cautionary reminder, and editors/reviewers in that subfield. I would not cite it in my own work, but I might mention it as a comment. It deserves peer review only on the condition that the referee demands the author substantiate each cited case with actual equations from those papers. Without that, it's a blog post, not a publishable accusation.

Recommendation: if this crosses an editor's desk, send it to a referee who knows the f(Q) literature well, and ask the author to replace assertion with demonstration. If the author refuses, desk reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This commentary argues that a number of recent f(Q)-gravity papers, by taking f(Q) to be a linear function, are actually studying STEGR/GR rather than a modified theory of gravity. The author invokes the standard identity Q = R + B_Q, where B_Q is a boundary term, and notes that a boundary term does not affect the equations of motion. Several references are listed as examples of this 'telephone game' effect, in which the equivalence to GR is not acknowledged. The paper contains no new derivations; it is a literature-level critique aimed at authors and reviewers.

Significance. If substantiated, the paper identifies a real and important problem in the f(Q) literature: a subset of papers present results obtained from a linear model as modified-gravity predictions, when in fact they are GR/STEGR results. This has implications for the interpretation of those results and for the peer-review process. The theoretical equivalence Q = R + B_Q is standard and the author cites the relevant sources. The paper's value lies in its warning and in the specific list of references; however, the persuasiveness of the central claim depends entirely on whether each cited work indeed uses a strictly linear f(Q) and exactly reproduces GR/STEGR results, and this is not demonstrated in the manuscript.

major comments (3)

[Main text, paragraph on refs [4]-[10]] The central claim that '[4]' and '[5]' (and by extension the other cited works) use a strictly linear f(Q) and therefore unknowingly study STEGR/GR is asserted without per-paper evidence. No field equations, f(Q) ansatz, or connection gauge from [4] or [5] is displayed, and the specific GR/STEGR result that is 'reproduced' is not identified. Since the whole argument rests on the correctness of these characterizations, please provide a table or appendix with, for each cited paper, the explicit action, the connection treatment, and the point-by-point mapping to GR/STEGR (e.g., which solution of [6] is recovered in [5]). Without this, the 'several studies' generalization is unverifiable.
[Main text, paragraph on [5] vs [6]] The statement that [5] 'recovered the analysis presented decades ago in [6]' needs substantiation beyond the fact that both treat spherically symmetric anisotropic stars. Reference [6] is a 1975 GR paper; the manuscript must show that the equations of motion in [5] reduce exactly to the Krori-Barua system, with the same metric ansatz and boundary conditions, and not merely a similar solution. Please specify which results are identical and how the boundary-term equivalence operates in the presence of matter.
[Main text, paragraph on [17]-[19]] For the f(Q,B_Q) papers [17]-[19], the reduction to f(Q) or STEGR is asserted but not demonstrated. In particular, a linear dependence on B_Q may remove the extra scalar degree of freedom, but this depends on the full action and the connection variation. Please show the actions of [17]-[19] and verify that the claimed reduction holds exactly in each case.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The phrase 'have research investigated' is ungrammatical and should read 'have investigated'.
[Main text, Eq. (2)] The boundary-term relations T=R+B_T and Q=R+B_Q are stated without defining B_T and B_Q. Give explicit expressions or a precise reference so the reader can see what is meant by 'topological boundary term'.
[Main text, final paragraph] The statement that 'some of the journals publishing the aforementioned studies have been informed of this remark' is unverifiable and not relevant to the scientific argument; it should be removed or rephrased.
[References] The list of references is explicitly not exhaustive, but the author should justify the selection criteria. Without this, the reader cannot tell whether the examples are representative or cherry-picked.
[Main text, paragraph on refs [7]-[10]] The phrase 'only the last weeks a linear function f(Q) was introduced in various of studies' is awkward and unclear; please rephrase to specify the time window and the exact claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a commentary that applies the standard, externally established boundary-term equivalence Q = R + B_Q to specific cited cases; it makes no fitted predictions and its argument does not reduce to its own outputs.

full rationale

The paper's core claim is that certain f(Q)-gravity studies use a linear f(Q) = β0Q + β1 and therefore study STEGR/GR without acknowledging the equivalence. The load-bearing mathematical input is the standard identity Q = R + B_Q, cited to [2], together with the well-known variational fact that boundary terms do not affect field equations. This is an external, independently established result, not a premise defined in terms of the paper's own conclusion. The paper performs no new derivation, fits no parameters, and makes no prediction that is defined by its own inputs. Its specific assertions about cited works (e.g., that [4] uses f(Q)=β0Q+β1 and that [5] recovers [6]) are empirical claims about those papers' ansätze and results; they are not demonstrated in the present text, but that is a matter of evidentiary support or correctness risk, not circularity. The author explicitly notes the list is not exhaustive ('though this list is not exhaustive'), which acknowledges scope limitations rather than masking a circular step. There are no self-citations, so patterns 3–5 do not apply. The paper is self-contained relative to the standard equivalence it invokes, and no derivation is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters, no fitted constants, and no new entities. Its argument rests on standard variational mechanics and on published equivalence relations for the trinity of gravity.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The scalar relations T=R+BT and Q=R+BQ hold, with BT and BQ topological boundary terms.
Invoked near equations (2) and attributed to [2]; the linear equivalence argument depends on these identities.
standard math Adding a boundary term to an action does not change the Euler-Lagrange equations.
The paper explicitly invokes this as 'well known from analytic mechanics'.
domain assumption The trinity actions built from R, T, and Q produce the same field equations when the action is linear in the scalar.
This is the foundational equivalence from [2] that the paper says is being forgotten.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The ''Telephone Game'' Effect in Modern Gravity Research." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GOBS75UI

@misc{pith2026250816682,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The ''Telephone Game'' Effect in Modern Gravity Research},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GOBS75UI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16682}
}

read the original abstract

Triggered by some recent studies within the framework of nonmetricity gravity, I discuss how the basic information regarding the equivalence of the gravitational theories forming the \textquotedblleft Trinity of Gravity\textquotedblright\ has been lost in parts of the literature. As a result, several studies with focus in modified theories of gravity have research investigated the case of STEGR/GR, often without acknowledging this fundamental equivalence or recognizing that their results can be derived in GR

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[4]

Albalahi, A

A.M. Albalahi, A. Ali and M.Z. Bhatti, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 583 (2025)

work page 2025
[5]

Bhattacharjee and P.K

D. Bhattacharjee and P.K. Chattopadhyay, Chinese J. Physics 94, 650 (2025)

work page 2025
[6]

Krori, J

K.D. Krori, J. Barua, J. Phys. Math. Gen. 8, 508 (1975)

work page 1975
[17]

Bhoyar and Y.B

S.R. Bhoyar and Y.B. Ingole, New Astron., 118, 102386 (2025)

work page 2025
[19]

Samaddar, S.S

A. Samaddar, S.S. Singh, JHEAp 48, 100404 (2025)

work page 2025
[1]

L. P. Eisenhart, Non-Riemannian Geometry, American Mathematical Society, Colloquium Publica- tions Vol. VIII, New York, (1927)

work page 1927
[2]

Jimenez, L

J.B. Jimenez, L. Heisenberg, T.S. Koivisto, Universe 5, 173 (2019)

work page 2019
[3]

Einstein 1928, Sitz

A. Einstein 1928, Sitz. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. p. 217; ibid p. 224 [Translated by A. Unzicker and T. Case, (preprint: arXiv:physics/0503046)]

arXiv 1928

Show all 21 references

[7]

Iqbal, G.U

S.M.S. Iqbal, G.U. Khapekar and S.R. Bhoyar, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 64, 96 (2025)

2025
[8]

Jasim, S.K

M.K. Jasim, S.K. Maurya, S. Ray and G. Mustafa, IJGMMP in press (2025) [DOI: 10.1142/S0219887825501233]

2025 doi
[9]

Haloi, R.R

K. Haloi, R.R. Baruah, Astronomy and Computing 51, 100926 (2025)

2025
[10]

Skekh, A

S.H. Skekh, A. Pradha, G.U. Khapekar and S.M.S. Iqbal, Indian J. Physics 99, 2679 (2025)

2025
[11]

Kumar, S

J. Kumar, S. Paul, S.K. Maurya, S. Chaudhary, S. Kiroriwal, Phys. Dark Univ. 47, 101764 (2025)

2025
[12]

Kiroriwal, J

S. Kiroriwal, J. Kumar, S.K. Maurya and S. Ray, Phys. Dark Univ. 46, 101559 (2024)

2024
[13]

Koussour, K

M. Koussour, K. El Bourakadi, S.H. Shekh, S.K.J. Pacif and M. Bennai, Annals of Physics 445, 169092 (2022)

2022
[14]

Mustafa, Z

G. Mustafa, Z. Hassan and P.K. Sahoo, Annals of Physics 437, 168751 (2022)

2022
[15]

Hassan, S

Z. Hassan, S. Ghosh, P.K. Sahoo and K. Bamba, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1116 (2022)

2022
[16]

S. Das, S. Chattopadhyay and A. Beesham, J. Comp. Theor. Transport 53, 173 (2024)

2024
[18]

Davood Sadatian and S

S. Davood Sadatian and S. Mohamad Reza Hosseini, Phys. Dark Univ. 47, 101737 (2025)

2025
[20]

J. M. Nester and H.-J. Yo, Chin. J. Phys. 37, 113 (1999)

1999
[21]

Heisenberg, Phys

L. Heisenberg, Phys. Rept. 1066, 1 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [4]

Albalahi, A

A.M. Albalahi, A. Ali and M.Z. Bhatti, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 583 (2025)

work page 2025

[2] [5]

Bhattacharjee and P.K

D. Bhattacharjee and P.K. Chattopadhyay, Chinese J. Physics 94, 650 (2025)

work page 2025

[3] [6]

Krori, J

K.D. Krori, J. Barua, J. Phys. Math. Gen. 8, 508 (1975)

work page 1975

[4] [17]

Bhoyar and Y.B

S.R. Bhoyar and Y.B. Ingole, New Astron., 118, 102386 (2025)

work page 2025

[5] [19]

Samaddar, S.S

A. Samaddar, S.S. Singh, JHEAp 48, 100404 (2025)

work page 2025

[6] [1]

L. P. Eisenhart, Non-Riemannian Geometry, American Mathematical Society, Colloquium Publica- tions Vol. VIII, New York, (1927)

work page 1927

[7] [2]

Jimenez, L

J.B. Jimenez, L. Heisenberg, T.S. Koivisto, Universe 5, 173 (2019)

work page 2019

[8] [3]

Einstein 1928, Sitz

A. Einstein 1928, Sitz. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. p. 217; ibid p. 224 [Translated by A. Unzicker and T. Case, (preprint: arXiv:physics/0503046)]

arXiv 1928