`  :::With all positive respect Sir, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed by the way of thinking here. First, some very active editors will always say that all EmDrive theoretical explanations violate conservation of momentum (and they may be right!). But when you bring a possible explanation that does not violate conservation of momentum (a Mach effect, or a MiHsC effect for example) your edit is reverted as ``fringe stuff`` or ``original research`` with a claim that this is not peer-reviewed. Next, when you reference peer-reviewed explanations (Minotti 2013, McCulloch 2015…) your edit is also reverted because the academic journal ``are not good enough`` (!) and if you ask specifically why, some sort of judgement about the ``impact factor`` of those journals being too low is always hand waved (yes it appear there is a limit between acceptable and non-acceptable impact factor and good peer-review journals, but it depends on the article evidently). As a result, a true imbalance arises, with only explanations of the critics showcased (CoM and CoE broken) in the Theory section, even when they are discutable and coming from non-peer-reviewed personal blogs (as for Costella, he wrote personal attacks on Shawyer constituting an offense; and it has been showed that Egan only accounted for standing waves and disregarded travelling waves and the energy input by the antenna/waveguide). It is truly amazing that some people here managed to highlight those kind of blog explanations while at the same time preventing any peer-reviewed paper stating otherwise to appear in the article. As a consequence the neutrality of the Theory section has been compromised by this undermining. —   `