About Current Science LENR special section peer-review process

    • Official Post

    Recent LENR special section of Current Science, feature 30 peer reviewed papers (excluding the preface and regional review). This process is criticized by Sylvie Coyaud&al. as not independent.
    I have contacted Mahadeva Srinivasan and Andrew Meulenberg of peer review and they kindly explained the peer-review process. They refer also to an article in Infinite Energy by Christian Frazier.
    The peer review was done both by LENR non-Indian reviewer, and then by an Indian non-LENR experienced scientists, mostly nuclear physicist, most of them very skeptical.


  • Alain, you presented information on the process for the Current Science issue, as a response to "Sylvie Coyaud," but no link to Ms. Coyaud's critique. Where was it? Ms. Coyaud has a blog, seems like a decent one. We expect many people with interest in science to be skeptical about cold fusion. Shifting this will take wisdom and patience. Gravitas, in a word. More information on the Current Science process is likely to come out. I've written elsewhere about my personal experience, as author of http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0574.pdf . Here is some more:

    The reviewer's very first comment: "I am sorry to find that this paper is not written in a cogent manner," and then he gave additional criticisms, largely incorrect, by the way. But that was just a preliminary report, he was travelling. His detailed report, a few days later, had


    ... to state that this is a Reliable Cold Fusion Experiment is not justified based on whatever is presented...

    and then:


    D + D leading to 4He plus Gamma. Accompanied by excess heat? I think this is the main issue. As stated in the review, no high energy gamma has been observed and no high energy alphas( only 20 keV alphas). This reaction channel is more dominant than tritium production channel which in turn is more dominant than the neutron production channel. However as per our nuclear physics knowledge it should have been as follows: Tritium production and neutron production channels should have been of similar probability. The capture channel should have been atleast one million times smaller than the above. Definitely the cold fusion results are in conflict with the nuclear physics results.

    How did I respond? What I concluded was that I had failed to explain the matter adequately. He is presenting the classic argument, but has not taken on the experimental evidence, when much of the point of my paper is that there is no theory, the gammas are missing, the effect is a mystery, but this is what we know, helium is being produced proportionally to the heat, at a remarkable ration, the known fusion ratio, if there is no energy leakage, i.e., radiation.

    Since I took responsibility for my failure, instead of blaming him for his ignorance, and instead of arguing with him, I modified the paper. The result, from him, first, as a note to the section editors:


    I am happy that the author has tried to address many of the questions raised by me. Now I understand that while some aspects of this phenomenon are understood, most of the features including the mechanism of 4He production are still not explained. I have given my final comments which may be incorporated by the author.

    And then, to be forwarded to me (though the whole email was forwarded):

    I did use his suggestion.

    This is something that has been seen again and again. When skeptics, true scientists, are presented with the evidence for cold fusion within a context where they have some obligation to review and consider it (such as Robert Duncan, and there are other examples), and after the experimental evidence had settled, i.e., we knew what was confirmed and what was not, they modify their position from high skepticism to some sort of acceptance or even curiosity. There is a lot of myth out there, commonly accepted, such as the idea that the U.S. Department of Energy reviews were "negative." They have been presented that way, but they were not. Mistakes were made, but by 2004, it was obvious: there was something worth looking at here, just not worth throwing billions of dollars at. Not yet, and I still agree with that. How about $100 million? Or $10 million? Soberly allocated, it could make a huge difference.

    • Official Post

    Just for the sparrows :

    Il quindicinale Current Science, pubblicato dall'Accademia indiana delle scienze, ospita un inserto speciale non peer-reviewed per risollevare il morale dei passeri. A cura di due habitués delle ICCF, raccoglie le solite narrative degli habitués e una dei newbies del Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project.

    Quote from translated by google

    The fortnightly Current Science, published by the Indian Academy of Sciences, has a special insert non-peer-reviewed to raise the morale of the sparrows. Edited by two habitués of ICCF, collects the usual narrative of regulars and newbies of Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project.