Which journals are still refusing LENR papers? I’d like to have a comprehensive list and understand more fully where things stand on this front.
Can someone show me actual journal rejection letters? The more I can collect, the better.
Which journals are still refusing LENR papers?
-
I think you have to ask it the other way: what Journals do receive LENR papers. The list is short. For rejection letters I think JedRothwell could be your best source.
-
A paper by Pamela Mosier-Boss about the attutude of two journals regarding their attempt of publication.
-
-
AFAIK Nature has accepted one Cold Fusion Paper (1989, Steven Jones, direct antagonist of Fleischmann and Pons). It also published the 2019 Paper on revisiting cold fusion, which was negative with a positive after taste.
-
AFAIK Nature has accepted one Cold Fusion Paper (1989, Steven Jones, direct antagonist of Fleischmann and Pons). It also published the 2019 Paper on revisiting cold fusion, which was negative with a positive after taste.
Ya... That's a good starting point. Do we know of anyone else who tried to publish in Nature? Did we save their rejection letters? JedRothwell, do you know?
-
Nature did not publish an article from Fleischmann about cold fusion, but it published a letter of response to a criticism of his work. Never seen this one before.
-
This article reports that Fleischmann and Pons were denied publication of their paper in nature:
Role of the press in cold fusion saga (Journal Article) | OSTI.GOV
while this other claims they withdrew the paper.
Authors Withdraw Paper on Fusion From Scientific JournalNEW YORK (AP) _ The authors of a highly publicized report on room-temperature nuclear fusion have decided not to publish it in a prestigious British scientific…apnews.com -
Nature did not publish an article from Fleischmann about cold fusion, but it published a letter of response to a criticism of his work. Never seen this one before.
It is an interesting and perhaps considered important at the time scientific argument. Nature published both Petrassi and Fleischmann!
For reference here are the constituents.
(1) F et al published a paper in J. electroanalytical chem:
Fleischmann, M., Pons, S. & Hawkins, M. J. electroanalyt.
Chem. 261, 301-308 (1989); and errata(2)
Petrasso et al published a critique in Nature. Can I suggest the reason might be either J. electroanalytical Chem refused to publish (would be unusual) or Nature has a more convenient publication date for this type of immediate corrective response?
Problems with the γ-ray spectrum in the Fleischmann et al. experiments - Nature
Note that full text from this link is still paywalled
The pages (with the detailed critique) are below
(3)
F et al (different set of authors) reply to the critique also in Nature
Measurement of γrays from cold fusion - Nature
This reply is one page from that link (shown above in the post I am replying to)
(4) Petrasso et all reply to the reply (in Nature. You can see the start of this on the same page linked above, but the
detailed argument is on the next page and is as below):
So my point here is that this is an example of NO-ONE being censored and a scientific controversy being fully published.
We have two papers from each side so far: the original, the critique, the response to the critique, the response to the response to the critique.
I have not read through them all. Has anyone done this - they could summarise it? It seems to be about whether F&P's interpretation of the gamma ray spectral evidence is correct. We might want to consider the expertise (on gamma ray spectra) of F, his co-authors, versus Petrussi, and his co-authors. Perhaps that also was why it went to Nature - it is not really about electrochemistry at all.
-
This article reports that Fleischmann and Pons were denied publication of their paper in nature:
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6651933
while this other claims they withdrew the paper.Quite likely they were allowed to publish subject to minor changes - which they refused to make.
That would be quite normal - and fit both accounts.
For example - they might have been asked to make less definite their conclusions, because in the view of the reviewers the evidence in the paper did not warrant them.
-
AFAIK Nature has accepted one Cold Fusion Paper (1989, Steven Jones, direct antagonist of Fleischmann and Pons). It also published the 2019 Paper on revisiting cold fusion, which was negative with a positive after taste.
Nature has also published F&P's comment on Petrussi's comment on F&P (see my links above). Not quite the same as a paper, but still shows a fair-minded approach to publishing controversy.
-
Which journals are still refusing LENR papers? I’d like to have a comprehensive list and understand more fully where things stand on this front.
Can someone show me actual journal rejection letters? The more I can collect, the better.
It is sensitive - people quite properly might not want you to see them.
But, it would be interesting to see how many were on "we refuse to publish this topic" and how many were "this experiment does not justify the claimed results" (which if supporting LENR would certainly count as high novel).
In the latter case there should be an argument as to why the experimental results do not justify the conclusions. Of course, many here would consider probably the rejection wrong, because they'd think the work did justify the conclusions. But the rejection letter would make the grounds clear.
What I'd hope to see (but maybe would not see) is rejections supported by detailed description of evidentiary gaps and what additional evidence would be needed to fill them.
THH
-
Interesting to note that Steve Jones is still following the field, he was at ICCF-24.
-
Quite likely they were allowed to publish subject to minor changes - which they refused to make.
That would be quite normal - and fit both accounts.
For example - they might have been asked to make less definite their conclusions, because in the view of the reviewers the evidence in the paper did not warrant them.
The AP link I posted above says they withdrew the paper because the review was turning into a full time job, so to speak.
-
It also published the 2019 Paper on revisiting cold fusion, which was negative with a positive after taste.
I thought it was negative with a negative aftertaste, plus it was accompanied by an editorial paper that was an inept hatchet job.
-
Here is the story of the most hilarious Nature rejection, with the accompanying rejection letters:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf
Apparently, at Nature authors get to decide whether to accept or reject papers that challenge their findings. It is a New Age policy! It is all about feelings. If you feel you are correct, who is to say you are wrong? We don't want to upset people or judge them. We want everyone to feel they are accepted and loved, and their version of calorimetry is as valid as the version in the textbooks.
This policy only applies to authors who write absurd attacks on cold fusion, but you have to start somewhere.
-
I thought it was negative with a negative aftertaste
At least they admitted the field was worth pursuing even if not for energy purposes. I thought that was positive.
plus it was accompanied by an editorial paper that was an inept hatchet job.
The editorial was and absolute shame. I agree.
