Posted on 12/12/2013 2:45:14 PM PST by Kevmo
Science journal rejections suppress clean energy research
JCMNSlogo
The recently published Volume 12 December 2013 Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science has an article detailing censorship by science journals.
“How the Flawed Journal Review Process Impedes Paradigm Shifting Discoveries” by P.A. Mosier-Boss, L.P. Forsley, and F.E. Gordon describes the experience of these researchers as they submitted papers describing their low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR )experiments to mainstream science journals.
From the Abstract:
The purpose of scientific journals is to review papers for scientific validity and to disseminate new theoretical and experimental results. This requires that the editors and reviewers be impartial. Our attempt to publish novel experimental results in a renowned physics journal shows that in some cases editors and reviewers are not impartial; they are biased and closed-minded. Although our subject matter was technical, its rejection was not: it was emotionally charged. It was an agenda-laden rejection of legitimate experiments that were conducted in US DoD and DoE laboratories. This paper describes the flawed journal review process, detailing our own case and citing others. Such behavior on the part of editors and reviewers has a stifling effect on innovation and the diffusion of knowledge. © 2013 ISCMNS. All rights reserved. ISSN 2227-3123
Noting that the rejection of revolutionary science “is hardly a new phenomenon”, the authors quote from Responsible Conduct of Research by A.E. Shamoo and D.B. Resnik:
History provides us with many examples of important theories that were resisted and ridiculed by [reviewers of] established researchers, such as Gregory Mendel’s laws of inheritance, Barbara McLintock’s gene jumping hypothesis, Peter Mitchell’s chemiosmostic theory, and Alfred Wegener’s continental drift hypothesis. –Shamoo and Resnik
Shamoo and Resnick explaining what their decisions regarding new energy research have meant:
As a result of this controversy, it has been difficult to conduct peer-reviewed work on cold fusion, because mainstream physics journals select reviewers with strong biases against cold fusion.
Boss, Forsely, and Gordon had submissions to journals rejected by reviewers who knew little about the phenomenon or the instruments involved, and didn’t attempt to learn. The authors found “the lack of curiosity and the unwarranted, surprisingly emotional responses” shown by some reviewers “disturbing”.
The consequences are far-reaching:
One immediate and long lasting effect of journals refusing to publish papers on as yet controversial observations is the elimination of a field of research and the diminution of scientists and engineers working in it. Without peer-reviewed publications, university faculty are precluded from funding as well as students, as no student will pursue an unrecognized field where jobs do not exist. Scientists are unable to find funds or management support. Entrepreneurs are limited because it is not likely that corporate angels or venture capitalists will risk funds on a technology, which is denigrated by leading scientists and subject to ridicule. In 1991, Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger [38] aptly summarized the problem when he wrote:
“The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science.”
Indeed, this whole situation is a “Catch-22” [39]; a situation named for the war novel in which a pilot who claims he is crazy so he wouldn’t have to fly missions, but by refusing to fly missions he proved he was sane! Our Catch-22 is that both DoE and DoD have unequivocally stated that until “first-tier” journals, like Science and Nature, publish papers inn this field, they will not fund programs. But, editors of these journals have stated they would not publish papers without DoE acceptance of the phenomena: a Catch-22. –Mosier-Boss, Forsley, and Gordon.
The Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (JCMNS) is published by the International Society of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS).
Read the article “How the Flawed Journal Review Process Impedes Paradigm Shifting Discoveries” in Volume 12 December 2013 [.pdf]
Here’s a similar outlook, from a Nobel prizewinner:
Nobel winner declares boycott of Nature and other top science journals
Randy Schekman says his lab will no longer send papers to Nature, Cell and
Science as they distort scientific process
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals?CMP=fb_gu
Follow the link to read the article.
With a piercing insight from Jed Rothwell at Vortex:
-—————————www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.com&q=subject:%22Re%3A+%5BVo%5D%3ANobel+prize+winner+boycots+Nature%22—————
Re: [Vo]:Nobel prize winner boycots Nature
Jed Rothwell Tue, 10 Dec 2013 07:09:08 -0800
Someone quoted in that article makes an important point: “The system is not
meritocratic. You don’t necessarily see the best papers published in those
journals. The editors are not professional scientists, they are journalists
which isn’t necessarily the greatest problem, but they emphasise novelty
over solid work.” It isn’t widely known, but the former editors of Nature
and Sci. Am., Maddox and Piel, were not professional scientists. They did
not have PhDs. I am not saying that should have disqualified them, but it
makes you wonder how they ended up as the de facto arbiters of DoE policy.
They and the other editors they worked with seemed to have a shallow grasp
of some technical issues. Years ago I exchanged a lot e-mail messages with
them. I found myself trying to explain aspects of calorimetry and other
subjects they did not grasp, or had never heard of. I did this by pointing
them to papers by McKubre and Miles. They did not read these papers. As one
of them told me, “reading papers is not our job.”
Maddox and Piel were among the most influential opponents of cold fusion.
I am not suggesting that I knew more than Maddox. He had tremendous
knowledge of a wide range of scientific subjects. He had a much deeper,
broader education than I have, and decades of experience. A person does not
have to have a PhD to make important contributions. But I did have some
specific knowledge of hands-on experimental details that he lacked, and —
more important — that he no interest in acquiring. I guess what I am
saying is that no single person should have as much power as these people
had.
- Jed
Conspiracy theory time. What if a big name company is on the verge of coming up with the physics of LENR and have a reactor that uses it and is scalable to any size? Then they put the squeeze on journals to not only not publish anything LENR related but to denigrate it as well until the big company is ready to announce?
It makes a good story. The first one with the physics on this gets the glory even if others laid the foundation.
Hank Mills at Blacklightpower.com has his own TOE yet, despite announcing power company deals several years ago, is unable to either make it scale up or work reliably and predictably and he's spent many millions.
Despite the generally negative press generated by Rossi's antics, a lot of people and companies (Mitsubishi) are pressing on. I certainly hope we're on the verge of something world changing.
If only Obama would use his brilliant mind on this instead of on soaring rhetoric. That's a joke, he can't even spell physics but I bet he'll be there to somehow take credit for it, that or a 'journalist' will do it for him.
The next few years should be interesting science wise.
The first one with the physics on this gets the glory even if others laid the foundation.
***Agreed. So far I like Y.E. Kim’s BEC theory, Godes’ Controlled Electron Capture theory, and K.P. Sinha’s theory. Significantly, Sinha gives Mills a lot of credit.
My theory is that this is several million 2 dimensional BECs forming inside the matrix.
Start your own!
The DOE is incompetent (stories to follow).
Another Nobel Laureate speaks on censorship:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue1/colfusthe.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.