I seriously doubt that Peer Review of the Rossi reactor can be done, It is a waste of time. First of all, Rossi has no peers.
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). Rossi has made sure that only he can produce the results of his reactor. If the Rossi reactor works, it will be incredible and unexplainable to any reviewer. LENR has no scientific underpinning to compare against, to be consistent with, to judge violations against. If Peer Review of the Rossi reactor is done, it will take on the visage of a group of magic debunkers who will try to find the tricks used to fool the public. If such tricks cannot be found, the Peer Review process will never be terminated because Peer Review of miracles cannot be done. On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It is also possible the delay is caused by the peer review process >> as Rossi alludes to. One of my friends- reputed professor at Budapest >> says he will believe CF is real when a ppaer about it will be published >> in the NATURE journal- the process of review there is a guarantee of the >> quality and validity of the paper and the research. >> > > This attitude is widespread. Mike Melich asked someone at the DoE: "Why > have you put the editor of Nature in charge of U.S. energy policy?" The > person was unhappy with the question. > > There is no chance *Nature* or *Science* will publish a paper about cold > fusion. If the Swedes are waiting for this to happen, they will wait > forever. Even a second-tier journal make take years to peer-review a paper. > Mike McKubre told me it took several years for his *J. Electroanal. Chem.* > paper to pass peer review. > > > >> For a peer reviewer >> at a high rank journal is a high risk, danger for reputation to say YES >> to such a dubious subject so the reviewers verify and ask and verify >> again. >> > > Yes. I have seen the comments from reviewers. Some were reasonable, but > many were written by people grasping at straws. They were trying to think > up ways to prevent publication. They resemble the 2004 DoE cold fusion > reviewer's remarks, which were 9/10th baloney. See: > > http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=455 > > - Jed > >
