Quote:

Dude, don't be a fucking smart ass. The operative word is "now." It is odd that after these scientists evidently said these things, and their research shows what it does, that NASA would officially deny it.


It's not unheard of for large research organizations to require that papers be reviewed in-house prior to publication, usually merely vetting the author as competent in the field, but sometimes involving nearly a full peer review. If NASA requires that then these two may have gotten ahead of themselves.

Quote:


This phenomenon contributes to scientists being very guarded about new theories and results. Some anonymous no-namer can pick shit out and make spurious rebuttals. Even if incorrect, quantity and image is more important to publications like Nature, and you certainly won't get another article or a follow up published.


I have two words for you: Cold Fusion. Are Pons & Fleishman flipping burgers these days?

Nature and Science are not Time Magazine. While rebuttals and Letters to the Editor are not peer reviewed the authors definitely are vetted - a rebuttal will make it no further than the nearest garbage can unless they can find out that the whiner knows something about the field. Moreover, rebuttals made available to the original authors so that they can have their reply published at the same time. There's plenty of smell test applied to keep out the no-names and ridiculous complaints.

PS. Of course, Cold Fusion may be making a comeback. More and more people are seeing something, and it's possible that's what Pons & Fleishman saw. It's not out of the question that they'll go down in history as bad chemists and bad experimenters who rushed to print much too early rather than as outright frauds.
_________________________
"If they can't picture me with a knife, forcing them to strip in an alley, I don't want any part of it. It's humiliating." - windsock