I think this exchange speaks for itself.
I reported this response from AIP website operator to me: Thank you for commenting on the Physics Today web site. Your comment has not been approved for publication in accordance with our editorial standards and the disclaimer on the web site. Sincerely Paul Guinnessy Manager, Physics Today web site - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MY RESPONSE: Okay, how about this comment: Cold fusion researchers have published roughly 3,500 papers, including 1,200 in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. A bibliography and 1,000 papers are available here: http://lenr-canr.org/ If you will not publish even that, I think you are extremely biased and unfair. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GUINNESSY: Dear Dr Rothwell, Thank you for comment. I suspect that there seems to be some confusion here. One of the standards I have on approving comments is restriction to the topic at hand. The article is about scientific integrity, not about viability of cold fusion experiments. I've already allowed one link to New Energy Times on the site (through Steve B. Krivit's name) and I think I've allowed enough postings about cold fusion on this article. Unless the topic is on how scientists work and the ethical implications of conducting science, no more comments will be allowed on cold fusion on this article (its too confusing to the reader who wants to know how to handle these issues and best practices for having integrity. Of which the site below does neither). If I post a news pick in the future specifically about cold fusion, then I can assure you that the first comment with the url you have given below that is submitted will be approved (with the usual restrictions placed on civility of course). I would like to thank you in helping me to rethink the notification emails that go out to commentators. I will be making it clearer that one of the aspects considered for inclusion is relevance to the topic of the article. I hope this explains my rationale. Sincerely Paul Guinnessy Manager, Physics Today web site - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ME: Paul Guinnessy wrote: "The article is about scientific integrity, not about viability of cold fusion experiments." Dylla asserts that cold fusion was a "mistake." The bibliography at LENR-CANR.org shows that the effect has been replicated thousands of times at high signal to noise ratios, in many different laboratories. In experimental science, an effect that is widely replicated and reported in the peer-reviewed literature is real, by definition. It cannot be a mistake. Replication is the only standard of truth allowed in science. If an effect could be replicated ~17,000 times in hundreds of laboratories and yet still be a mistake, the experimental method itself would not work. Therefore, Dylla is incorrect, and the bibliography is highly relevant. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NO RESPONSE
