Ok, so nothing official, but clear behavioral evidence of a short clear policy. A conspiracy ? (ah ah) I note.
by the way, remind me to call for a Nuremberg trial on Cold Fusion. Some people have to be fired. They have done more pain than the banksters (to whom I find the excuse that they were fulfilling population desire). 2013/6/2 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I would like to ask to people who follow the LENr domain whetehr or not >> there is an official policy in Scientific Journal to reject LENR/Cold >> Fusion papers ? >> > > Yes. Most journals send a short rejection letter to any paper related to > cold fusion. They do not submit papers to peer-review. They reject them out > of hand. Nature and several others do this. > > There are not many examples of these one-page letters. I saw some in the > collected papers of Martin Fleischmann and a few in Mizuno's files. There > are few examples because after 1990, no researchers I know bothered to send > papers to these journals. Everyone knows their policy. Nature made this > policy abundantly clear in their editorials and letters to researchers. > There are some quotes and links to the Nature editorials here: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf > > Along the same lines, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time > magazine and others have often published attacks by Robert Park and other > opponents accusing researchers of being frauds, criminals and lunatics. To > my knowledge they have never allowed any researcher to publish an objection > or a rebuttal. These attacks have caused great harm to people's > professional and personal lives. > > New Scientist is the only one I can think of that has printed accusations > of fraud, criminality and so on but also a few articles with quotes from > Miles and others objecting to these attacks. > > - Jed > >
