What's the COP? Why don't they just commercialise it?
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:04 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes R. A. ORIANI, JOHN C. NELSON, SUNG-KYU LEE, and J. H. BROADHURST > University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota are just like Bessler's > Wheel crowd: > > Conducting a replication of a device's extraordinary effect which they > attempted (unlike Nathan Lewis et al) AFTER the publication of the full > paper describing the experimental protocol to be replicated, and then > submitting a paper on that replication to "Nature" for peer review. > > The peer reviewers had comments on needed corrections. That right there > proves Oriani et al are kooks to anyone in their right mind. No reputable > scientist has any second drafts submitted to a journal as prestigious as > "Nature" in response to peer review and expects that revised draft to be > published. > > Oh, but Oriani et al were clearly not reputable because they went ahead > and provided the corrections, submitted to "Nature" the draft for peer > review and the peer reviewers, not realizing they were being "had" by > obviously invalid publishing protocol, reviewed the revised draft!! > > Outrageous. > > What's even more outrageous is that they not only reviewed it -- they > passed it on to the editors of "Nature" to publish! > > We can all be grateful to the editors of "Nature" for telling it like it > is in their rejection letter to Oriani -- that this experimental outcome > doesn't fit with theory so -- circular file time. > > If only we could inculcate more would-be scientists with this kind of > ruthless rigor! > >> >>>
