At 12:48 PM 2/6/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
However the original article was about muons, and that's what I said was
ridiculous.
Muons are not *entirely* ridiculous. What if NAE is an environment
that allows a cosmic ray muon to catalyze many reactions before being
captured or escaping?
However, given that MCF as an explanation for palladium deuteride CF
is a very, very long shot, and seems generally contradictory to the
evidence, my question is why this left-field letter is published
whereas nothing from solid theoretical explanations, generally
explaining the evidence we have, that don't involve new physics --
though they are still unproven -- aren't seen in those pages.
Maybe nobody who could write better is submitting letters! Maybe the
big, heavy, dumb curtain was actually lifted some time ago and nobody noticed.
There should be a central clearing-house for rejected submissions to
journals. As long as it's possible that the paper might still be
published somewhere, an author may not want the contents published,
but notes regarding rejections would be useful; at least after an
author gives up, the record should be provided, and, if possible,
reviewer comments if provided. This will help other authors to
understand where articles might have a chance and possibly how to
craft them to meet objections. In some places, the wall may still
exist, but in others, it may be gone. Editors retire or move on, old
policies that actually contradict basic principles of scientific
publication don't necessarily maintain themselves.
