This is a reasonable question, from my point of view as a cold fusion fan, serving as a unqualified scientific layman who has been offering painstaking, objective reviews of cold fusion papers since December, 1996 -- specializing in looking at all the common sense, nitty gritty details in the papers.
Publication in any journal is not the issue now, but publication in a blog with full details and sharing of all public feedback without editing or censorship on the same blog, of any experiment that always finds some anomaly of excess heat, radiations, transmutations, and large isotopic shifts, however humble the finding, that is independently reproduced by at least one other lab and reported fully on the same blog, would be enough to lead to more replications by other labs, and accelerating progress from the fully shared public feedback. Any such blog would be a scientific journal. It is time to stop the biased, self-defeating practice of labeling and excluding participation of critics by calling them "pathological" -- if anyone who chooses to be a prominent player in public discussions wants to encourage participation by a wide spectrum of motivated, qualified other players. It is up to each player to maintain a high level of courtesy and clarity, for the huge mutual benefit for humanity. Within mutual service, Rich Murray [email protected] 505-819-7388
