I wrote: Lubos Motl does not appear to be drawing a distinction between TeX and > LaTeX; he is drawing a distinction between TeX/LaTeX, on one hand, and a > simple PDF typed up in a normal word processor, on the other. Presumably > the former would be the expected form of submission to a mainstream physics > journal. This is one of the details that makes me think there is no > intention to submit for publication. >
Another reason to think they do not intend to submit for publication in a reputable scientific journal -- they cite Wikipedia (ref. 8, at the end). (This tip courtesy of HolyFreakinGhost in the comments to [1]). I am a big fan of Wikipedia; far more so than Jed. But one would hesitate to cite Wikipedia as an authority in an article being prepared for submission to a mainstream science journal. The truth is that this paper has been prepared in the manner of cold fusion papers -- a best effort, and with the promise of thought-provoking substantive claims, but without the level of attention to detail (formatting, punctuation, etc.) expected of a submission to a normal journal. We should not be surprised when people balk at these things. Another point worth mentioning -- this paper has followed the approach of the August 7, 2012, paper cited elsewhere very closely [2]. In that paper there was the Ragone diagram, the infrared camera, the radiation measurements by David Bianchini, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, etc. One gets the distinct impression that the May 2013 paper used the August 2012 paper as a template. This is not a problem in and of itself, but it makes plausible suspicions to the effect that a less than objective observer (Levi) led a possibly flawed effort modeled closely on an earlier one and that the Swedish members of the team might have allowed their names to be added to the paper without doing sufficient due diligence. The point I'm making has less to do with the substance of the paper than the execution -- what is the paper trying to achieve, and who is the audience it is trying to convince? If the audience are mainstream scientists, I doubt it will have the intended effect. Eric [1] http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2013/05/22/e_cat_test_claims_success_yet_again/ [2] http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf
