Rossi writes on his blog about Arxiv, peer reviewing, why that report is not going to be published on a magazine [not a journal], but something derived from it could/will.
May 22nd, 2013 at 4:30 PM Dear Paolo, I read the article on Repubblica, is sincere and honest, but contains some imprecision: 1- the peer reviewing has been done. Read more carefully the report . Arxiv has anyway a peer reviewing ( a publication must be examined by at least one of the competent of the art that is well known by the Arxiv commettee: try to publish a bad article on Arxiv and you will understand that I am right); secondly, to be published in a cartaceous peer reviewed magazine takes many months, so the Examiners decided to anticipate the publication on Arxiv, pending a publication on another peer reviewed magazine. By the way, the report has been peer reviewed by the list of Professors you find in the acknowledgements, not to mention the fact that when a paper is signed by many Professors of international Universities, there is also an automatic peer reviewing made among the same Authors of the same report. It is more difficult that 7 Authors make mistakes than 1 Author , isn’t it? Also: the Report is 30 pages, and is impossible to publish 30 pages in a normal magazine, therefore by necessity the report will have to be reduced to be published in a normal magazine: for this reason Arxiv has been chosen by the examiners for the first publication. 2- the description of the process has been described uncorrectly, but I understand that for a non expert is difficult to write in few lines an abstract of 30 pages of report. In conclusion, the journalist of Repubblica has made honestly and sincerely the job. Warm Regards, A.R. 2013/5/23 Alan Fletcher <[email protected]> > > From: "Eric Walker" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:16:55 AM > > 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. > > http://www.investorvillage.com/mbthread.asp?mb=476&tid=12816817&showall=1 > > Posted 5/23/2013 4:00:15 AM by Gustav > It is not written in Latin so I am afraid isn't legit > > > > 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). > > Lordy, lordy -- it's firgin diagram -- a compilation of generally > available information, and not really central to the paper. > > > 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. > > We don't know who suggested the radiometric calorimetry method and the use > of the Ragone plot. Chicken? Egg? > And even if Levi et al DID follow he previous methodology, is that bad? > > >
