This website contains other cold fusion items.
Click to see the list of links

243) Another rejection by Physics Today


Ludwik Kowalski (7/31/05)
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043



Physics Today rejected my "Open letter to the DOE, and its team of 18 scientists." No explanation of any kind was given. That is not appropriate. I have been a member of APS for many decades and I find the absence of the explanation not appropriate. What did the reviewers say? Why did they decide not to publish my letter? They received my piece on February 7, 2005. Why did it take so long to decide? Here is the emailed letter of rejection (receive on 7/15/05): “Dear Dr. Kowalski, We have completed our review of your letter dated 7 February 2005, which you titled "Open letter to the DOE, and its team of 18 scientists." We have decided not to publish it. I apologize for the length of time it has taken to completed this review and get notification to you. Thank you for writing and for your interest in Physics Today. Sincerely, Marty Hanna Letters Editor Physics Today.”

And here is my immediate reply: ”Dear Dr. Hanna: I suspected that this would happen, considering the delay. Last time you mentioned that many people commented on the second DOE review. Are some letters to the editor, on that subject, going to be published? If so then when? Strange things seem to be happening in the cold fusion field; I continue observing them. After the retirement it became my full time occupation. I am considering going to the 12th international cold fusion conference near Tokyo. Too bad that my chances of sharing what I know and think can not be shared in Physics Today. I guess it has to do with factors that neither you nor I can control. Cold fusion is going to be remembered as a strange episode in the history of science. Best regards, Ludwik Kowalski” Will this letter, e-mailed more that two weeks ago, be answered?

My two questions were based on the reply I received on April 12, 2005, after asking about the status of my letter to the editor. At that time Dr. Hanna wrote: “Your letter, along with approximately 60 others that I currently have in house, is still in review. As soon as our review is completed, I will notify you of the outcome. Your continued patience is appreciated.” I was happy that sixty readers of Physics Today had commented on the DOE report and expect to see some of them in print. I suppose that most authors were APS members with high credentials. Why did editors decide to block timely contributions? Those interested in other records of rejection should look at units # 154. I think that rejections of CF papers are worth recording, for benefits of future generations. Cold fusion will be viewed as an interesting event in the history of science, regardless of verdicts about validity of numerous CF claims.

My Open Letter to the DOE was posted in unit #196. In unit #211 I commented on what Charles Beaudette wrote about that review. His paper can now be downloaded from the Library at <http://www.lenr-canr.org>: I think it is worth reading and thinking about. Was Beaudette one of those whose letters to the editor were rejected by Physics Today? I do not know.

This website contains other cold fusion items.
Click to see the list of links