Originally posted by Blacknad:
- Well that's all very well Johnny Boy, and we
might agree that this obsession with 'Peer Review' leads to mediocrity, but can you point to any Peer Reviewed Study that lends credence to your theory?
Blacknad [/QUOTE]
I am trying my best to get my work peer reviewed. Editors refuse to even send them for reviewing. Other qualified scientists to whom I have sent my work for private reviewing just fall silent and I have trouble to contact them afterwards. Now I can assure you if anyone of these people could have found a single scientific mistake they would have been on me like a ton of bricks: I know this from bitter experience. Thus the fact that they treat me this way shows that they cannot find a fault, but are not willing to allow me to "confuse the presently accepted paradigm with facts".
My paper on the mechanism for superconduction has been submitted on 2 February to a journal of Elsevier. I am still waiting anxiously for a decision. My paper on the re-interpretation of quantum mechanics has been vetoed twice, before even being sent out for reviewing; on arguments like: "Our peer review system is very strict and I do not think your manuscript will pass (in other words: write within the presently accepted paradigm or shut up)" and "your paper is too speculative (It can be argued that all theoretical papers are speculative}". There is no theory in the world that is more speculative than string theory: like BCS it is nothing else but BS. This hogwash gets published because it is written by people who belong to an incestious brotherhood.
I have succeeded so far to get an overseas scientist of stature to review my book: This is what he wrote:
Review by Prof. Dr. Peer C Zalm
Eindhoven, Netherlands.
A note on the appraisal of J.F. Prins? book
?Superconduction at Room Temperature without Cooper pairs?
Although unusual, let me start by briefly introducing myself because this is pertinent to the appraisal of my statement below.
My name is Peter Cornelis Zalm. I am a physicist, working for Philips Research in Eindhoven [NL] since 1978 and Visiting Professor at Salford University in Manchester [UK] since 1991. My professional expertise focuses on ion-solid interactions and surface analysis. I (co-) authored well over 100 papers and refereed many times that number for leading international scientific journals. Of the latter I rejected some 60% and not all of those were strictly in my field. But if and when I could demonstrate an experiment or theory to be demonstrably flawed I considered myself qualified for the job. Also, since 1992 I always waive the reviewer?s right to remain anonymous but hitherto this has not provoked any of the rejected authors to challenge my verdict.
I bought Johan Prins? book because I know him and his work on ion implantation into diamond well and was intrigued by the results reported in his papers in Semiconductor Science & Technology Vol.18 supplement (2003). After carefully studying the theories presented in the book and email contact with Johan to clarify certain details, I could not find any obvious mistakes, errors or shortcomings. Of course this may imply that I am simply not sufficiently skilled in this area and can easily be deceived. Therefore I gave the book to a befriended theorist who owed me a favour and asked him to read it critically and comment on it. His reply, several weeks later, was highly unsatisfactory in that he suggested something along the lines of ?? the author should read the basic textbooks of so-and-so on superconductivity and study the seminal work of X in this area ?? But what I did not get was a clear answer of what was wrong (or indeed even if anything was wrong) with the proposed model and mechanism.
The attitude of my theorist friend seems to be widespread in our scientific community. If and when somebody challenges a well-established concept he is branded a lunatic and not taken seriously. Now I do agree that we can not correct the weird ideas from all the crackpots of our world. But at the same time most progress has been made through propositions that were highly unconventional at the time. So if and when somebody with the track record of Johan produces a disturbing experimental outcome and a novel type of explanation for that he deserves examination of his results by appropriate experts. Unfortunately there seems to be a certain unwillingness to do so, partly because there is little scientific honour to be gained by confirming someone else?s theory or demonstrating the untennability of it. Yet I urge anyone with the capability to do either instead of persevering in denial or mockery. I have a purely selfish reason for this because I either want to know where I goofed or I want to be proud of being able to call one of the true innovators of our field my friend!
Eindhoven, april 2006
I am still waiting for others to respond on the actual physics involved; not in terms of their prejudices. So it is all well and good to say that your work should be "peer reviewed". It is another thing to find an honest person who will objectively judge the physics content. I believe the latter is impossible unless you write articles within the presently accepted paradigm. This does not auger well for the future of physics.
See also, for example:
http://www.cgoakley.demon.co.uk/qft/
