Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Abd (talk | contribs) at 21:45, 17 June 2009 (→Why characterize the journal?: about the hypothetical claim of "fringe." Publication in Naturwissenschaften is strong evidence this isn't fringe research, even if it is remarkable or extraordinary.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Greetings. Hipocrite has requested that I attempt to mediate a content dispute regarding Cold fusion.

About me

These are facts about me that I consider relevant to this mediation:

• According to this, I have never edited Cold fusion. I do not know anything about cold fusion.
• To the best of my knowledge, I have never worked with Hipocrite, Abd, Verbal, Olorinish, Kevin Baas, Kirk shanahan, EdChem, OMCV, LeadSongDog, Enric Naval, Stephan Schulz, Objectivist, Coppertwig. If my memory fails me and I have worked with any of those editors, please notify me so I can amend the previous statement or, if necessary, recuse myself from the mediation and find someone who would be more objective in my stead.
• I have not read the entirety of Cold fusion nor its talk page. This is not because I am lazy, but because I wish to remain as objective as possible. I believe that if I were to read through Cold fusion in its entirety, I would possibly become biased towards the information that is currently presented in the article. I also believe that a similar effect would occur if I were to read through the entirety of Talk:Cold fusion.
• I am not an administrator. I unsuccessfully requested adminship in February 2009.
• I have very little experience with dispute resolution. I have participated in discussions at WP:RFCN.
• I write and review science-related articles on Misplaced Pages.
• I have never been employed as a scientist of any kind, nor have I ever written a peer-reviewed paper.

Subpage

I have decided to confine my attempted mediation to this subpage for two simple reasons: First, this mediation will likely become quite lengthy and require the use of multiple sections which would otherwise clutter up the talk page. Second, in the time that this mediation takes place, there will likely be unrelated discussions that spring up on the talk page. Such unrelated discussions would interrupt this mediation if it were to occur on the talk page. I would like to make it clear that in no way do I intend to use this subpage as a means of concealing the discussion contained herein. Upon completing my introductory statements, I will provide a link on the talk page and notify the involved editors. If someone wants to add a notice to the top of Talk:Cold fusion, you are more than welcome to do so.

Process

What I have read thus far has illustrated to me that much of this dispute (as is the case with many disputes) is comprised of personal attacks, accusations of personal attacks, personal counterattacks, and, more generally, criticisms of how the involved parties present information rather than criticisms of the information being presented. This will not occur here. Debate and argumentation will occur at points during this mediation process, but posts (or even individual sentences) that serve no purpose other than to criticize another user will be deleted. If you have a problem with the way another user is behaving and I have not already intervened, take it up at Talk:Cold fusion, the talk page of the user, or my talk page. If you simply have a problem with the material that another user presents, please try to make your rebuttal as impersonal as possible: "I believe that your statement of 'such and such' is incorrect. According to 'so and so'..." or "Your reasoning is somewhat flawed in that the gilbo sprocket generator...".

As of yet, I do not have a detailed plan for how to go about resolving this content dispute. I intend to make sure that all the involved parties are aware of this page and agree to work within the guidelines that I have set forth. I then intend to gather from the involved parties a detailed outline of the individual statements, sections, or sources which are in dispute. From there, we will work to resolve those disputes.

Participation

If you have been actively involved in the Cold fusion content dispute, please sign your name below. While there may be discussions in which uninvolved parties may participate, this list is for those who are actively involved in the dispute.

This list will serve three purposes: First, it will insure that all involved parties have been made aware of this mediation process and help us identify any missing parties which should be notified. Second, it will provide an opportunity for the involved parties to ask preliminary questions before the mediation begins. Third, it will serve to verify that the involved parties have read through the introductory material, agree to participate in the process that I have set forth, and ultimately agree to respect the final content decisions that we collectively arrive upon. Alternatively, involved parties who believe that this process is unnecessary or that I am not the best possible choice for a mediator can also sign here and express their concerns or refusal to participate.

1. Hipocrite (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Note - I will retract my acceptance of this process if editors banned from Misplaced Pages are permitted to participate. Hipocrite (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Out, untill issues are resolved. Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   Umm. Let me get this straight. This is about Jed Rothwell, who was banned from Cold fusion, not actually from the project, by an administrator later found to have been involved. Whether or not he's still banned from Cold fusion is unclear, but suppose he is. So are you, Hipocrite, as am I. Now, we don't need Rothwell's participation here, but we can't stop him from dropping notes here, unless we semiprotect the page. He's an expert in the field, he's well-known and published, and he knows the literature intimately, it's quite possible he will say something useful, and it's not up to you or me if it stays, ultimately, it's up to Cryptic. You don't want to be here, that's certainly your choice; while your consent to decisions here would be nice, it's not essential as far as I'm concerned, and, below, it looks like it may be more trouble than it's worth. Cryptic doesn't need my additional consent, but to be clear, he may remove this note if he thinks it better. --Abd (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   Clarification: What is (or was) the username of this Jed Rothwell character? I'd like to look into the matter myself before this is discussed any further. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   , but since his siteban he has been disrupting with a traveling IP roadshow. Hipocrite (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   You might review the evidence given at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG, which then refers to the RfC that preceded it. Summary: there was long-term conflict between JzG and Jed Rothwell, at Talk:Cold fusion. User:JedRothwell was abandoned in 2006; Rothwell stopped editing the article then, and only posts to Talk pages with comments, as IP, but he always signs his edits. He's a notable expert in the field (not a scientist! not all experts are scientists), and should probably have an article, because of RS mention of him, but nobody has tried to create one and I haven't gotten around to it. In December, 2008, JzG blocked Rothwell's IP and unilaterally blacklisted the web site, lenr-canr.org (and another site on the topic). JzG then claimed block evasion because of another IP he'd also blocked, not behaviorally similar except possibly for POV, not signed, mistakenly claimed to be Rothwell. And in January, JzG declared a topic ban on Rothwell. This was protested.. Without necessity, JzG took the ban to ArbComm, claiming the right to block or ban based on the POV of an editor, which rejected the request as premature, not to mention dangerous. JzG was later found in the RfAr cited above to have violated admin recusal policy. The JedRothwell account was indef blocked, during the consideration in the earlier RfAr, by User:MastCell in an action which has not been contested, mostly because Rothwell truly doesn't care if that account is blocked, doesn't care if he's blocked at all, is quite amused by the whole fuss, and I'm certainly not going to intervene to unblock an old, moot account which the editor may not have access to anyway. The ArbComm non-decision was interpreted by one editor as a topic ban, and the application of that to this page would be basically up to you; see User talk:JedRothwell. Editors may permit edits by banned editors, even if we conclude that Rothwell is still banned, to pages in their user space, I do it routinely at User talk:Abd/IP. To me, the issue with Rothwell is whether or not we want to consider the opinion of a COI editor. My observation is that the facts he presents have never turned out to be false; he obviously has a point of view, as do experts in general. He's known to be heavily involved as an editor of papers for publication, so his claim to be editing a paper for Naturwissenschaften is quite reasonable. He made a comment here that is very much on-point, if we set aside the possible incivility. He has personal knowledge of the editorial process at Naturwissenschaften, and, as he later disclosed to me in email, the editorial process there is grueling. He stated that some of the reviewers he is dealing with know as much about cold fusion as someone like Storms, and "several orders of magnitude more than I know." Whether we take this into account as background, I'm not sure, but I do know that we should be very careful about assuming the reverse without any evidence, as has been the case here. Rothwell was quite amused by the claim, as you can understand given his claimed experience, and that is typically why he makes a comment, and also why some editors are allergic to him. --Abd (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   I thought we were talking about Cold Fusion, not about topic bans, JzG, aribtration, and all the like. If this mediation is about all of the nonsense that you've gone over fruitlessly a thousand times, then I'm out. If Jed Rothwell is going to be permitted to be a dick on this page, I'm out. This seems like a perfectly reasonably request. If anyone who is NOT Abd or a single-purpose account disagress with me, I'm happy to hear from you, on my talk page. I have unwatchlisted this page, as it's has devolved. Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   We are indeed here to discuss cold fusion. I asked for information and I was given it. Jed Rothwell is topic banned, indefinitely blocked, has an obvious COI if he is who he claims to be and it's Essjay all over again if he is not. Most importantly (to me), all of his edits thus far have been disruptive and not in the spirit of this mediation. All edits made to this page by Jed Rothwell can be removed on sight by any editor. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

2. I'm a bit surprised about being named. I have made some comments in the discussion, but I do not have the time to spend on another science vs. pseudoscience conflict. Thus, do not expect extensive contributions to this mediation from me. I do think that the mediator should indeed start from good knowledge of the conflict and read through at least significant parts of the page and the discussion. I also reserve the right to comment on other editors behavior as necessary during this mediation. I don't see this as a pure content conflict. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   Some may agree that there is a behavior conflict as well as a content conflict. I have neither the authority nor the interest to mediate behavioral issues. On this page, the only thing that I consider to be relevant is the determination of which content should appear in the article on Cold fusion. It is for that reason that I will disregard and remove any other commentary. It is also for that reason that I will not read the article, its sources, or the ongoing dispute until I am convinced that it is necessary to do so. Neutrality requires a certain level of ignorance, and that ignorance cannot be regained once it has been lost. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   I do not fully understand what point you are attempting to make by providing this link. Could you please elaborate? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   Just because you close your eyes, the room will not be empty. There have been plenty of arguments (or structurally similar statements) made. Why do you think disregarding them will help in the "determination of which content should appear in the article"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   It is not my intention to disregard logical arguments, but instead to separate those arguments from the name-calling and other content-unrelated issues. I am searching for blue rocks at the bottom of a blue chlorinated pool. Why should I dive in headfirst and sting my eyes when the people who threw the rocks are willing to point them out and provide scuba diving equipment? If you (and all the other involved parties) are able to point to specific sections or diffs rather than restating their arguments, I will read the material you provide, but I will waste neither my time nor my currently unbiased position attempting to find the useful material on my own. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

3. I will respect your role as mediator, Cryptic, because you were recommended to Hipocrite by Jehochman, whom I trust. He wouldn't do that for no reason. It's not clear to me, as well, why Hipocrite developed the list he did. Because you wish to focus on content issues, I will also respect that, and, indeed, believe that it could be helpful. However, as to respecting the result of the mediation, that would depend on what you mean by "respect." I trust that you will decide as you see best, but you are also only one editor. As a neutral editor -- I completely accept your representations on that -- you will be faced with a field rife with complexities and complications, and it's really easy to make snap judgments that are quite wrong. Experts have done it; indeed, the whole position of the field can be seen as based on such judgments. However, if you do your work well, I expect it to be of great influence on the article and on the editorial work. I'll warn you, though, that I was neutral -- or skeptical, actually -- about five months ago. You may be able to keep yourself becoming informed, but, I suspect, it may also be difficult. My position, all along, has been that a neutral judgment of sources, based simply on RS guidelines, would result in a better article than one controlled by editors with POVs about the subject and then about sources based on what those sources say. If a source appears to support a fringe positions, why, it must be a fringe source, to be deprecated or ignored. It's a classic Misplaced Pages problem. You may be able to help, and I'll do everything I can to assist. Thanks for trying.

   I suggest you move this page to your user space. You can use the user page as a consensus page to develop a report, and the user talk page for discussion. That's a practice I've followed with a little success. In your user space, you have a little more authority over the page; sometimes it can make a difference. With just one page, it's easy for discussion to spin out and obscure results; with the user/talk pair, you can keep tight focus and clarity on the user side and let discussion proceed in more detail on the talk side. How you would use that would be up to you: you could, for example, reserve the user page for yourself, for your report, and then let us discuss it and advise you on the talk side. --Abd (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   If you are dissatisfied with Hipocrite's list of involved editors, which users would you suggest omitting/adding? Regarding your concern with my ability to remain neutral and find the best possible solution, I suggest that you read this conversation I had with EdChem if you have not already. Other than that, the only promise I can make is that "I'll do the best I can." Regarding the use of a user subpage, I believe your suggestion is an excellent one. The of user subpage will be quite helpful for cataloging and publishing conclusions later on. The user talk subpage, where this content will soon be located, will be used for discussions such as this one. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   Not dissatisfied, did you think I was? Just puzzled. Does Hipocrite have a dispute with the above editors, or is Hipocrite suggesting that I do? And why EdChem, but I'll look again? Probably some of each. While it would be good to have a list of editors who are "parties," you may also admit others who wish to "testify." It really will be up to you. I didn't see Stephan Schulz as agreeing to participate, just kibbitzing. I think you should ask Hipocrite to clarify what issues he sought your mediation on, because if it isn't about editorial behavior, it's not enough to just identify parties and, indeed, the parties are largely moot except for some process reasons. --Abd (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   While creating this page, I simply asked Hipocrite for a list of the involved editors. The list above reflects the list that he gave me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

4. Enric Naval (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
5. This seems reasonable to me. Offhand I can think of one other editor, User:Coppertwig, who has been involved in the CF discussion not too many days ago. V (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   That is definitely an oversight on my part. He should have been included, no doubt. Hipocrite (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   No problem. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

6. I wish to participate in the process, am generally willing to respect consensus, I like the process you've set up, and think that a consensus arrived at via mediation is likely to work well and I'm unlikely to try to go against it, but am hesitant to make an absolute commitment to "ultimately agree to respect the final content decisions that we collectively arrive upon." Thank you for arranging this mediation. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   I am glad that you are willing to participate, but hesitancy worries me. The phrase you've highlighted is the most important element of this mediation. The power of any mediation is derived from the fact that the participants all agree beforehand to respect whatever decisions are made. I hope you also understand that "we" in this sentence refers to all of the participants, not to all of the mediators (even though there is only one). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   Misplaced Pages:Mediation says "Agreement to mediate does not obligate the parties to accept any proposed agreements." I'm a member of the Harmonious editing club; I voluntarily follow 1RR; I tend to act in a mediator-like role, and I believe I have a good record of following consensus. I plan to follow Misplaced Pages policies, including WP:CONSENSUS. However, I generally don't sign blank cheques or agree to as-yet-unspecified terms. You can choose to trust me, or not. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   First, Misplaced Pages:Mediation is not policy. I am not obligated to adhere to any of its proposed guidelines. Second, there is an inherent incompatibility between your statements "I have a good record of following consensus. I plan to follow Misplaced Pages policies, including WP:CONSENSUS." and " am hesitant to make an absolute commitment to 'ultimately agree to respect the final content decisions that we collectively arrive upon.'" Do you or do you not agree to adhere to the eventual consensuses that will be arrived upon by the participants of this mediation?

   I applaud your optimism, but I don't wish to predict the future, i.e. whether any consensus will necessarily arise out of this mediation or not. WP:CONSENSUS says "Consensus can change". If something in some future situation will be the reasonable thing to do or will be required by policy, why would you need me to say something about it now? Perhaps you're confusing the concepts of mediation and arbitration. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   I'm increasingly worried about this. In the absence of some definition of "consensus among the participants," and with the selection of participants being highly likely to be biased at this point, which I'll explain, I can't agree to be bound by that consensus. I just ran, a bit more than a month ago, an RfC on admin misbehavior, at which two-thirds of the participants argued that I was completely off-base, many of them that I should be banned for even raising the issue; and many of those with the latter argument are represented in the list of possible parties here. Yet, at ArbComm, I was confirmed in my claims by almost every arbitrator. What was "consensus" at the RfC? Did I abide by it? Should I have abided by it?

   This mediation effort was initially defined by a specific issue for which mediation was not necessary, it was a transient issue, probably moot, how to determine what version to revert to during protection. Instead of addressing that directly, Cryptic, you proceeded to define a much more complex mediation process than would be appropriate for that issue. Fine. There are other issues. But they have not yet been defined, and until they have been defined, there isn't any basis for deciding who should be a party, and, as well, for my decision to participate in the mediation. I'm willing to mediate one issue at a time. You may well take that approach, but if you are questioning Coppertwig's commitment, you really should question mine.

   Here is what I suggest: let a complainant define an issue, a single issue. Pursue that informally as an independent editor who seeks to help resolve a single issue. If that proves impossible, and if it seems that expansion is needed, then use this page as a more complex form of informal mediation. For that one issue, invite other interested editors to participate. No promise to "respect" a decision is needed. Rather, later, failure to respond to the attempted intervention of a neutral editor can be used against an editor, it's a precondition for RfC, for example, likewise for RfAr.

   I absolutely respect your intentions, Cryptic. But you've stated that you have no experience in mediation. Fine, you can learn. But starting with a complicated process, burdened with promises that editors may later find conflict with WP:IAR, isn't a good idea, and that the meaning of the promises isn't clear doesn't help. Just pick a dispute and talk with both Hipocrite and I and anyone else who wants to help, and do your best to find compromises and consensus. You might report these efforts on the user page to which this talk page is attached, as a history of "mediations." I assure you I will fully cooperate with this, and will confine my comments as you request. You have already removed comments from me, which, again, I fully accept and respect. Thanks for your efforts, so far. Normally, for mediation to be of effect for further process, it must take place on the Talk page of the editor subject to further process. There is no need that all the process take place there, only that your efforts be documented there. So if, for example, you find that my positions have been improper, you can then attempt to gain my agreement on my talk page, as could Hipocrite or anyone else. If, then, I act contrary to this, I could be subject to RfC. I can't post to Hipocrite talk, but Hipocrite has waived notice, etc., so it could be said that I've already attempted to negotiate a dispute, pick any dispute. But there isn't someone else who has attempted this with the same dispute. You could be that person, as could be anyone. Good luck, I'll help as I can, and do, still, encourage your efforts. --Abd (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   What I propose is this: You (the involved editors) will populate the list of specific content issues which Coppertwig started below. We will then choose one of those issues to discuss. As a neutral third party, I will provide input and ask questions in an attempt to find the best possible solution for everyone involved. When I am able to identify such a solution, I will post my thoughts on the user page and we will move on to the next issue. I will strike the statement in question regarding consensus. It seemed like a good idea at the beginning, but after putting a considerable amount of thought into the matter, I realize that it isn't really logical. If you choose to have further discussions on the issues after this mediation, if you choose to incorporate bits and pieces of my suggestions and ignore others, or if "consensus" here (if such an event actually occurs) is entirely ignored afterwards, so be it. That will be your choice. Does this sound reasonably to everyone? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

7. I'm not sure how much I'll be able to participate, or what is involved, but I'm not against anything that might help the project. I've been more involved on the talk page than editing the article. If putting my name here means more than just being willing to look in and add a comment now and then, please let me know! Verbal chat 21:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
8. I'm in a similar situation as Verbal. My interest in CF is insuring that sources are represented in the proper context and given due weight. My involvement has been limited mostly to the talk page for several months. Most recently my concerns on the talk page centered around a large portion of material derived from Storm's book. Specifically a small portion of text concerning biological transmutation. Latter I found out that Storm's book also took the phenomenon of spontaneous combustion seriously. It seems Storm wants to believe in things very badly (while I enjoyed the the x-files its not how the real world works). I believed the entire Storm book should be ignored in terms of scientific fact and theory since the author has embraced so many ideas well outside the mainstream. At the same time I do think the response that proponents of CF offer to the mainstream/historic perspective should be presented with the proper weight (I'm not sure how this would best be done and that is why I stick to the talk page). I also think Storm is a reliable source for what many CF proponents believe but I don't think his ideas can be treated as anything more than wp:fringe.--OMCV (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
9. I've nearly given up hope of being able to improve the article, so for weeks now I've limited my input to reference gnoming. The last straw was having been reverted for claiming that the scope of Naturwissenschaften is what that journal's official site says it is: Life sciences. I don't have sufficient patience to continue reading through thousands of words discussing the most trivial of points. I'll opt out of this unless someone asserts that I've behaved badly.LeadSongDog come howl 07:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
10. I don't really understand what "participation" is, but I want to participate, if it means that I read stuff and comment when I have something to contribute. Cryptic, what is the difference between an editor participating in mediation and one who is not? I actually think the article is pretty good these days. Olorinish (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

    The only requirement I place on editors who "participate" is that they read the introductory material I've written before they sign their name. This insures that the validity of whatever conclusions I publish will not be disputed by such arguments as "Wait, screw that, he's not an admin!" Also, if you list yourself as participating, I may ask you to make comments if your name is brought up in discussion. For example, if an editor provides a diff involving something you've written, and another editor argues that the first was misconstruing what you had written, I would ask you (via your talk page) to clarify the meaning for us. Other than that, there is no obligation to participate if you are "participating". Does this answer your question? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

11. I am signing to acknowledge that I have been notified. But I haven't been very active on the cold fusion page or discussion for some time. Frankly I haven't even been following it all that much lately. I'm not aware of any significant disputes on it currently and consequently don't believe I will have much to offer here. But for what it's worth, I'm here. Kevin Baas 14:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
12. I have been following the CF pages for quite a while, on and off, though not editing. I am willing to participate, provided the discussion remains focused on content issues. EdChem (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
13. --GoRight (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
14. I'm not that interested, but since i'm following this, and there have been some comments that i felt the need to place ;-) I'm going to add myself per request. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Content issues

I was planning on waiting until we had finished assembling a list of participants, but Coppertwig has taken the initiative to begin the list of content issues. All involved parties are welcome to expand or modify the list. Signing individual entries is not necessary.

• Whether or not the beryllium-8 hypothesis should be mentioned in the article.
• Whether or not the patent should be mentioned in the article.
• Whether or not the American Chemical Society Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook should be included in the bibliography.

Marwan, Jan; Krivit, Steven B. (2008), Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society, ISBN 978-0-8412-6966-8

• Whether or not to include the following text: "According to Storms (2007), no published theory has been able to meet all the requirements of basic physical principles, while adequately explaining the experimental results he considers established or otherwise worthy of theoretical consideration." link to context.
• To what extent to include speculative material and which sources can be used to verify this material.
• Should we state that Naturwissenschaften is a "life sciences" journal?

Moving forward with mediation

It seems that all involved parties want to move forward with the mediation, though Hipocrite has not edited this page in some time. I have notified him of the fact that he is still allowed to participate here. In any case, does anyone have any suggestions for which issue we should discuss first? I would prefer to take on the "smaller" disputes first and build up to the larger ones. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment to say I remain fully committed to this process, but totally indifferent to what we discuss first. Hipocrite (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Starting with any of them is fine, and I can't easily decide that one issue is smaller than another, but if I had to choose I'd suggest starting with the Naturwissenschaften/Life Sciences issue as the smallest. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I started the section below and presented context and argument for removing "life sciences," subject to the mediator's approval. --Abd (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. No sense sitting around discussing what to discuss when we could just go ahead and discuss it! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Naturwissenschaften a "Life Sciences" journal?

Should we state that Naturwissenschaften is a "life sciences" journal?

In an article where there have been long-term struggles over balance, we need take care with respect to why text is being included, and it can point to how that text will be interpreted by readers. An editor inserted "life sciences journal," and we should ask why. The editor who inserted it has generally declined to participate here; so I will speculate as to the reason: he wanted to make it appear (and, I assume, believed) that Naturwissenschaften would not be a place to ordinarily publish research in chemistry or physics. This is a frequent claim with respect to peer-reviewed journals publications in this area, that the journal would not have the expertise to properly review the paper. But the point of mentioning Naturwissenschaften is actually that it's a mainstream journal, and not specialized in the life sciences. Probably because most papers published are in life science fields, Springer has classified it in the Life Science category, but the journal actually covers much more. From :

Naturwissenschaften - The Science of Nature - is Springer’s flagship multidisciplinary science journal covering all aspect of the natural sciences. The journal is dedicated to the fast publication of high-quality research covering the whole range of the biological, chemical, geological, and physical sciences. Particularly welcomed are contributions that bridge between traditionally isolated areas and attempt to increase the conceptual understanding of systems and processes that demand an interdisciplinary approach. ...

Naturwissenschaften is only interested in publishing the very best of research, and the selection criteria are scientific excellence, novelty, and the potential to attract the widest possible readership, reflecting the multidisciplinary nature of the journal.

Cold fusion is an interdisciplinary field, where chemistry and physics intersect -- or collide. Calling Naturwissenschaften a "life sciences journal" is misleading. That is why I removed this reference. Enric Naval disagreed, adding "peer-reviewed" in what he must have thought would be a reasonable compromise, but restoring the misleading "life sciences journal." I raised the issue in Talk, and, there being no response, the next day I removed it. I had assumed the issue was resolved, but apparently the editor who had removed it still considers the removal preposterous. Maybe it would be worthwhile to formally find a consensus on this. --Abd (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling it a "life sciences" journal would give an inaccurate impression to the reader, since the journal also covers "chemical ... and physical sciences". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bud in - but life sciences seems to be quite correct. I've been through the last 10 issues, and there are very very few (if any) papers that aren't connected to biology. Take a look yourselves. Do a random sweep of the content. I'd say there is a very good reason that Springer themselves are categorizing it as life-sciences. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

These two articles on one page don't seem to me to be in life sciences: ("Are transient X-ray sources cataclysmic binaries?" and "Element 114 in Meteoriten?") "Mostly life sciences" might be accurate but without relevant sources perhaps both OR and SYN; I still say that just "life sciences" gives an inaccurate impression. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you just link to a 1976 letters page to show that the journal today is not a life sciences journal? Do you think that's a bit disingenuous? It's categorized as a life sciences journal. They publish articles almost entirely on biology. Hipocrite (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

To complement the above comment by Hipocrite - how exactly is classifying it as life-science WP:OR? It is Springers own classification - i was just doing spot checks to see if the classification was correct, and quite apparently it is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As Kim says, Springer itself classifies it as "Life sciences". Also, I also looked at some issues. Looking at the paper titles in all 6 issues of volume 96, almost every single paper appeared to be about biology except this one about haemoglobin tests. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have looked into the journal in question as well. I am not finished all the checking I would like to do, but would comment the following:

1. It certainly is a reliable source, and so papers within it are usuable unless the usual caveat applies in any particular case.
2. It does publish predominantly to almost exclusively material on life sciences and nature topics (including some geology), so it does appear to be an unusual place for the papers from SPAWAR.
3. The choice of an unusual venue is, on its own, insufficient to raise the usual caveat. However, the publications in Naturwissenschaften are not full journal articles but rather communications. Consequently, the full paper which would be expected to follow would actually be a better source for the article.
4. Unless I am missing something, the topic of how to describe this journal (if at all) is probably going to be irrelevant in a short period of time. In a quick search, I found the following:

   • The paper Use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments from the Dec 2007 issue of European Physical Journal - Applied Physics, 40(3), 293-303, was challenged by Kowalskai in Dec 2008 (44(3), 287-290) and a further response provided (44(3), 291-294). Using the 2007 paper would seem to me to require noting the criticisms which conclude the pitting on CR-39 could not possibly be due to α-particles or anything smaller.
   • The paper Solid State Modified Nuclear Processes by Kalman, P., Keszthelyi, T., and Kis, D., also in the Dec 2008 issue of European Physical Journal - Applied Physics, 44(3), 297-302, might also be relevant - I don't know, not having read it.
   • The paper Characterization of tracks in CR-39 detectors obtained as a result of Pd/D Co-deposition by Mosier-Boss, A., Szpak, S., Gordon, F. E., and Forsley, L. P. G. in the Jun 2009 issue of European Physical Journal - Applied Physics, 46(3) might be the one needed to see if the results are confirmed. As far as I can see, this is the only paper to have cited the Jan 2009 energetic neutrons Naturwissenschaften SPAWAR publication - perhaps not surprising, given the timeframe.
   • The preprint of the paper Theory of Bose–Einstein condensation mechanism for deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in micro/nano-scale metal grains and particles by Y. E. Kim (Dept. Physics, Purdue Uni) to appear in Naturwissenschaften seems likely to be relevant, in that it will apparently (to judge from the abstract) present a conventional explanation for some of the phenomena under discussion. The abstract states that "Recently, there have been many reports of experimental results which indicate occurrences of anomalous deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in metals at low energies. A consistent conventional theoretical description is presented for anomalous low-energy deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in metal. The theory is based on the Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) state occupied by deuterons trapped in a micro/nano-scale metal grain or particle. The theory is capable of explaining most of the experimentally observed results and also provides theoretical predictions, which can be tested experimentally. Scalabilities of the observed effects are discussed based on theoretical predictions."
   • It thus appears that the present discussion may be overtaken by additional publications.

5. I do not agree with the implied proposition from above that the coverage of a journal or its reliability is determined simply from the identity of the publisher and what the journal says of itself. The coverage is best assessed by looking at what it actually publishes, along with the areas of expertise of the Editorial Board. The Sokal Hoax clearly demonstrated the dangers when a journal publishes a paper in an area where the Editorial Board lack the expertise to make a reasonable assessment of the manuscript, and then fail to seek comment for those who possess the requisite expertise. In some ways, this goes to the heart of the issues in relation to cold fusion topics - that many people lack the experience, knowledge, or expertise to be sufficiently aware to make informed comments and decisions. EdChem (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

EdChem, while I appreciate your efforts put toward finding other relevant papers, I would prefer to avoid the line of argument that the issue might be "irrelevant in a short period of time." Even if we here decide to implement the sources you've mentioned or any other papers which circumvent the need to describe Naturwissenschaften, we must keep in mind that that very same need may re-arise in future discussions. Our goal here is somewhat trickier than to find a solution for the current situation. Instead, we must find the solutions that cover all of the bases and prevent similar problems from arising in the future.

As I see it, the real question lies in choosing the best possible method in which the journal in question should be characterized. There are several ways to do this:

1. Use the short description: "Life sciences".
2. Use the medium description which I found in its article: "Weekly Publication of the Advances in the Natural Sciences, Medicine and Technology."
3. Use the longer description which Abd linked to: "...the whole range of the biological, chemical, geological, and physical sciences..."
4. Analyze the topics covered in recent issues.
5. Analyze the expertise of the journal's editorial staff.

The fifth seems nearly impossible, though it is worth bearing in mind that the editorial team is comprised of humans. If we choose the fourth method, I would advise taking a "true" statistical viewpoint. Don't point to an issue filled with biology articles, and don't pick out individual chemistry/physics articles either. Take a random recent sample and analyze it objectively. As for the three descriptions of varying lengths, there still seems to be room for discussion as to which length is most appropriate. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As you can see below, I consider the discussion of how to characterize the journal to be premature, given that we haven't agreed that it should be characterized at all, and we mention it because our secondary sources mention it. (I'll check on that.) I agree about setting aside the argument that this may become irrelevant because of subsequent publication, this is actually historic work, and that's how the media treated it. The Kowalski paper criticized their earlier alpha-particle conclusions about the pitting, but, back-to-back, that criticism was handily answered, in my opinion, and Kowalski's objection would not at all apply to the triple-tracks characteristic of energetic neutrons, which are also found on the back side of the detectors. And we can go way down the road of debating content, I do suggest we stick to basics, first. Why characterize the publication at all?

Sorry, but 4 and 5 are pure instances of WP:OR. What about "6 - try to find additional external sources discussing Naturwissenschaften"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

...and to that end I offer ,,. What is interesting is that "Naturwissenschaften" is not really intended to be the primary means of communicating new results to experts, but to describe research to an expanded audience of teachers and non-expert scientists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Stephen. As Coppertwig points out below, we mention Naturwissenschaften because it was mentioned in reliable secondary source. Those sources, to my memory, did not characterize it, so, when I put this in the article, I did not characterize it, but I do have an opinion: they mentioned the journal to lend gravitas to the report, this is a mainstream journal of high reputation, which, I'm quite sure, published this because they believed it to be very significant work. This report of neutrons has been widely considered important, that's why we can cover it and why it would be in the article.

As to the sources Stephan found, these are from Springer.

doesn't show us anything new, as far as I could see.

is in German, I can't google translate.

links to an English translation of the third page Stephen cited, where the history of the journal is briefly described, and notable authors whose work has been published in it. The page, from 2003, claims 60% of articles are in life sciences. --Abd (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops!! I had just clicked around a bit on their website; I forget exactly what I did; and didn't notice the year of the page I had selected. Silly of me.

One more way to approach this: look at how sources specifically mentioning the cold fusion article describe the journal. For example, here it's just referred to as "Naturwissenschaften". A wikilink can provide additional information on the journal. Some other wordings that might or might not work: "the multidisciplinary life sciences journal Naturwissenschaften"; "Naturwissenschaften, a multidisciplinary journal focused mainly on life sciences"; "a multidisciplinary journal in Springer's life sciences collection". By the way, anything to do with haemoglobin sounds like life sciences to me. Kim D. Peterson, you raised a good point; and Ed Chem, that's useful information you've contributed. Thanks for keeping us on-topic, Cryptic.

I may be on wikibreak for several weeks. Go ahead with the mediation, don't feel you have to wait for me. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As can be seen above, we often put the cart before the horse. To find agreement here, we first have to establish why we are even discussing this. It's clear above that there is a basis for calling the publication a "life sciences journal," and there is a basis for considering that misleading, because it is explicitly a multidisciplinary journal. But why do we mention what kind of journal it is at all. The mention, in context, wikilinks Naturwissenschaften. Above, I speculated as to why "life sciences" would be mentioned. I invite the other editors to justify it; I will repeat what I wrote above in a subsection, and ask that discussion in that subsection be toward the desirability of any characterization of the journal at all, other than provided by the wikilink. If we establish a need for characterization, then we can discuss how to characterize it. Otherwise we will be debating a matter without a clear basis. --Abd (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(heh, now maybe I can write something without running into an edit conflict; the text in the edit window is much much less extensive than before) I want to ask regarding the possibility of compromise. In grade school we supposedly learn that we can look up information and write it down for the class, but in our own words --not plagiarize it directly. Some of the Misplaced Pages rules seem to favor plagiarism, so maybe we can't "make up" a reasonably accurate and non-misleading description of this journal. But, just because I want to try it, and see what you have to say about it, here:

Naturwissenschaften is a multidisciplinary journal with a major, but nonexclusive, focus on the life sciences. V (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The text in context

From the article, references have been reduced to labeled links:

On 22–25 March 2009, the American Chemical Society held a four-day symposium on "New Energy Technology", in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the announcement of cold fusion. At the conference, researchers with the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) reported detection of energetic neutrons in a palladium-deuterium co-deposition cell using CR-39,ACS Press Release 'Cold fusion' rebirth? New evidence for existence of controversial energy source a result previously published in Die Naturwissenschaften.New Scientist: Neutron tracks revive hopes for cold fusion Neutrons are indicative of nuclear reactions.AFP: Scientists in possible cold fusion breakthrough

The New Scientist source refers to publication in a "peer-reviewed journal (Naturwissenschaft, DOI: 10.1007/s00114-008-0449-x)." --Abd (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Why mention the journal?

We mention it because it's been mentioned in reliable secondary source as significant, as I recall. I'll provide references; this statement wasn't added based on the simple publication, to my memory, but as derived from secondary source. --Abd (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The source:New Scientist, Neutron tracks revive hopes for cold fusion, 23 March 2009. --Abd (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Why characterize the journal?

I'd prefer to characterize it as a "mainstream journal," and "multidisciplinary journal primarily focusing on the life sciences" is accurate, but both of these involve OR, probably, though of the kind that we can sometimes allow with consensus. I believe, however, that there is a specific motive for characterizing it, which is to impeach it by implying that it would have inadequate peer review. If we don't characterize it as a "life sciences journal," will this mislead the reader into thinking that there has been publication of this work by the mainstream in a place where there might have been inadequate review? I will not open sections below on how to characterize it until there is a conclusion that we should characterize it, otherwise we may be debating a moot point.--Abd (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Because Mosier-Boss's paper is a paper about physics, and Naturwissenschaften is a biology journal, not a physics journal. And that means that maybe their Editorial Board wasn't able to review it properly. And it suggests that Mosier-Boss was forced to publish in Naturwissenschaften for some reason. Maybe because their paper would not have passed the peer-review process of a physics journal because it has flaws that Naturwissenschaften couldn't detect because it's not specialized in physics. And I think that Mosier-Boss has already published four papers in Naturwissenschaften. We know that most papers are of poor quality, and I think it's necessary to point out that it's not a physics journal. (mind you, as EdChem says, this issue could be made moot by other papers who are appearing and which analyze Mossier-Boss paper)

There could be another reason of why Mosier-Boss decided to publish there. Jed Rothwell said that physics journals reject cold fusion articles without review, unfortunately he failed to provide any documentation for his claim --Enric Naval (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It's well-documented above that this isn't a "biology journal," I won't repeat that. The SPAWAR group has published a great deal of material in another physics journal.

• Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al., Use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments. Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., 2007. 40: p. 293-303.
• Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al., Reply to Comment on 'The Use of CR-39 in Pd/D Co-deposition Experiments': A Response to Kowalski. Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., 2008. 44: p. 287-290.
• Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al., Characterization of tracks in CR-39 detectors obtained as a result of Pd/D Co-deposition. Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., 2009. 46.

See also

• Szpak, S., P.A. Mosier-Boss, and F. Gordon, Further evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd lattice: emission of charged particles. Naturwiss., 2007. DOI 10.1007.
• Szpak, S., et al., Evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd lattice. Naturwiss., 2005. 92(8): p. 394-397. (In other worlds, if this was a mistake by Naturwissenschaften, you'd think someone would have let them know....)
• For a list of peer-reviewed publications by the SPAWAR group, see . There is also a list published by them; this is a U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.

Why did they submit to Naturwissenschaften? It's obvious. This is a highly reputable journal, mainstream, run by the Max Planck Society, which would certainly have the physics expertise, and which has, in the past, published many seminal papers, going back to Einstein, and it is multidisciplinary, having a wider audience than Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. This paper is historic, the method was simple, and if their experimental report is not actually deceptive, they've iced it. Sure, we should have confirmation, but we already have notability, and plenty of source for that. It should also be realized that neutrons have long been reported at low levels, so this paper is really a confirmation of the earlier work. The early "refutations" of neutrons were of high levels, and the complaint about prior low level reports was that the "bursts" could be background, cosmic rays, etc. CR-39 is an accumulating detector, so it recorded the characteristic triple tracks caused by neutrons, apparently, over many weeks, in many runs. They obtained sufficiently consistent results, roughly ten times accumulated background, and adequately controlled, to be able to make this claim, and for it to receive very serious attention. Does anyone here seriously believe that they submitted to Naturwissenschaften because it would be easier to sneak by the reviewers?

As to Rothwell's comment, it's true and it's in reliable source, but that's not our topic here. I'll mention, though, the Nobel-Prize-winning physicist Julian Schwinger's famous resignation from the American Physical Society over rejection of his work without review. --Abd (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That raises the question of why she didn't publish her paper in those physics journals, and why the only two papers published at Naturwissenschaften are also the only ones mentioning "Nuclear Reactions" in the title. And, yeah, now that you ask, it appears very much that Mossier-Boss published at Naturwissenschaften because most physics journal would not have accepted her work (the reasons of why this would happen are a different question: was it quality? or bias against CF? etc). And why it's necessary to qualify that it's not a physics journal. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Leave aside that this is speculation, and, actually, preposterous, directly contradicted by the evidence, i.e., this group has repeatedly published in a physics journal. Okay, why not a physics journal this time? Well, the SPAWAR group has a long history of publishing very similar work in physics and chemistry journals. Naturwissenschaften, though, is a multidisciplinary journal, and cold fusion straddles chemistry and physics. A short, grossly oversimplified summary is that the chemists knew -- or figured out -- how to cause the effect, and say that it isn't chemistry. The massive rejection came from the physicists, who couldn't initially reproduce the effect and many gave up, and said that it must be chemistry, it couldn't be nuclear physics. We have stuffed Condensed matter nuclear science and Cold fusion into the same article, though CMNS covers stuff besides fusion. It's a cross-disciplinary field, chemistry dealing with "consensed matter," and publishing in a multidisciplinary journal of the reputation of Naturwissenschaften is likely to have far more impact, than in the EPJ Applied Physics, see . Previously the SPAWAR group, with many publications before 2000, published since 2000 the following peer-reviewed papers; the claim about "nuclear" in the title is only partially correct. Physics journal publications are bolded.

• "Characterization of tracks in CR-39 detectors obtained as a result of Pd/D Co-deposition," Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al., Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., 2009. 46.
• "Triple Tracks in CR-39 as the Result of Pd–D Co-deposition: Evidence of Energetic Neutrons," Pamela A. Mosier-Boss, Stanislaw Szpak, Frank E. Gordon and Lawrence P. G. Forsley, Naturwissenschaften, DOI 10.1007/s00114-008-0449-x
  • (nuclear not in the title. "Energetic neutrons," though, has "nuclear" written all over it.)
• "Detection of Energetic Particles and Neutrons Emitted During Pd/D Co-Deposition," Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al., in Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, J. Marwan and S. Krivit, Editors. 2008, Oxford University Press.
• "Reply to comment on 'The use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments': a response to Kowalski," Mosier-Boss, Pamela, Szpak, Stan, Gordon, Frank, and Forsley, Lawrence P.G., European Physical Journal, Applied Physics, Vol. 44, p. 291–295 (2008)
• “ Thermal Behavior of Polarized Pd/D Electrodes Prepared by Co-Deposition”, S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, M.H. Miles, and M. Fleischmann, Thermochimica Acta, 410, 101 (2004).
• "Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition," Szpak, S., et al., Thermochim. Acta, 2004. 410: p. 101.
• “The Effect of an External Electric Field on Surface Morphology of Co-Deposited Pd/D Films”, S Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, C. Young, and F.E. Gordon, J. Electroanal. Chem., 580, 284 (2005).
• “Evidence of Nuclear Reactions in the Pd Lattice”, S Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, C. Young, and F.E. Gordon, Naturwissenschaften, 92, 394 (2005).
• “Further Evidence of Nuclear Reactions in the Pd/D Lattice: Emission of Charged Particles”, S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, and F.E. Gordon, Naturwissenschaften,, 94, 511 (2007).
• “Use of CR-39 in Pd/D Co-deposition Experiments”, P.A. Mosier-Boss. S. Szpak, F.E. Gordon, and F.P.G. Forsley, EPJ Applied Physics, 40, 293 (2007).
• "The effect of an external electric field on surface morphology of co-deposited Pd/D films," Szpak, S., et al., J. Electroanal. Chem., 2005. 580: p. 284-290.

It's not that EPJ-AP won't publish papers on cold fusion with "nuclear" in the title:

• "Solid state modified nuclear processes," P. K´alm´an1,a, T. Keszthelyi1, and D. Kis2, Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 44, 297–302 (2008)

How about this: our source uses "peer-reviewed journal Naturwissenschaften." Why are we doing our own original research to substitute our opinion for that of the secondary source? We could, if we agree, add "multidisciplinary," i.e., "peer-reviewed multidisciplinary journal, Naturwissenschaften." Or, to avoid disruption, we could simply refer to the journal by its name and leave out the qualifications, which was the compromise I followed. Did I give up too easily? --Abd (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)What is the Impact factor of these journals? And what are similar physics/multidiscipline journals impact factors? That should be a way for us to determine how highly regarded the journals are. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly that's of interest, though I'm not sure what it has to do with the question here. We aren't talking about conflict of sources. --Abd (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Cryptic C62, I see KDP is participating even though he is not listed in the participation section (not complaining, just noticing). I have refrained from commenting because of the following statement found there: "While there may be discussions in which uninvolved parties may participate, this list is for those who are actively involved in the dispute."

So is this a private discussion or is anyone welcome to join in? --GoRight (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I held little belief that the list of editors to whom I sent notifications and whose names I included in the introductory section would be "complete". I have stated that all are welcome to suggest additional editors to be added to the "involved participants" list. In retrospect, I should have made it clearer that this included suggesting oneself. GoRight and Kim, if you wish to participate, which you are certainly welcome to do, I ask that you read through the introductory material and sign your name in the participation section. If either of you have issues with the mediation process I have laid out, please list them alongside your name in the participation section (as several other editors have done). GoRight, thank you for pointing this out. With so much discussion being churned out, it is difficult to notice all of the little things at once. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

eigenfactor for Naturwissenschaften. EPJ AP doesn't seem to be listed. At journal-ranking.com, Naturwissenschaften (rank 8), 8/50, is just below Scientific American (rank 7), in the category "multidisciplinary sciences." In the Applied Physics category, EPJ-AP is 69/80. I don't think there is any doubt about why Mosier-Boss might prefer to publish in Naturwissenschaften, if they'll accept the paper, and it looks like they have accepted 3 from the SPAWAR group. --Abd (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased with the discussion that has occurred thus far. I would like to inform you of how I currently perceive the issue. I also have a few new points I would like to bring up:

1. The person who added the phrase "life sciences" to the article may have done so to try to give the impression that Naturwissenschaften is not a suitable journal for a cold fusion paper to be published in. That person may instead have added it simply to describe the journal in question (so that readers won't have to follow the wikilink to find relevant information) without giving any thought to the implications. The original intention is irrelevant. It has been made clear from the volume of discussion on the matter that the inclusion of the "life sciences" does indeed cast doubts on the validity of the paper.
2. We must also consider the opposite: Does the exclusion of the "life sciences" descriptor imply that Naturwissenschaften is an appropriate journal for the article in question? There is certainly room for discussion on this question, but I currently think that the answer is no.
3. It is our responsibility to provide information plainly and clearly. It is wrong to employ a wording which implies certain things without further information to make those implications (and the supporting evidence thereof) clearer.
4. It is likely that we will never know why the paper in question was published in Naturwissenschaften. Some speculate that this was because the journal in question is multidisciplinary and mainstream, some speculate that this was because it would be easier to slip the article past the review process for a non-physics journal. We will never know. All that we do know is that Naturwissenschaften is a peer-reviewed journal. As such, this line of argumentation is futile.
5. If it is indeed true that SPAWAR chose Naturwissenschaften to try to slip the article past the review process, and if there is indeed reason to believe that the results in the article were falsified or otherwise flawed, then at least one of two things must happen: First, the section of cold fusion that discusses the SPAWAR article in question must receive the same treatment as any other piece of information which has been shown to have originated in an unreliable source: It must either be rewritten or augmented to make this unreliability explicit or it must be deleted entirely. Second, reliable sources must be provided in that section which discuss and dispute the reliability of the article and the choice of journal in which it was published.

With all this having been said, I am currently leaning towards the exclusion of "life sciences". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. Except it's pretty clear to me why they chose Naturwissenschaften. But I wouldn't propose putting it in the article. "Naturwissenschaften is ranked just below Scientific American in importance among multidisciplinary journals." Too much detail, don't you think? --Abd (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the inclusion of statements that "support" the journal would only be appropriate as a counterargument to statements which dispute the reliability of the article in question, statements which, as I understand it, do not yet exist in the cold fusion. I think a more appropriate place for the statement you've written would be in the (fairly poor) Naturwissenschaften article itself. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that the discussion became polarized with the insistance from one part that the publication of the paper on that journal single-handedly demonstrated that cold fusion was no longer a fringe science, and the insistance from the other part that the journal had zero relevance in physics journal and that it shouldn't even be mentioned. I believe that this started as a moderated debate with moderate positions and arguments about the importance of the journal, and then it entered a positive feedback circle that culminated in the positions described above. Myself being one of the editors that entered that cycle, mind you. I thank Cryptic62 for breaking that cycle, his arguments sound very reasonable, and I abide by what he decides. Myself, I'm happy with no qualification, specially since the other journals mentioned in Cold fusion don't have any qualification (we haven't even placed "prestigious" in front of Physical Review Letters!). --Enric Naval (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the polarization began when the attempt was made to put "life sciences journal" into the article. The "insistence" (where?) that cold fusion was no longer a fringe science certainly wasn't manifested in the article attempts around this issue. Obviously, though, this publication is a piece of evidence in that direction. Just like the issued patents below, just like the CBS documentary, etc., etc. There are a few mainstream media sources that hint that "cold fusion is coming out of the cold," or is receiving serious consideration again, but I haven't tried to put this directly into the article, just a few indirect hints that are clearly notable facts. Thanks, Enric and Cryptic, one worm buried is one less in the can, except that we aren't necessarily there yet. There are other involved editors who might have something to say. --Abd (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Below, Hipocrite argues in a manner that incorporates the assumptions rejected here, that "life sciences" is a crucial aspect of Naturwissenschaften, and he merely takes that one step further, that the paper shouldn't be mentioned at all. Thus, I assume, if it is going to be mentioned, a logical extension of his argument would be that the characterization be present. Underlying his argument there is a set of assumptions about the experimental work, the field, and the journal that, to me, seem unlikely to hold up under examination, but I won't, as I sometimes have done in the past, lay out the foundations of the argument, I will leave that to him or to anyone else who cares to do so. If that doesn't happen, I assume, the consensus will be that, if included, Naturwissenschaften is to be uncharacterised, neither by "life sciences" nor by what the source says (remember, this mention in the article is based on a secondary source!), "peer-reviewed," and we can move on to remaining issues. --Abd (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)

The main rationale I am hearing above from the proponents of characterizing the journal as "life sciences" seems to be related to some conjecture that the journal's peer-review standards are inadequate to the task of reviewing a nuclear physics article. Do we have any hard evidence from reliable sources that this is the case, or is this pure conjecture and therefore WP:OR on our part? --GoRight (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The prohibition against OR is not a prohibition against engaging in research to determine the validity of sources, it's a prohibility against including that research in article-space. We all seem to agree that the Journal almost certainly lacks expertise in fusion physics and/or electrochemistry based on our OR of reviewing the undisputed fact that they don't publish on either of those topics. We can't put that in article space, but that dosen't mean we can't even consider it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But if the purpose of including "life sciences" is explicitly to leave the reader with the impression that their peer-review standards are inadequate to the task of reviewing a nuclear science article then you are, in effect, including the WP:OR in the article, perhaps not explicitly but clearly implicitly. In other words, you are violating the spirit of the no WP:OR policy, if not the letter. If leaving such an impression is the fundamental goal of including the characterization I still argue that it is wrong. I assume that you would agree that our purpose as editors is NOT to leave the readers with biased impressions based on behind the scenes WP:OR, correct? --GoRight (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong stance as to characterizing the journal, either as peer-reviewed to make it look more credible than it is or as life-sciences to accurately reflect the fact that publishing on cold fusion is well outside of it's typical perview. I feel that this discussion is putting the cart before the horse, and so I feel no need to stress about it. I suggest that if it were put on hold while we determine if it is even a remotely reliable source for anything related to cold fusion were explored, we would quickly moot this section as irrelevent, as papers published in Naturwissenschaften are not reliable unless they are cited by other papers and used in textbooks, which, of course, they are not. Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a non-issue, because we are not relying for the section on Naturwissenschaften as our source, it's New Scientist, with reference to Naturwissenschaften as the primary source that New Scientist is referring to. I'm certainly not likely to concede, absent evidence that I haven't seen, that Naturwissenschaften isn't WP:RS, but this is moot here, where we are mentioning the journal as cited in other reliable source; there is, in addition, much other reliable media source that covered the paper's report without naming the journal. As to publishing outside its purview, low-energy nuclear science, dealing as it does with the condensed matter state, is a cross-disciplinary field, and that's exactly the purview of Naturwissenschaften. Debating the reliability of Naturwissenschaften is a totally different issue; this could have been a conference paper and if it had received the media attention that these experimental results did, we should have been including it. --Abd (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be great if it were true, except it's not. We're using the paper, or the press-release issued along with the paper to support "what they called the first scientific report of highly energetic neutrons." Beyond the fact that this isn't true, because P&F reported neutrons (though they later retracted), as did a host of other studies, it's also sourced only to Boss and co, and the ACS press release that does not appear to have been vetted by any editors at all. Hipocrite (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What's not true? We put this report in the article, by editorial consensus at the time, because of the massive media reports in March. What's really new about the Mosier-Boss report is that energetic neutrons were reported at levels roughly ten times background, using an integrating detector, far less vulnerable to the problems with prior work, where there was always suspicion it was background, or odd cosmic ray events, being seen, or detector failure. Sure, Fleischmann reported neutrons, at a far higher level, and that report was withdrawn, it was clearly an error. Other, later and far more careful work, showed very low levels of neutrons, always reasonably criticized as being close to background. The ACS report is a primary source also, made notable by its broad publication in the media. The report is on the ACS meeting, you might notice, it's not actually about the Naturwissenschaften article. We can find alternate sources if needed. Cryptic, welcome to the world of cold fusion, where underneath every argument, it seems there is another. Congratulations on seeing clearly enough to deal with one at a time. It will be necessary to get through this thicket. I still think we have consensus here, on the narrow issue, and the continued debate now is just wasting time.

Please find alternate sources that have editors, yes. Hipocrite (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

New Scientist has editors. It's already there. --Abd (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be losing focus. I don't believe that enough of the participating editors have weighed in on the issue after my statements above for consensus to have been reached. Involved editors: Without further discussing the use of Naturwissenschaften as a source (which will be covered in the next section) or Jed Rothwell (a situation I will deal with in the Participation section), and without making unnecessarily long arguments, state plainly and clearly your opinions on the following statement: "If the Naturwissenschaften article is discussed in the cold fusion article, it should not be characterized as 'life sciences'." I have explained my reasoning above, and as of yet I have not seen any arguments which tell me that the reasoning is flawed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

At the end of one of the pevious sections I proposed an alternate description; I was wondering if anyone saw it, since considerable discussion took place between the last OTHER post in that section, and the thing I added. I copy the description here and leave the rationale for it above: Naturwissenschaften is a multidisciplinary journal with a major, but nonexclusive, focus on the life sciences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectivist (talk • contribs) 13:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)non-exclusive seems to be redundant. What interests me more are the links by Stephan, which indicate that the journal today is more of a pop-sci/research brief magazine (somewhat like an amalgam between Scientific American and geoph.res.abst.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I do see the redundancy, but it had a point, that of reinforcing "multidiciplinary" and reducing any perception that "life sciences" was all it was any good at. Abd, I simply didn't think about including "peer reviewed". Obviously that could be added.... V (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. This shows the danger of making up stuff. What was considered significant by our secondary source, "peer-reviewed," which is certainly true, is left out, and what is synthesized, "major ... focus on the life sciences," is included. At the present time, the publication balance is heavily on the life sciences, in some way, but that could reflect the overall balance of research, I don't know. My conclusion: the most important qualification would be "peer-reviewed." That this is a prominent mainstream multidisciplinary journal (rated just below Scientific American), would also be important; but none of this is necessary for the article. Our source wasn't Naturwissenschaften, it was New Scientist, so, I'd say, it's "peer-reviewed," based on our source, or nothing but the name, also legitimate. --Abd (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Making any effort to describe this journal, even in a positive light, will cause the reader to doubt the validity of the result. As I have stated above, we are not here to cast doubts or make vague implications without providing sufficient evidence and discussion to fully inform the reader. Any statements which do this, including the one proposed above, should be avoided. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Because it's present in our source, we could add "peer-reviewed," but consensus is important, and it looks like consensus is maximized if we leave it out, which we can do by consensus. Addressing the importance of Naturwissenschaften, in the article, without more extensive secondary source on it, would probably be too much detail, and require reliance on primary sources, as far as I've been able to find. --Abd (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Cryptic C62's position. --GoRight (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say that there is one rational reason for including a description of the journal, and that would be context. Now i know that the next thing i'm going to say might inflame some - but please stop a bit and contemplate this as a "what if", "possibly" or "in the case of", and not as my opinion. If there is sufficient reason to believe that the paper is fringe, and that the peer-reviewed nature of the journal is used to white wash or lend more importance to the paper, than is indicated by the impact factor, and number of citations the paper has gotten inside the scientific press. As opposed to the same outside the scientific press. We are talking about a fringe subject here, and all (that i know of) fringe subjects have managed to get some papers published - be it from insufficient peer-review, or simply an interest in publishing something controversial (dream up your own reasons). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As an extra comment: The above could be seen as a "do not cite" rationale (if the hypothetical situation is correct) - but weight and importance within the area is still to be determined. So it could be a possibility. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The description of the topic as fringe has entered an area where it's disputable. There is a real problem here: if we discard otherwise-reliable sources as "fringe," then we lose the ability to determine what is mainstream and what is fringe, since our basic criterion for it is the preponderance of publication in reliable sources. We have older non-scientific reliable sources, i.e., media sources and the like, that cold fusion was rejected, considered pathological science, etc., but more recent sources that indicate it's coming back and receiving serious consideration. There were early peer-reviewed publications that called into question the original research, and we know that some of the original claims were withdrawn. But the basic claim, excess heat, was never shown conclusively in peer-reviewed source to be wrong, and by 2004, from almost total rejection in 1989, half the DoE review panel considered the evidence for excess heat "convincing." We have, now, much more reliable source, of a quality probably higher than the DoE review, concluding the same. The neutron research in Naturwissenschaften is recent, with not a lot of citation yet, but we aren't claiming that the finding is valid, only, really, that it's been noticed.

There is some level of attempt here to decide the matter of source reliability when the reliability of Naturwissenschaften isn't actually at issue. We have a source ordinarily considered a reliable secondary source (science-media type), New Scientist, which reported on the ACS seminar and on the Naturwissenschaften paper. Nobody has questioned New Scientist as a source! I haven't proposed using another source, but the underlying work is also included in the 2008 publication of the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook by the American Chemical Society, there is a paper there by the SPAWAR group. The neutron findings were widely reported in the media in March, with various comments by experts. It's notable, there is no doubt about that, so excluding it would not be proper, and balancing it with original research seems inadvisable at best. Naturwissenschaften isn't a fringe journal, the arguments that they wouldn't have adequate review, from what we've seen, are basically made up and not based on evidence, only very weak inference from probably misleading evidence, and from the research I've done on the standing of this journal -- which isn't strongly relevant here, since we aren't claiming high standing -- this is very much a mainstream journal devoted to publishing work of high interest that is cross-disciplinary or likely to have a major impact. And it's not just one paper, they have published four on the topic that I've noticed, since about 2005 as I recall, one just a few days ago on theory. From the testimony of Jed Rothwell, there is at least one other cold fusion paper in the middle of peer review, and that process is rigorous and with reviewers who are highly knowledgeable. That's consistent with the fact that Naturwissenschaften is, for Springer-Verlag, their "flagship multidisciplinary journal," and with its standing as a journal, overall. They would have the full resources of the Max Planck Society at their disposal for review, and that's broad and mainstream.

Perhaps it could be useful to repeat what Springer-Verlag says about the journal:

Naturwissenschaften - The Science of Nature - is Springer’s flagship multidisciplinary science journal covering all aspect of the natural sciences. The journal is dedicated to the fast publication of high-quality research covering the whole range of the biological, chemical, geological, and physical sciences.

Naturwissenschaften is only interested in publishing the very best of research, and the selection criteria are scientific excellence, novelty, and the potential to attract the widest possible readership, reflecting the multidisciplinary nature of the journal.

Springer would be shooting themselves in the foot if they did not insist on the highest standards of peer review in what they publish in Naturwissenschaften. That's why I find Rothwell's report quite credible.

I prefer that we move on to the other questions, unless someone really wants to keep beating this dead horse. --Abd (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Should the Naturwissenschaften article be used as a source?

I must point out that, while related, this is a different discussion. The question we were attempting to answer was "Should the phrase 'life sciences' be placed before Naturwissenschaften?" with an implied addendum of "...assuming the journal article in question continues to be used as a source in the article." The question you are now asking is "Should the journal article in question be used as a source?" If the answer is no, then you are correct that the characterization of Naturwissenschaften would be a moot point. If the answer is yes, however, then the characterization of the journal is relevant. I would prefer to "cross that bridge" while the discussion is still fresh and, as I see it, while we are close to reaching an agreement. I have collapsed the above discussion and will allow it to resume once we have achieved consensus on the issue of characterizing Naturwissenschaften. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Mention of patents

I would prefer to discuss one issue at a time. I'll uncollapse this discussion and allow it to continue once we've reached a conclusion regarding Naturwissenschaften. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)