Institutional Quackery

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
Joe Gayo
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:34 am
Real name: Joe Gayo
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Institutional Quackery

Post by Joe Gayo » Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:56 am

I also contacted the editor and chief of IEEE and he said:

" If you have any formal comments you would like to send us, we would review and possibly publish them, giving the original author a chance to reply."

I think I might ...

Dan Knapp
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:34 pm
Real name: Dan Knapp

Re: Institutional Quackery

Post by Dan Knapp » Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:50 pm


I would encourage you to write a letter to the editor listing your concerns with the paper. I think that would be a better forum than debating it here. In my experience, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science has been a reputable source, but it appears in this case that they didn't demand adequate rigor in documenting results. At risk of offending the engineering community, it has been my experience that even the best engineering journals demand much less documentation of results than journals in physics and other sciences. Indeed, I have often been frustrated that engineers often publish a result only as a meeting report and never follow up with a full paper. There seems to be a different publishing culture in this community probably driven by proprietary considerations. Publications often seem more for bragging rights than to truly share research results with the scientific community in sufficient detail to reproduce the work (which I firmly believe should be the universal standard).

I will now put on my helmet for the anticipated response by the engineers. (I am really of fan of engineers; I have a joint appointment in an engineering department.)


Post Reply