Vlad writes: A recent experiment with solutions of deuterated acetone subjected to sound waves and neutron irradiation caused bubbles that grow and then implode, locally generating high pressures and temperatures and the emission of sonoluminescent light. The authors wrote a paper and sent it to Science magazine in which they present evidence for the production of tritium in the solution, and for neutron emission coincident with the light emission. They cautiously interpreted these observations as evidence that deuterium-deuterium fusion occurred in the imploding bubbles. In other words another "cold fusion" type of experiment which obviously leave "Science" in an awkward position: go ahead and publish it given the importance of the findings or reject it as suggested by some "distinguished" scientist in the "field" (and yes, Robert Park and American Physical Society were crying "abort" the unborn paper too!).
Even though for the Science editors it became clear that a number of people didn't want this work to be published, they decided differently this time. In a recent editorial entitled "To publish or not to publish" by Donald Kennedy, editor (see href=http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/hottopics/bubble/1793.pdf>http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/hottopics/bubble/1793.pdf) he declares:
"I have been asked, "Why are you going forward with a paper attached to so much controversy?" Well, that’s what we do; our mission is to put interesting, potentially important science into public view after ensuring its quality as best as we possibly can. After that, efforts at repetition and reinterpretation can take place out in the open. That’s where it belongs, not in an alternative universe in which anonymity prevails, rumor leaks out, and facts stay inside. It goes without saying that we cannot publish papers with a guarantee that every result is right. We’re not that smart. That is why we are prepared for occasional disappointment when our internal judgments and our processes of external review turn out to be wrong, and a provocative
result is not fully confirmed. What we ARE very sure of is that publication is the right option, even - and perhaps especially - when there is some controversy."
We thank "Science" for this demonstrated courage and can only suggest them to (re)-examine many other papers (some rejected before other that will certainly come) that are equally or even more important for both theoretical and applied science with the same open minded attitude!