1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Assessment of JETP (Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics)

  1. Aug 19, 2012 #1
    On a scale of 1 - 10, where 10 means the journal is peer-reviewed, highly regarded, responsible and influential, and 1 means the journal is self-published junk science ... where does the Russian "Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics" (JETP) lie, in your opinion?

  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 19, 2012 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  4. Aug 19, 2012 #3
    [Why do you want others to give some opinions ...]

    Because I didn't know how to ask the question in a better way. Nothing in particular intended. Thanks for your reply.
  5. Aug 19, 2012 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    OK, pdxjjb! It appears to me you can rely on the "peer reviewed" JETP for good science!
  6. Aug 19, 2012 #5
    Then I will take this golden opportunity to get to the point. The following article in JETP:


    contends that under conditions we can control, the Coulomb barrier will drop away to low levels. This will allow fusion reactions to occur at low temperatures in solid matter. These fusion reactions would include (but not be limited to):

    B11 + p => 3He4 + 8.7MeV


    Ni + p => Cu + neutrino

  7. Aug 19, 2012 #6

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    Bobbywhy doesn't know what he is talking about. What he wrote is utter nonsense. Even good journals sometimes publish wrong papers or sloppy science. And this is a low-impact factor journal.

    I read the article, and am not impressed. It's incomprehensible, and the more important the idea, the more vague it gets, and the authors have an inordinate number of self-cites.
  8. Aug 19, 2012 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Vanadium is right, I did not know what I was talking about. After skimming over that article I agree that JTEP publishes junk science.

    It would have been less misleading, pdxjjb, to state your intentions and post your article in question in the first place, rather that trolling for the uninformed like myself.
  9. Aug 19, 2012 #8
    Phew, for a minute there I was thinking I might slip in a LENR posting without a response like that. I"m relieved to see it's still not possible. ;-)
  10. Aug 19, 2012 #9
    Now wait a minute. I wasn't "trolling for the uninformed." That's an unfair response. I was legitimately asking, is publication in this journal significant? It's reasonable question from a non-scientist; journals vary, and the forum in which an article is published certainly contributes to (or detracts from) its credibility.

    Of course I know that good journals sometimes publish bad papers. Yet the question was neither a trap nor unfair. If the initial response had been that this particular journal will publish anything for anybody, as indeed some will, then I would not have followed up with the link, and in that sense, my posting was neither a troll nor a trap.
  11. Aug 19, 2012 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    pdxjjb, Excuse me for jumping to conclusions. Sorry for causing such feelings. I want Physics Forums to be a learning tool, nothing more.

  12. Aug 19, 2012 #11
    That's very kind. I am sorry too, I should have found a different way to do this so that nobody got embarrassed. I just didn't want the reply to be "...that journal is cr*p...", I wanted the reply to be about the paper, or not at all.

    I understand Vanadium's comments about the self-cites. If it's not too much to ask, what is it about the paper that's "vague"? I can probably manage the "omega-t's" in the later part of the paper, but the QM is way over my head.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook