I wrote on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today asking Andrea Rossi if he thought it made any difference where the upcoming report is published. I mentioned that in my opinion, if the report is well-written, thoroughly documented, and signed by the various authors, it should be acceptable, wherever it ended up being published. I expect the report will receive equal scrutiny whether it was published in Nature or on one of the authors’ web sites.
I do not know where the report will be published. I agree with you, though. The report will be written by 7 Professors and Physicists of three European Universities, who obviously review each other, and it will be further reviewed by other 7 Professors and Physicists of 7 Universities and Nuclear Physics Institutes of Europe, Asia, America before being proposed for publication. The report will be based upon millions of data collected by the measurement and registration instruments of the Professors and of their Institutes. The whole funded by an European scientific Institute.
The process described above sounds like it could take quite a while to complete. Even if the testing is complete at this point, it has to be written, and reviewed by people at various institutions. The process of providing feedback and rewriting could be quite time consuming with seven authors involved.
It’s not known who the authors or reviewers are, but I think the funding institute is Elforsk, who funded last years’ E-Cat test, and who have budgeted $200,000 for E-Cat testing for this year.