I have been asked to review an academic research article about about
gasifier stoves. I will not identify the journal, title or give the
abstract that I have read.
More than once I have seen the type of error mentioned below. Academic
reserachers are not stove users, but they think they understand
everything. Basically, they make faulty assumptions. The do MUCH work,
of which 30% to 60% should not have been done, and then they want to
My objective in this message is to spread the word to everyone, and to
not be the reviewer who can only relay anonymous comments to a couple of
people can ignore them or be overridden byt the journal editors, and
months from now it gets printed, and THEN I would need to send this message.
This is what I sent back to the editors of the journal.
I decline to be a reviewer because I feel that there are fundamental
misconceptions of how these TLUD (micro-gasifiers) should be used. For
example (and specifically about this article), there should NOT be any
“second stage” which is the combustion of the charcoal after pyrolysis
has finished. That means that about 40% of the research should not even
have been conducted, and certainly not reported in the article. As
written, this misleads stove users. I am sure that other reviewers (who
are researchers as are the authors) will accept the manuscript, because
they do not know TLUD stove usage, or that charcoal burning should be
very near the pot, not down many centimeters where the charcoal would be
burned in a TLUD stove. I am thankful for research being done because
some (60%) of the work is worthwhile, but I do not want to be a reviewer
of such work. You may share my comments and name with the authors.
Paul S. Anderson, PhD. Known as “Dr TLUD” firstname.lastname@example.org