Hi,
The article is titled "Hybrid vehicles: a temporary step" originally published in the International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, Volume 7, Number 4, 2007 by Jean-Jacques Chanaron and Julius Teske. I first learned about it and found two subsequent references:
- Science Daily - this is the original review article with the phrase ". . . the misinformed craze for hybrid vehicles especially in the USA, and increasingly in Japan and Europe, and potentially in China . . ." It cites this paper as an authoritative source while repeating hybrid skeptic claims we'd long since moved beyond. So it was surprising to see the old Chestnut about hybrid profitability showing up in 2007. The insulting phrases were another clue that something wasn't right, smelling like another "CNW Marketing" hatchet job that came in the disguise of a serious paper.
- inderscience.metapress.com - these are the folks who sell the paper for $40. Their abstract includes this particular phrase,"It is concluded that even though hybrid technology can not yet be applied profitably . . . " even though Toyota reported in 2001 they were making an operational profit on the Prius.
- The Register by Lewis Page - has all but directly copied the original abstract from "Science Daily" to the edge of plagiarism.
- Wired by Chuck Squatriglia - copies the phrase from the original "Science Daily" using "Misinformed Craze."
The problem is we are seeing echos of the hostile "Science Daily" review built upon a flawed paper by Chanaron and Teske. But it costs $40 to get a copy of this paper.
Rather than just posting a copy of the paper, I would prefer to critique with extensive quotes of problem paragraphs, figures and tables. It won't be the whole paper, just the parts that have problems but that will be a substantial part of the paper.
I have started a thread "More hybrid skeptics" in "Journalism & Media" from the original "Science Daily" article. Perhaps the best answer is to continue posting my critique of the original paper there. Each problem area could be covered one-by-one. But since the original paper is not available online, I would need to include extensive quotes with proper attribution. Otherwise, it becomes another "Science Daily" article lifting what they want to say without giving the source.
In the end, the collected postings would likely cover about half of the original, $40 paper. For $40, I have a PDF file and can accurately cut-and-paste the relevant sections. Each posting would be a 'bite' of the paper but collected together, substantial parts of the paper would be available, with attribution, quoted.
With "CNW Marketing," we didn't have to 'buy' the paper to critique it. In this clever twist, there is a $40 fee to get the original paper. Having bought it, I think fair use includes extensive quotes, not just paraphrasing, to show exactly the problems with the paper. One lesson learned with "CNW Marketing" is sending a critique to the original authors doesn't work as Art failed to consider not just mine but other comments seriously. Nut-case comes to mind and really, they may have no interest in accuracy. Others do and that is who the review is written for.
Bob Wilson