I am the lead author of many scientific papers including a peer reviewed article on the physical properties of small clusters of niobium that was published in a leading american science journal. The only problem is that I did not know this until I accidentally found out ten years later. I still have not read it, and certainly did not contribute a single word to the content. I might ask the journal for a copy so I can read what I did. Hopefully I will be impressed with the quality of my research.
I enjoy reading in the field user reports. The problem with optical tests is that they make too many assumptions, and simplifications, so they are far from complete, and hence they are misleading. Like a bathing costume, what they reveal is not necessarily as interesting as what they don't reveal. The MTF plot of a photographic lens is often taken as a complete description of performance. It is of course just a useful but incomplete measure of quality. Also some people forget that mechanical qualities are at least as important as optical quality. It is all very well having an uberfernglas that outperforms the latest roof prism binocular, but if it floods with water when dropped in a bog, and if the focus gets stiff in cold weather, so you fail to focus on the Dartford warbler before it hides, it aint much use is it?
