This weekend I'll catch up w/ the cond-mat archive. In the meantime, I wanted to point out one amusing piece of Lubos Motl's latest blog posting:
The previous paragraph also clarifies my style of reading these papers. The abstract has so far been always enough to see that these fundamental gerbes papers make no quantitative comparison with the known physics - i.e. physics of string theory - and for me, it is enough to be 99.99% certain (I apologize for this Bayesian number whose precise value has no physical meaning) that the paper won't contain new interesting physics insights.
This attitude is surprisingly common among physicists. In a graduate seminar course at Stanford, someone else in the class showed our (then pre-)Nobel Laureate theorist professor a paper on high temperature superconductivity. After glancing at the title, author list, and abstract, he tossed the paper face-down on the table, and said, "I don't even have to read this to know that this is crap." Sometimes this approach (or its converse) really does work. I certainly have a list of condensed matter and nano experimentalists whose work I presume to be extremely good, because everything I've ever seen from their research groups has been elegant and solid. However, pre-judging results based on who did the work and what the abstract says is exactly the kind of non-scientific, unobjective attitude that emboldens social science types to argue that science and its findings are largely a social construct, etc., a conclusion that I think is way off base (when I drop my pencil from above my desk, it will fall toward the ground at 9.8 m/s^2, regardless of my sociology, preconceptions, or personal beliefs).