Are there peer-reviewed academic papers analyzing the Buga Sphere or its technology?
Executive summary
Peer-reviewed journal articles specifically analyzing the Buga Sphere are not present in the supplied results; the most detailed academic-style treatments are working papers and preprints posted to SSRN by Patrick Morcillo (several entries) and project-like reports [1] [2] [3]. Many media and hobbyist write-ups note the absence of independently peer‑reviewed, journal-published studies and call for conventional academic validation [4] [5] [6].
1. What the record actually shows: preprints and program reports, not journal papers
The clearest scholarly‑format documents in the dataset are SSRN preprints by Patrick Morcillo—titles such as “A Unified Framework for the Buga Sphere” and “Empirical Validation…: A Quantitative Retro‑Engineering of the Buga Sphere”—which make bold theoretical and empirical claims but are hosted as working papers rather than as articles in peer‑reviewed journals [1] [2] [3]. Separate project‑style proposals and articles appear in niche outlets (e.g., Ivory Tower Journal’s PEER program), which describe test plans and theories but do not substitute for conventional journal peer review [7].
2. What mainstream science and watchdogs are asking for
Independent scientists and investigative commentators repeatedly emphasize that controlled, independently replicated experiments and publication in established, peer‑reviewed journals are missing; observers urge access to the object and independent laboratory work (e.g., calls to involve the Galileo Project or international academic teams) to move beyond press conferences and curated scans [4] [5] [6]. Several summaries explicitly say that without peer‑reviewed confirmation, claims about exotic physics should remain provisional [6] [5].
3. The claims that would require extraordinary review—and where they come from
The preprints and reports make extraordinary physical claims: apparent mass shifts of ~8.1 kg, sustained ~100 W endothermic signatures, alleged “negative‑mass” or inertial‑shielding effects, and embedded nanoscale fiber networks—all presented as measurements or models in the Morcillo papers and related summaries [1] [2] [8]. Those are precisely the kinds of observations that demand transparent methodology, raw data, independent replication, and statistical treatment in peer‑reviewed journals before the wider scientific community can evaluate them [1] [2].
4. Independent access and custody remain the central practical barrier
Multiple independent investigations and commentators identify restricted access to the artifact—reportedly held in private custody—as the chief obstacle to normal scientific scrutiny; selected X‑rays and curated videos have been shared, but the lack of broad lab access prevents conventional peer review and replication [4] [8]. This control over the specimen introduces an implicit agenda risk: promoters can shape the narrative and select what data reaches external reviewers [4].
5. Media coverage, boosters and skeptics—competing narratives
Popular and specialty outlets propagate competing frames: some present the sphere as a potentially revolutionary non‑human technology and highlight the unusual internal structure reported by scans [9] [10], while skeptics and debunkers call it a likely hoax and note the absence of peer‑reviewed science, arguing that press releases and curated events have driven the story [11] [4]. These differing narratives partly reflect source agendas—promoters and fringe media amplify sensational findings; investigative writers and academic skeptics emphasize methodological gaps [11] [4] [9].
6. What to watch for next (and how to judge it)
The evidence that would change the balance: publication in established, peer‑reviewed journals with full methods and raw data; independent analyses from multiple university labs; and open chain‑of‑custody documentation allowing replication. Current reporting points to UNAM involvement and various lab tests in progress, but public, peer‑reviewed outputs are not yet in the supplied record [12] [6]. Absent those, extraordinary claims remain unverified [4] [5].
7. Bottom line for researchers and readers
Available sources document several academic‑style preprints and program proposals (notably Morcillo’s SSRN papers) and a flurry of media and independent‑investigator commentary—but they do not show articles that have passed formal peer review in established journals; independent access and replication remain unresolved [1] [2] [4]. Readers should treat the SSRN preprints and project reports as preliminary and await transparent, peer‑reviewed publication and independent lab confirmations before accepting claims about novel physics or extraterrestrial origin [1] [2] [6].
Limitations: the answer uses only the supplied sources and therefore cannot account for any peer‑reviewed papers or data published elsewhere after these citations; those would need to be checked separately.