Friday, April 10, 2009

Suppose you were referee

Got suggestions for improvement? General observations? Corrections? Questions? Do you recommend publication? Is it the best paper you've ever seen, bar none? Put referee type feedback in the comments!

Click each page for a bigger version. Feel free to email me if you'd like me to send the pdf.

Translate English to Arabic

محمد النشائي El Naschie Watch محمد النشائي El Naschie News محمد النشائي
محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائي


  1. I'll get the referee feedback started:

    This paper is good enough for a Nobel prize. However, the author is an Arab Muslim named Mohamed. Consequently I recommend against publication.

  2. For a Muslim who has studied with Hamas, it can be considered as a good paper. At least the author shows that he has acquired the necessary skills to calculate in the range between 1000 and -1000. The author should include important references to similar articles like Ann. Phys. 296, No.1, 90-97 (2002), Classical and Quantum Gravity 18 (2001), 4341-4372, or Nuovo Cimento, 117B (2002) 417-424.

    However, the article seems not to contain anything about nonlinear differential equations. I would recommend to submit it to another elsevier journal, like nuclear physics B. This would be especially recomendet since the author of this article apparently knows G. t'Hooft, who is editor of Nuclear physics B.

  3. My feedback was bitter and sarcastic of course. Humor's ok but I'd like to see serious feedback too. I'm not a physicist, and can't evaluate it deeply on physics criteria. It does look though, superfically like other of his papers that I've seen. The modus operandus is to add various numbers togther to get a certain sum, and then to exclaim how remarkable and important it is that the sum has the value it does.

  4. ROTFLMAO at Anonymous's review :)

  5. By the way, one might also look at Otto Roessler's articles in Chaos Solitons and Fractals (Here is an interesting story about that guy in german,1518,151581,00.html ). Roessler's last article is one about how to test Naschie's E_infinity theory. Roessler has other articles, which also seem to be inappropriate for a science journal.

  6. By the way, does the paper cite any source for Figure 2? I don't see a citation, although maybe I missed one.

    The pictures look extremely similar to Figures 5 and 6 in the following article (which are in fact famous drawings by van Oss and Chilton):

    My guess is that El Naschie simply copied the figures without giving any credit, on the grounds that they are "only pictures". Even if he redrew them, he really ought to have given credit to the original.

    It's a little silly to worry about a missing citation in the midst of absolute garbage. However, it's very different ethically. There's no ethical failing in writing stupid papers, but there is in stealing figures.

  7. On page 2 'the Killing vector field for D=11 is N_k=66' :
    I guess the Killing vector field should be a vector field, not just a number

    Same remark on 'the Riemann tensor R_4=20' :
    that doesn't make any sense.

  8. El Naschie is an engineer. I thought engineers are usually taught in vector calculus? How can an engineer not now what a vector is?
    I do not want El Naschie to costruct a house or a bridge or a mechanical device. .

  9. El Naschie talks about "Witten's famous D=11 model" but the two references he gives are to papers of his own.