Friday, June 4, 2010

A supporter of Ji-Huan He speaks up

This post is a response to an anonymous commenter who thinks we are being unfair to Ji-Huan He.

Here is his comment broken into five parts along with my response to each part:

I do not have any idea about El Naschie, since I do not know him but your words about Ji-Huan He is quite wrong. Why you are talking just about HPM? He introduced several methods in vibrations much easier than other methods available.

Maybe J-H He has done some good things. That doesn't justify the bad things. HPM is the only method of his that I've heard about. I've heard it's not good and not even his own, and you can read about that in this post, which gives further references, mostly to Chinese Web sites. But the main problem I have with J-H He is that he says El Naschie is a new Newton or Einstein and deserves a Nobel Prize. To understand how stupid that is, you must read Introduction to Mohamed El Naschie.

Maybe, from the Mathematics side, there is nothing in his methods, but it does not matter for engineers. These methods are very useful in vibrations and fluid mechanics, working much better than other available methods. Hundreds researchers around the world are working with his methods.

Engineering is a worthy discipline and if what you say is true then you make a good point.

About his journal, the increased impact factor is quite reasonable. He has introduced more than 30 methods recently and these methods were introduced for first time in his journal. So it has many citations since many researchers are working on these methods!

No, it's not reasonable. It's unreasonable by orders of magnitude. Ji-Huan He writes absurd papers about such things as the fractal dimension of wool that nobody could take seriously. The graphic in this post shows the title of one of the most idiotic papers ever written. J-H He's journal IJNSNS is highly rated because of self-citation and cross-citation with El Naschie's erstwhile journal CSF. This is described in Arnold's SIAM News article, which you must have read, since you mention SIAM further down.

It seems that your issues are supported with Professor Liao. His scientific rank is much lower that J.H.He. I know Liao completely and your words are very similar to him.

I have never met or communicated with Prof. Liao and know nothing first-hand about him or his work. My understanding is that J-H He was a student of Liao. There is a lot of information here (Chinese or English).

I believe that you are angry about J.H.He because SIAM journals with many years experiences, have weak citations! and it is the main reason ! J.H.He is in editorial board of Journal of Computers Mathematics With Applications under management of Professor Rodin! and this makes clear everything!

I have no association with SIAM, but the idea that SIAM's journals could be envious of IJNSNS is outlandish. Thank you for pointing out that Ji-Huan He is an editor of Computers & Mathematics with Applications (CMA). Rodin should probably be warned that this puts CMA's reputation at risk.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but if you are Ji-Huan He's student, you should probably find a new mentor.

Posts about Ji-Huan He:

Translate English to Arabic
محمد النشائى El Naschie Watch محمد النشائي El Naschie News محمد النشائى محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائى


  1. Thank you for your issues! but i have some comments on your issues:
    1- Have you thought why references to HPM are much higher than HAM if both of them are the same. Response is easy. HPM works easier and better than HAM.

    2- You do not have information about works of He, So you are not a good option for judgment about him. I am not his student! and it does not matter form me that which one is right.Siam , Liao or He? but i try to be fair. Ji Huan He worked much better for development of science specially in application of Mathematics in Engineering rather than Liao or Siam. Now, hundreds researchers around the world are using his methods in complex problems instead of using time consuming numerical analysis or exact solutions. I told you before, Mathematical basis of the methods, does not matter for engineers. They need final results! and in this manner, i am sorry to say that Ji Huan He and Even Liao are working more useful rather than Siam! Siam is angry since they are missing their credits although they have several decades experiences. They do not have readers although they claim that they are leaders of science! and IJNSNS with just 7 years experiences, now is in much higher rank ! About the self citations, Scopus is the best option for checking ! not words of Siam president ! and it shows that you are in wrong way clearly! He modified and developed very simple and useful methods in Vibrations! It is the main reasons of his citations!

  2. To the above Anonymous, and I hope he will read it carefully.

    I just copied the comment of Fred from fqxi

    Fred wrote on Jan. 11, 2010 @ 10:33 GMT
    For the great supporter of El naschie (Ayman Abdulrahman), who is most probably El naschie himself.

    You can check yours self a typical paper for Huan using E-infinity theory, and I think a high school student can easily judge that this absolute trash.

    Hierarchy of wool fibers and its interpretation using E-infinity theory

    Chaos, Solitons & Fractals,

    Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 41 (2009)1839 –1841

    Ji-Huan He, Zhong-Fu Ren, Jie Fan, Lan Xu


    Why do wool fibers show excellent advantages in warmth-retaining and many other practical properties? The paper concludes that their hierarchical structure is the key. Using E-infinity theory, its Hausdorff dimension is estimated to be about 4.2325, very close to El Naschie’s E-infinity dimension, 4.2360, revealing an optimal structure for wool fibers.

    Then the same article again with little modifications

    Hierarchy of Wool Fibers and Fractal Dimensions

    International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation,9(3),293-296, 2008



    Wool fiber shows excellent advantages in warmth-retaining and many other practical properties possibly due to its hierarchical structure. Its fractal dimension of wool fiber is calculated which is very close to the

    Golden Mean, 1.618. The present study might provide a new interpretation for the reason why wool fiber has so many excellent properties.

    I think every reader (even a naive one) can notice the conflict between the two abstracts, in the first fiber wool has dimension 4.2325 (which is greater than the embedding space) and in the second it is 1.618. I hope El naschie can explain these remarkable results.

  3. Ji Huan He gamed the system of citation. He has circle of crackpots publishing in his journal and using his method and citing him and themselves.

    The impact factor of Huan Journal exceeds one the most respectable journal like physical reviews (A, B, C, D), and this respectable journal was running sine more than one hundred years!!!!!!!!. The impact factor of Huan journal is spurious and fake.

    Also in the previous paper in the previous comment. Huan has two version of the paper one in CSF and another one in his journal with different dimension for the same fiber wool. I think it is one of the stupidest paper I have ever seen, low level of stupidity which can compared to the papers of El naschie.

  4. To Ji-Huan He's defender.

    1. I am aware J-H He says HPM and HAM are different and HPM is better. Liao has a different opinion, and so do many other people.

    2. I don't know everything about He and his methods, but what I do know is bad. He games the rating system and he says crackpot El Naschie is like Newton and Einstein and deserves a Nobel. He attributes fatality of viruses and warmth of wool to fractals and El Naschie's E-Infinity theory. He thinks viruses are cells, so he manages to make his first mistake in the title, a difficult feat. So I know enough not to bother any more with his work. Some of it could be good, but life is short, and based on past experience I see no reason to devote my limited time to his assertions.

    This is an example of Ji-Huan He gaming the rating system:

    One atrocious paper. 35 references. Two are to legitimate journal articles.

    [2] Dyson FJ. Divergence of perturbation theory in quantum electrodynamics. Phys Rev 1952;85:631–2.
    [33] Montonen C, Olive D. Magnetic monopoles as gauge particles. Phys Lett B 1977;72:117.

    Two are to textbooks, and cited without even so much as a page number.

    [1] Connes A. Noncommutative geometry. Academic Press; 1994.
    [35] von Neumann J. Continuous geometry. Princeton University Press; 1988.

    All the rest are to the bogus journals CSF and IJNSNS. He and El Naschie did that all the time. It's a scam. This isn't an egregious special example I chose. It's typical. Choose any of their papers and see for yourself. They and their followers do it all the time and that's how they gamed the system. The SIAM president ran the numbers. I don't see why you are bothering to argue about it.

    Since J-H He thinks El Naschie deserves a Nobel and is like Einstein and Newton, I hope you will consider that a good reason to learn more about El Naschie. Also, since most of the references in the above paper are to El Naschie's work, and you claim to know a lot about J-H He's work, I am surprised you claim not to know anything about El Naschie. They are very close. They are members of the same Brotherhood.

  5. Whoa! JHH is an editor of CMA?! That's actually a journal that people have heard of in the field of operations research. It is known to be a B-grade journal, but people do submit to it and some highly cited papers do get published there. How did this happen?

  6. Yes, he's an editor of CMA. Editor-in-chief Ervin Y. Rodin needs to be informed.

  7. I read HPM and HAM

    [1].I believe HPM is more simple and beautiful. HAM is more tedious and un-applicable. HPM can solve a lot of engineering problems. It's totally ignorant for someone to say HPM is another copy of HAM. Even and Even that, because it's easy, I will enojy HPM. How much scientific paper on HPM? How much on HAM. You can get!

    [2]Why the case h=-1 is HPM? No mathematical proof! I also can say HAM considered the convergence results near h=-1,the convergence results of HPM. Actually, they are different methods.

    [3]Scientific debates should discuss through scientific paper but not email attack. HE had great findings in variational approach and material science. Besides HAM, who is Liao?
    HE was more famous than Liao. That's why so much attack in this site.