Thursday, January 20, 2011

Besnard hears from IJMPD on El-Nabulsi case

Fabien Besnard of the Mathéphysique blog is pleased to report that International Journal of Modern Physics D (IJMPD) wrote back to him as follows concerning the case of Ahmad Rami El-Nabulsi:


We have looked into the allegations of the blog. Indeed it appears the articles contain phrases that are identical to those in other articles. The phrases are long enough that this could not have happened by accident. There does not appear to be plagiarism of scientific results.

Copying phrases is not an acceptable behavior. However, at the time the articles were published, IJMPD did not have clear guidelines for authors on this matter.

As a consequence we have decided to take the following steps:

a) A set of ethical guidelines is now in place. They are available in the journal's website and an editorial will announce their existence in the next issue of the journal.

http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpd/mkt/ethicalpolicy.shtml

b) The author will be notified that complaints were received about the papers and will be pointed to the guidelines for potential future submissions.

El-Nabulsi is famous to El Naschie Watch readers for his nonsense papers, his ill-disguised plagiarism, and for his habit of gratuitously citing Mohamed El Naschie.


Posts about Besnard and El-Nabulsi:


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
StumbleUpon.com

82 comments:

  1. El Naschie's Rosa Al-Youssef column is up for Friday, January 21. Lessons from Tunisia. Original Arabic or Google's English translation.

    The wife of ousted Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali is reported to have fled with 1.5 tons of Tunisia's gold reserves.

    El Naschie says the widespread delight at the fall of Tunisia's kleptocracy is superficial and wrong, and based on non-productive instincts like vindictiveness, jealousy and envy. In the long term it is a loss to Tunisia and the Arab world. The important thing for Egypt, he says, is to focus and science and education.

    I think El Naschie is still hoping that his "nanotechnology initiative" will get some funding from the Egyptian treasury. El Naschie knows as little about nanotechnology as he does about math and physics.

    There is no column on Saturdays.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why do you even bother with a garbage journal like IJMP D? Everything they publish is pure garbage. Besides, they did not retract the paper and they did not censor El-Nabulsi , as they should if they were a reputable journal. But they aren't.....
    Anyways, keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you! I have passed your remark along to Fabien.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't have to defend IJMP D, since I have nothing to do with them. Besides, I'm a mathematician and I do not know very well the physics journals. Anyway, there are very respectable scientists among the editorial board, and the journal seems to be available in most university physics libraries. Do you intend to say that they host tons of garbage (and pay for it) ? If this is your feeling (it is mine also...) don't you think something should be done ? For instance, taking an example of stupid paper and asking about it ?

    Note however that some of the other journals did not even care to answer...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fabien,

    I just sent IJMPD a note on a grossly incorrect paper. R. Tung, their chief editor just answered> Here is his answer, ad-literam:


    "Dear Dr. ....,

    Many thanks for sending your manuscript "Comment: "..... by B. Mashhoon" to the International Journal of Modern Physics D. Our editors have read your paper, we would like to recommend that you submit your work elsewhere. We do not feel that your paper is appropriate for the accelerated publication of this journal."

    in other words: sweep the garbage under the rug.
    To which I answered:

    "Isn't the note I sent you addressing a paper printed in YOUR journal ?"

    I am still waiting for the editor's answer. I am willing to bet that they will do their darnest to avoid publishing my rebuttal. If you are interested in knowing what the published paper claims, hold on to your seat, it claims gravitational force REPULSION! You don't have to be a physicist to realize that this is pure baloney. BTW, what is IJMPD impact factor? 0.2?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous, you might enjoy the following humorous but true story about comment papers: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18773744/How-to-Publish-a-Scientific-Comment-in-1-2-3-Easy-Steps

    I know IJMPD is a WorldScientific journal, but at Elsevier a very good way to deal with editors that won't uphold standards of peer review and dissemination (e.g., groundless rejection of Comment papers) is to find the "journal manager". Then, I let said journal manager know about the COPE guidelines (publicationethics.org) on correcting errors in the literature and make sure to point out the questionable rejection of the Comment by the editor. Wait a few days and, suddenly, the editor can't wait for my Comment to be submitted and reviewed. What a miracle, indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would like to thank anonymous for taking some of his time to do this important work. It's a pity most people see this sort of endeavour as a waste of time, or worse, as "dirty work".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you for suggesting to remind the editor about the COPE rules. Since I have not heard from the editor after my last email, I resubmitted the corrections reminding the editors about the COPE rules. I will let you know about how this "case" evolves.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Reminding the editor about COPE rules did the trick, they accepted to review the paper criticizing a previous publication. I will keep you posted regarding the progress. The last time I submitted a paper critical towards an existent publication the editors used the original author as the single referee. You can imagine his reaction....

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wow, it sounds like COPE rules should always be mentioned when submitting corrections.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yeah, there is still plenty of room for them to 'kill' the comment. However, having to even remind them of the rules and ethics is already a serious problem. So much for 'self-correcting science'...

    ReplyDelete
  12. It remains to be seen if IJMPD will publish my correction, the error in the originally published paper is evident. It is an acid test of their honesty. I will keep you posted as things unfold.

    ReplyDelete
  13. They aren't going to publish it, its status is "With Editor", the code name for doing nothing and hoping that the embarassment will go away. After a few months of "With Editor", they quietly take it off the website.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Let's see what happens. Maybe they'll surprise us.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Status has changed, the paper is "Under Review". Thank you for the support. I am having now a similar problem with "Foundations of Physics" that allowed a totally anti-mainstream, anti-relativity crackpot to review a paper that corrects two fringe papers previously published in the journal. The amazing thing is that 't Hooft has countersigned the crackpot review meaning that he either agrees with the views (unlikely) or that he signs without even reading what the reviewers write (more likely).

    ReplyDelete
  16. Is it possible to show us the thing he signed?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes, I will post it. It is truly amazing, considering he's a Nobel prize physicist. Now, "Foundations of Physics" use to be a fringe, antirelativity journal under the previous editors but to see this trend continue under t'Hooft is disheartening.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Incredible, just incredible! I wasn't aware of the fact 't Hooft took over a (previously) fringe journal, but I've already heard about that journal in connection to a crackpot named Amrit Srecko Sorli (who was ridiculed by Randi some years ago and recently got undeserved attention on physorg.com, but was soon identified as a crackpot by the commenters). On a local popular-science forum Sorli claimed that he will soon publish a paper in 't Hooft's "Foundations of Physics". I've ridiculed him for that, but apparently not every crackpot's claim should a priori be regarded as delusional.

    ReplyDelete
  19. BTW: I gave a look to recent papers published in "Foundations of Physics". There are some names known to this blog:

    John C. Baez: Division Algebras and Quantum Theory

    Sabine Hossenfelder: Testing Super-Deterministic Hidden Variables Theories

    Apparently, John and Bee are not bothered to publish in a journal previously regarded as fringe. :)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous, I would appreciate that very much. If it's more than will fit in a comment, please email it to me: hasten dot jason at gmail dot com.

    I hadn't known anything about Foundations of Physics, but Wikipedia has this anecdote:

    "Between 2003 and 2005, Foundations of Physics Letters published a series of papers by M.W. Evans claiming to make obsolete well-established results of quantum field theory and general relativity. In 2008, an editorial was written by the new Editor-in-Chief Gerard ‘t Hooft distancing the journal from the topic of Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory."

    The journal was established in 1970 and 't Hooft has been chief editor since 1999.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jason, it is said 't Hooft became the editor-in-chief in January 2007.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oops! Thanks for the correction. 2007 makes more sense.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Amrit Sorli is a MASSIVE crank, he managed to place his so-called "papers" in Physics Essays. Physics Essays is much worse than Foundations of Physics but the latter is pretty bad as well. What annoyed me is that t'Hooft:

    -did not read what his referee wrote (something totally crackpot)

    or

    -read it and agrees with it

    Either way, it looks very bad for t'Hooft. I wrote to him and I asked him (the way I learned from this website thanks to Jason) to comply with the COPE rules). I am still waiting for an answer from him. I will post the whole email exchange on Monday.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Indeed, Anonymous: Amrit Sorli is well known to us in the Slovenian internet community - he even threatened real scientists (some physicists which run a popular science page/forum/blog) with lawsuits because they made fun of his worm experiment (the same one described on Randi's page). What is hilarious about this crackpot is the fact he is lacking basic knowledge about topics as relativity and consequently even undergraduate students can laugh about his horrible "papers". He's quite successful in selling his stuff to the media and laymen, but unfortunately for him we keep an eye on his efforts.

    As for 't Hooft I hope he will give some sensible explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I doubt it, so far he has not answered my email pointing out the numerous errors in the referee's review. I don't know what to do at this junction, corrections need to be published in the original journal where the papers in error had been published. If the chief editor decides to sweep the stuff under the rug, there is nothing that one can do. I had the same incident with IJMPD (another marginal to fringe journal) and Jason helped me, maybe this time mentioning COPE rules will help again.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I know Amrit Sorli, he's totally nuts (and a bad writer as well). He did not manage to publish i Foundations of Physics but this other guy did:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/?k=Ilja+Schmelzer+pub%3a%28Foundations+of+Physics%29

    I have debated him several times, he is a sophisticated denier of mainstream physics.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Quite a disappointing attitude from such a renowned physicist.

    This Ilja sounded familiar to me and now I remember: I've read a couple of his posts on physicsforums.com in the past. Yes, Sorli compared to him is like a kindergarten child compared to a university student. :)

    ReplyDelete
  28. The disappointing thing is that Foundations of Physics was a fringe journal under Alwyn Vandermerwe (an antirelativist himself). It is disappointing to see that the "tradition" continues under t'Hooft. Allegedly, t'Hooft was brought in to turn the journal around. But he kept the same referees , so they continue to let through crackpot stuff while rejecting challenges from the mainstream.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I debated Ilja here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/93944-Why-quantum-gravity-requires-a-background?highlight=ilja

    Interestingly enough, the referees at Foundations of Physics saw clearly enough to reject his paper that is left collecting dust in arxiv.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Digging through recent issues of FOP I find an old "client" of the fringe physics, Gunther Nimtz (http://www.springerlink.com/content/n67286542k5r4186/) gets his "disproof" of relativity published. Prof. Nimtz theories 9and experiments) have been debunked numerous times. No matter, his stuff is good enough for FOP.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I pulled that out of the spam filter.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I tried to make the links show but I failed, why?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hmm, this is exactly what I did, let's try again:

    ReplyDelete
  34. Some interesting comments about FOP and 't Hooft:

    Foundations of Physics is aimed at the more philosophical side of physics and also concerned about not-so-mainstream stuff in order to be able to publish serious out-of-the-box thinking. However, this also means that the published articles are sometimes not out-of-the-box, but plain wrong. Personally I am not really interested in this kind of debates and ignore FoP, but given the rather small number of other journals publishing stuff on this topic I think it deserves a place in the scientific community.

    I agree with Cthugha's comments about FoP. Note that
    't Hooft became chief editor to make sure quack articles don't get published (this became an issue before he was involved there).

    But 't Hooft is sympathetic toward non-mainstream ideas about quantum mechanics, so you will certainly not get a knee jerk rejection of articles just because they don't stick to some accepted dogma like e.g. that the violation of Bell's inequalities has ruled out local hidden variable theories.

    As 't Hooft has said many times: no-go theorems always contain hidden assumptions...


    My opinion:

    physics + philosophy = pseudoscience

    ReplyDelete
  35. Jason, unstick my comment from the SPAM filter. :)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Done. Sorry about the damned spam filter. Google won't let bloggers turn it off.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous, feel free to experiment with link syntax all you like. I'll delete anything with the word "test" in it.

    Shrink, 't Hooft may have been chosen for editorship of FOP precisely because he's not a hard-line mainstreamer as physics Nobel laureates go. He apparently wasn't sufficiently bothered by El Naschie's crackpottery to avoid his company. And Renate Loll is a cohort of his, right? She writes about fractal space-time, which sent El Naschie's supporters/sockpuppets into a frenzy in the SCIAM comment archive. So he's quite tolerant. Maybe too tolerant.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Here is the letter from t'Hooft. I gave already contacted him twice (mentioning the COPE rules), he's not answering.

    Dear Prof. X ,

    We have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript FOOP2596 "Comments on the papers by Selleri and by Klauber published in Foundations of Physics". With regret, I must inform you that, based on the advice received, the Editors have decided that your manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in Foundations of Physics. Below, please find the comments for your perusal. I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration and wish you every success in finding an alternative place of publication.

    With kind regards,

    Gerard 't Hooft
    Chief Editor

    Comments for the Author:

    Reviewer #1: Prof. X insists that the Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment has given a null result, but such a conclusion, even if adopted by most physicists (but certainly not by the majority of those physicists who are active in the Foundations of Relativity) (sic!!!!), has never been true (sic!) and in recent times its negation has produced very interesting papers by Munera, Cahill, Allais, Consoli, essentially in agreement with the eighty years older convictions of Dayton Miller.
    X considers important to demonstrate that SRT predicts no "signal" for the Michelson-Morley experiment, but rather it predicts a null result.(total nonsense, my note) Here we need to be especially clear. Most people think that the MM experiment proper (that is, with rectilinear paths of the light pulses) is indeed predicted to produce null results, and claim that the actually negative outcome found by MM is a proof that the ether does not exist, and so on. X does not like such an approach, essentially because the Earth is spinning. For him the only acceptable MM experiment has to be based on interferometry on a rotating platform. In other words the only acceptable MM experiment is the Sagnac experiment! (total nonsense, the reviewer understood nothing and distorted everything) Here the huge obstacle for a conservative interpretation of the experimental evidence is the positive result of all observations (Sagnac, Michelson and Gale, Dufour and Prunier, GPS satellites, and so on).
    Thus X makes an acrobatic attempt: "We also clear the confusion ... on the alleged anisotropy of light speed in a rotating frame." Evidently, according to X, the speed of light relative to a rotating frame is isotropic. Apply the idea to a concrete situation and you will see that it does not work. For example, the Sagnac effect would not exist if the two pulses circulating in opposite directions in a circuit installed on a rotating platform, had the same speed relative to the platform (the reviewer clearly does not understand something as basic as “closing” speed), for they would arrive at the same time in the detector if emitted simultaneously by a common source. No time delay, no Sagnac effect ! But the experimental evidence falsifies this prediction: every jet flying in the skies shows that the Sagnac effect is a reality.

    Summing up and concluding, the referee believes that the paper under examination is not suitable for publication, not even as a letter.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I had to break the post into two parts because it was too long. The second reviewer is more interested in sweeping the dirt under the rug. Here is his take:


    Reviewer #2: The paper correctly concludes that a Michelson experiment performed on a rotating platform, such as Earth, will yield zero phase shift at experimentally attainable levels. The paper points out that previous publications by Klauber and Selleri came to a different conclusion.

    Let me emphasize that this report is not a judgment on those previous papers, which I haven't read. Maybe they are good, maybe not.

    I do not believe the present paper per se contains sufficient new physics to be publishable. It is well known that the sensitivity of interferometers to rotations - the Sagnac effect - is zero for interferometers with zero enclosed area, such as Michelson interferometers. This is treated in textbooks.

    Should the paper be published to correct the previous publications? I do not think so, again because the above result is well known. Even if it was true that the previous papers are erroneous (which, again, I am not qualified to judge), this alone would provide no reason to publish another paper on the subject. The decision to publish should be based on the correct content of the paper itself rather than the incorrect content of other papers.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Where are my two posts?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Stuck in the SPAM filter, probably. Wait for Jason's intervention.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Right. I had to un-stick them.

    ReplyDelete
  43. thank you , Jason

    So, one reviewer is off in lala land and the second one wants to sweep the dirt under the rug and t'Hooft countersigns their decisions. Of course my paper does not contain any discovery, it is just a correction to the nonsense published previously in FOP.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Are these the papers you were responding to? F. Goy and F. Selleri Time on a Rotating Platform (pdf), Robert D. Klauber Relativistic Rotation: A Comparison of Theories (pdf)

    Perhaps we can do a blog post that includes "Comments on the papers by Selleri and by Klauber published in Foundations of Physics" with information that identifies you removed.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "Prof. X insists that the Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment has given a null result, but such a conclusion, even if adopted by most physicists (but certainly not by the majority of those physicists who are active in the Foundations of Relativity) (sic!!!!), has never been true (sic!) and in recent times its negation has produced very interesting papers by Munera, Cahill, Allais, Consoli, essentially in agreement with the eighty years older convictions of Dayton Miller."

    Incredible! The claim of the first reviewer should be read as: "/.../even if adopted by most physicists (but certainly not by the majority of those [ANTI-RELATIVITY] physicists who are active in the Foundations of [Non-Einstein] Relativity)/.../"

    F. Selleri is of course a member of the anti-relativity community - I've come across him through Sorli (he's quoting Selleri in his last "papers").

    ReplyDelete
  46. Jason said...

    Are these the papers you were responding to? F. Goy and F. Selleri Time on a Rotating Platform (pdf), Robert D. Klauber Relativistic Rotation: A Comparison of Theories (pdf)

    Yes, absolutely.

    ReplyDelete
  47. These are even worse in terms of fringe claims:

    R. Klauber, “Relativistically Rotating Frames and Non-time-orthogonality”, Am.J.Phys., 67 (2), (1999)

    R. Klauber., “New Perspectives on the Relativistically Rotating Disk and Non-time-orthogonal Reference Frames” Found. Phys. Lett., 11(5) (1998)

    F. Selleri, “Noninvariant One Way Speed of Light and Locally Equivalent Reference Frames”, Found. Phys. Lett., 10, (1997)

    ReplyDelete
  48. Shrink said:

    Incredible! The claim of the first reviewer should be read as: "/.../even if adopted by most physicists (but certainly not by the majority of those [ANTI-RELATIVITY] physicists who are active in the Foundations of [Non-Einstein] Relativity)/.../">>

    Yes, this is what makes t'Hooft attitude even worse

    ReplyDelete
  49. Jason said :

    Perhaps we can do a blog post that includes "Comments on the papers by Selleri and by Klauber published in Foundations of Physics" with information that identifies you removed.

    I would like to do that, I am still struggling with the FOP editors to make them do the right thing. I emailed t'Hooft directly asking him to comply to the COPE rules, no answer.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Znaturforsch joins the carousel of crackpot journals. Here is the results of "refereeing" a paper that rebuts the crackpottery just published by a certain Dmitriev who claims that he detected "absolute motion". The referees are just as crackpot as Dmitriev:

    REFEREE REPORT I

    Article Ref.-No.: A11166
    Title: Correction for “Absolute motion determined from Michelson-type experiments in optical media” by
    V.P.Dmitriyev
    Author(s): prof. X

    Begin report (use as much space as is needed):


    The account is correct in general. (If only some secondary shortages of the kind that formula (1.3) goes earlier than formula (2.12), whereas logically there should be an opposite sequence.)
    However, the result obtained (2.13) is trivial.
    Indeed, relativistic velocity transformation (1.1), (1.2) being assumed as a law of drag of light, the difference of times in orthogonal arms of the interferometer filled with a refractive medium will be null.
    This fact is obvious. And it was pointed out in the paper criticized. See formulas (1) and (2) of this paper and the reasoning after them.

    “Passing by (1) to reference frame of the moving medium, we
    will obviously obtain , i. e. the speed of the wave
    becomes isotropic again. In other words, the drag (2)
    does not lead to the anisotropy in the reference frame
    of the moving medium.”


    My conclusion: the manuscript by prof X does not deserve to be published because of its triviality.



    End report
    ===========================================================================

    ReplyDelete
  51. The second report is the most hilarious, it belongs to V.V. Demjanov:

    REFEREE REPORT II

    Article Ref.-No.: A11166
    Title: Correction for “Absolute motion determined from Michelson-type experiments in optical media” by
    V.P.Dmitriyev
    Author(s): prof. X

    Begin report (use as much space as is needed):

    Dear Professor Großmann:
    thank you for the attention to me, an experimenter with a 10-year record in the field indicated (this is the crackpot V.V. Demjanov, whose paper in Phys. Lett. A had been withdrawn after my intervention)
    The construction of the mathematical model of “zeroth shift” of interference fringe for Micherlson–Morley experiment (MME) in an optical medium with n>1 is not new (after the "zeroth shift" by Fitzjerald for n=1 in the end of 19tn century see recent attempts by Drezet, Cahill and others to prove the “zeroth shift” of interference fringe for MME as well in optical media with n>1). So, the idea of the communication by prof.X is not novel and it is founded on obvious errors in formulas (1.3), (1.5) and the last of (1.10). At this time the "originality" of the proof of "independence" of the difference in MME is based on easily recognizable artificial amendments +tAB and tBA in formulas (2.1) and (2.2), made in order that in the outcome to receive in (2.4) the independence of t|| on n. The hook in formula (1.3) enables him in further formulas (2.5)÷(2.12) to obtain the independence of t on n. In the result the theorist prof.X comes to a doubly erroneous conclusion: by (2.13) he has always the null shift of the fringe in MME (this is prof. X’s debt before STR) and it does not depend on n.
    However, all (all known!) experiments already over 40 years, firstly, invariably reveals a non-zeroth shift of interference fringe in MME with n>1. Secondly, my experimental observations of non-zeroth shifts of interference fringe in MME in the range of values 1.0000003<n<1.8, obtained in 196875 years, which by certain reasons became possible to publish only in the last decade, demonstrate a strong dependence of t in MME on n, at that, with a zeroth point near n=1.41 (prof. X disregards this by means of a formal remark).
    The incompetently criticized work by prof. X possesses an originality in that Dmitriyev does not ignore the experimental data mentioned and gives another (distinct from mine) means of derivation of my formula of 1970 (it is designated (Dmitriyev.6)) appropriate for the interpretation of these experiments.

    End report
    ===========================================================================

    ReplyDelete
  52. The third one shows his antirelativistic colors

    REFEREE REPORT III

    Article Ref.-No.: A11166
    Title: Correction for “Absolute motion determined from Michelson-type experiments in optical media” by
    V.P.Dimitriyev
    Author(s): prof. X

    Begin report (use as much space as is needed):


    The author of this submitted paper has no understanding of the physics involved in Michelson-type experiments. I list below some of the numerous errors

    (1) The author begins by assuming the correctness of „special relativity formula for speed composition“. However it is the correctness of such formaula which was the point of the Dimitriyev paper. If special relativity was correct, then the author need have nothing more to say, since an esssential ingredient of SR is that the speed of light is always, for all observers, isotropic.

    (2) Many experiments have established that the speed of light is not isotropic. These range from gas-mode Michelson interferometers to Doppler shift measurements during spacecraft earth-flybys (see Cahill, Progress in Physics, 4, 50-64, 2009).

    (3) All of these experiments reveal a direction and speed that is different from the CMBR direction
    and speed. These phenomena are unrelated, yet another major misunderstanding.

    (3) The Fresenl drag formula has been well established experimentally.

    (4) The analysis of the Michelson interferometer is incorrect. This is demonstrated by noting that the correct calibration factor for the Michelson interferometer, which contains the factor (n^2-1), valid for n near 1 as per gases, results in the same speed and direction as determined from the above mentioned Doppler shift data, which does not involve Fresnel drag or the other essential ingredients in calibrating the Michelson interferometer.

    (5) This paper is a mishmash of false arguments, and is completely inappropriate for publication.


    End report
    ===========================================================================

    ReplyDelete
  53. I would like to add that Znaturforsch has a history of publishing crackpot papers, last in this series (just before Dmitriev's) being “Nonlinear Models for Relativity Effects in
    Electromagnetism” by S. Devasia, Z. Naturforsch. 64a, 327 (2009).

    The paper was rebutted by two mainstream physicists. Apparently the editors of ZNA don't learn from prior experiences.

    ReplyDelete
  54. At least Phys. Lett. A did the honorable thing and retracted Demjanov's paper:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960109016375

    Only to see him resurface as Reviewer II for Znaturforsch A!

    ReplyDelete
  55. I am laughing as I read those, but I wouldn't be if I were the author of "Correction for “Absolute motion determined from Michelson-type experiments in optical media” by V.P. Dmitriyev".

    I should mention that ZNA, which rejected the correction, is number 18 on our master list. We emailed them twice suggesting that Ji-Huan He be removed from their editorial board, to no avail.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anonymous, ZNA is connected to another crackpot this blog is dealing with:

    Otto E. Rössler

    Rössler has many publications in ZNA and two of his friends (Ji-Huan He and Jürgen Parisi) are on the Advisory Board of ZNA .

    ReplyDelete
  57. OMG, ZNA has become a totally crackpot journal.
    What are my chances of getting my rebuttal(s) published? Can I get some help from you guys, like writing to the chief editor (prof. Grossman)?

    "Detection of absolute motion" combined with the reviews posted above is outrageous.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I found the "papers" published by Rossler and Parisi: http://physicsessays.org/search?key=PHESEM&societykey=PEP&coden=PHESEM&q=jurgen+parisi&displayid=PEP&sortby=newestdate&faceted=faceted&sortby=newestdate&CP_Style=false&alias=&searchzone=2

    Physics Essays is the ultimate crackpot journal.
    ZNA is not very far behind, I can see that Jin He is STILL on board.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Yes, they are appalling. Doesn't stop Parisi from being a ZNA editor. How can I publish my rebuttal to Dmitriev paper with such people on the editorial staff?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Another sad case is the "professor" Santosh Devasia, who is as crackpot when it comes to relativity. He managed to place two papers, one in ZNA (surprise!) and one in EPJ C:

    S. Devasia "Nonlinear Models for Relativity Effects in Electromagnetism," Zeitschrift
    fur Naturforschung A, Vol. 64a (5-6), pp. 327-340, May-June, 2009.

    S. Devasia “Lorentz Violation in High-Energy Ions.” The European Physical Journal
    C, Vol. 69 (3-4), pp. 343-346, October 2010.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Let's not forget another "professor", Hartwig Thim:

    H. W. Thim, “Why the principle of relativity cannot be applied to electromagnetic waves” Natural Philosophical Alliance Conference, June 9 – 13, 2003, Storrs, CT, USA

    H. W. Thim, “Absence of Transverse Doppler Shift at Microwave Frequencies”, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, Vol. 52, No. 5, Oct. 2003, pp. 1660-64, ISSN 0018-9456

    H. W. Thim, “ Why the principle of relativity cannot be applied to electromagnetic wave”, 53. Jahrestagung der Österreichischen Physikalischen Gesellschaft, 1.-2. Okt. 2003, Salzburg, Tagungsprogramm, S.91


    H. W. Thim, ”An experimental setup for measuring the one-way phase velocity of a microwave signal”, The 12th Annual NPA Conference, May 23-27, 2005, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

    H. W. Thim, "The Postulates of Both Galilean And Special Relativity Have Been Violated by the U2 Anisotropy Experiment of Smoot et al", 13th Annual Conference of the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA), 3 - 7 April 2006 at the University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA

    H. W. Thim, “The long history of the energy-mass relation”, 56. Jahrestagung der Österr. Physikalischen Gesellschaft, 18. – 21. September 2006, Graz, Tagungsprogramm Seite 51 und Proceedings of the 1st International Conference of the History of Physics Group of the Euro-pean Physical Society

    H. W. Thim, “The U2 Anisotropy Experiment of Smoot et al. refutes Special Relativity” 57. Jahrestagung der Österreichischen Physikalischen Gesellschaft, 24. – 28. September 2007, Krems, Tagungsprogramm Seite 44

    H. W. Thim, “How much lower is the frequency of a solid state oscillator when it is moving relative to the CMB (cosmic microwave background)”, NPA (Natural Philosophical Alliance) Conference, Albuquerque, 7.-11. April 2008
    Download this paper from: http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_709.pdf

    H. W. Thim, “The U2 Anisotropy Experiment of Smoot et al. refutes Special Relativity” 57. Jahrestagung der Österreichischen Physikalischen Gesellschaft, 24. – 28. September 2007, Krems, Tagungsprogramm, p. 44

    ReplyDelete
  62. The list would be incomplete without the "publications" the ex-nazi, current professor at UNR Friedwardt Winterberg. See link :



    I had the pleasure to spar with this Einstein-hater in person.

    ReplyDelete
  63. More on the IJMPD embarassing saga. After finally assigning a reviewer (not one of the required three I recommended), the result came back:


    "Reviewers' comments:

    The author comments on a discussion of Newtonian approximation of Mashhoon [IJMPD 14 (2005) 2025-2037] on "critical speed" in gravitational motion. I find the discussion in Mashhoon's paper using linear approximation appropriate. This is not the situation to use the proper acceleration. This comment is incorrect, I recommend a rejection."


    Actually, the error in the paper is that Mashoon doesn't know the difference between coordinate and proper acceleration and is basing his erroneous conclusions on using coordinate acceleration. IJMPD turns out to be a crackpot journal, publishes crackpot papers, uses incompetent referees and has a chief editor that desperately tries to sweep the dirt under the rug whenever confronted with rebuttals.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Thanks for that update. IJMPD sounds like a lost cause. :(

    ReplyDelete
  65. A new tactic from R.S. Tung, the IJMP D chief editor. Here is today's email from him:

    Dear prof.dr. ,

    Many thanks for sending your manuscript "Rebuttal to: "Beyond Gravitoelectromagnetism: Critical Speed in Gravitational Motion" by B. Mashhoon, ", IJMP D, 14,12,(2005) pp. 2025-2037" to the International Journal of Modern Physics D. Our editors and referee have read your rebuttal letter. We judge that the comment may not be of a sufficiently high standard to justify the full peer review.

    All papers or comments accepted for publication in IJMPD journals must be novel, interesting and clearly written. The International Journal of Modern Physics D currently receives many more submissions than it can publish. Our editors will sometimes return a manuscript to the author(s) without review when they feel that it is unlikely to be accepted for publication. In this way, we seek to avoid delaying the author(s)' submission to another journal.

    I hope that you will understand our decision not to consider your paper further.

    Sincerely,

    Journal Office
    International Journal of Modern Physics D


    So, I had to remind mr. Tung that this is the SECOND time he and his cohorts tried to sweep the criticism under the rug and that he continues to be in violation of the fair publishing rules. I am tempted to put my paper on the internet, for everyone to see their dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
  66. If you send me the paper I'll happily do a post featuring it. In that please also send any comments you want to make beyond what's in this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Maybe Fabien can write to the editors of IJMP D about their refusal to let the rebuttal to the Mashhoon paper through? Maybe he could convince them that dishonesty is not the best avenue and that they should publish the rebuttal?
    After all, the same dishonest editors never retracted the El-Nabulsi papers.....

    ReplyDelete
  68. El-Nabulsi surfaces as editor of "Applied Physics Research", yet another fringe journal. See here:
    http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/about/editorialTeam

    Now, this journal has reproduced a crackpot paper by J.Gift, a well known antirelativist. Garbage attracts garbage....

    ReplyDelete
  69. http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/about/editorialTeam

    Heh. Thanks for pointing that out, Io. I bet it would be easy getting El-Nabulsi kicked off the board as we have done often with Ji-Huan He. But it's too far from the purview of El Naschie Watch. Someone else should do it.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Shouldn't El-Nabulsi be offered the dsame "service" as El-Naschie and as Ji-Huan He?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Yeah, he's not a member of the E-infinity group though.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Ji Huan He sighting. He is an "editor" of the fringe journal Z. Naturforsch . See here: http://znaturforsch.com/a.htm

    Can we get hom booted off?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Hi Io, that's number 18 on our master list, and we have tried twice to get him kicked off, without success.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Hi,
    I am "happy" to report that A. R. El-Nabulsi has found a new "home". He has taken his circus to the Indian Journal of Physics. Their referees swallowed all the garbage whole:
    http://link.springer.com/search?query=El+Nabulsi&search-within=Journal&facet-publication-title=Indian+Journal+of+Physics

    ReplyDelete
  75. El-Naschie "resurfaces" in "Scientific Report" , one of the "pay for publication" rags: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=47818&utm_source=e_nl&utm_medium=srp_nl_20140715_zhaoshu&utm_campaign=papersubmission#.U8aKK7G9a1w

    ReplyDelete