Sunday, May 15, 2011

Email to Verlag der Zeitschrift für Naturforschung

We last wrote to Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A (ZNA) on 9 June 2010. At that time we were unsuccessful in getting Ji-Huan He kicked off the Advisory Board, but since then He has been fired by many journals, and Douglas N. Arnold has written another damning article about him. I think it's worth another try. This time, however, we'll write instead to the publisher, and only CC the lackadaisical Editorial Board members. ZNA is number 18 on our Master list of Ji-Huan He's editorial positions. I just sent this:

Dear Greifeld, Fuerth and Pfeffer of Verlag der Zeitschrift für Naturforschung (VZN),

Nearly a year ago I wrote to the Editorial Board of Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A (ZNA) concerning the scandals surrounding Advisory Board member Ji-Huan He. I have received no response, and Ji-Huan He remains on the board. This time I am writing to you, the publisher, to let you know that your reputation is in danger. Prof. He is in such bad odor that conferences kick him off their committees.

VZN risks being a laughing stock -- an object of ridicule. Scientists and academics all over the world read our blog and will be aware of this.

Ji-Huan He and his associate Mohamed El Naschie are notorious for gaming the impact factor of the journals International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation (IJNSNS) of which He was Editor-in-Chief until his recent sacking, and Chaos, Solitons and Fractals for which El Naschie used to be Editor-in-Chief but from whose editorial board He and El Naschie were fired by the publisher, Elsevier. To read about their dishonest impact factor manipulations, see the article Integrity Under Attack: The State of Scholarly Publishing by former Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) president Douglas N. Arnold, in particular the green-colored paragraphs. It is available in several languages. Also see M.S. El Naschie and Ji-Huan He catch more flak which refers to Nefarious Numbers by Arnold and Fowler. Nefarious Numbers was published in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, Volume 58, Number 3, pp. 434-437, March 2011.

Prof. He is at the center of a scandal for appropriating without attribution the work of Dr. Shijun Liao (homotopy analysis method or HAM), renaming it (homotopy perturbation method or HPM), and calling it his own. His work is not only unoriginal, it is of poor quality. Besides the previous link, see Francisco M. Fernández on Ji-Huan He in this regard. Also see Three cheers for Francisco M. Fernández! and Another Fernández review of Ji-Huan He's papers.

Ji-Huan He is good friends with the infamous and belligerently litigious crackpot Mohamed El Naschie. Prof. He calls El Naschie "one of this century's greatest scientists since Newton and Einstein" and says "El Naschie's theory will certainly lead to a Nobel Prize". But El Naschie is widely known to be a huckster. Our blog El Naschie Watch is devoted to him and his followers such as Prof. He.

Fortunately for the integrity of scholarly publishing, Ji-Huan He has already been fired from many editorial positions. The list keeps growing:

Ji-Huan He is a crackpot with an almost superhuman ability to insert himself into numerous editorial boards and similar prestigious-sounding groups to pad his CV. For the most up-to-date and complete information, see Master list of Ji-Huan He's editorial positions.

For the reputation of VZN, it is prudent to remove Ji-Huan He from the ZNA Advisory Board.

Don't take my word for all this. Conduct your own investigation.

Let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Best regards,

Jason of El Naschie Watch

UPDATE: I just sent this PS to the same recipients and CC list:

Please make sure you follow the comments in this post. It is apparent from the tables of contents of recent issues of ZNA that Ji-Huan He has been responsible for the increasingly bad quality of papers accepted into ZNA. He is destroying VZN as you sit idly by.

Maybe you don't care about journal quality. That's hard for me to understand, but perhaps you're just cynical. You should at least be concerned for your jobs. A journal this bad cannot exist indefinitely.

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. I'm curious if this will effect any change. This journal is pure garbage on the level of IJNSNS. Check out the tables of contents to see the endless papers about all these bullshit methods like homotopy, adomian, differential transform, variational iteration, G'/G, blah blah blah.

  2. It's mostly the Board's fault ZNA is full of bullshit articles. The publisher VZN isn't comprised of subject matter experts and must accept the Board's judgement about submissions, so it's not their fault. But VZN does have the power, in principle, to decide the membership of the board. That's the only hope. Usually publishers let Editors-in-Chief makes those kinds of decisions, but they don't have to if they are convinced the Editors-in-Chief's decisions are bad for the publisher's reputation.

  3. I am very shocked to learn that even a German journal is involved in this. Not just because of having He as an editor, but for publishing all this polluting garbage that the previous commenter mentioned. I looked at the contents myself, just horrible...

  4. I just looked at the tables of contents. You guys are right. Also I judge 2011 is the worst, and the TOCs become progressively less awful as you go back in time. I think He must be responsible for accepting tons of junk. As he gets booted from more and more journals because of our efforts, he causes increasingly more damage to ZNA by directing the flow of junk papers there.

  5. But by accepting all this garbage, J.-H. He is likely gaming the Impact Factor of maybe the publisher doesn't care? I recall Elsevier continues to advertise the IF that El Naschie and He artificially created for C,S&F. Of course, we know the truth.

  6. IF for ZNA (1994-2009):

    2009 0.85
    2008 0.737
    2007 0.691
    2006 0.904
    2005 1.007
    2004 0.799
    2003 0.681
    2002 0.732
    2001 0.746
    2000 0.638
    1999 0.529
    1998 0.594
    1997 0.769
    1996 0.83
    1995 0.554
    1994 0.63

    If it ever gets a boost well over 1.0, we'll know who's to blame for it.

  7. Note that someone else picked up on Arnold and Fowler:

  8. Thanks, Slipper.Mystery! Good find.