Tuesday, November 15, 2011

El Naschie has not appeared in court even once!


A 15 November 2011 article by Chelsea Whyte. Excellent and informative. Here's the whole thing. Interesting passages are green and my comments are red.


Defence witnesses testify in Nature libel trial

A libel case brought against the scientific journal Nature by an independent physicist is hearing statements from defence witnesses this week in London. Mohamed El Naschie, a former editor of the physics journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, is claiming that an article published in Nature in November 2008 damaged his reputation. The article is currently unavailable on the Nature website. [El Naschie Watch has it here.]

The article questioned the peer-review process at Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, where El Naschie served as editor and published many of his own papers. Peer review is at the heart of science publishing: research papers submitted to journals are assessed by scientists who are experts in the relevant field.

The Nature article also reported that several of El Naschie's claims of affiliation with academic institutions could not be verified.

The trial started in London's High Court on Friday, although El Naschie, who is representing himself, has not been present during the proceedings. [Well he's not really representing himself then, is he. Nobody is.]

Frustrating process

Benjamin De Lacy Costello, a materials scientist at the University of the West of England in Bristol, UK, testified yesterday that when El Naschie was editor, the peer-review process at Chaos, Solitons and Fractals was "frustrating" and unlike that of other journals.

With regard to the dispute over El Naschie's affiliations, Timothy John Pedley, former head of the department of applied mathematics and theoretical physics at the University of Cambridge, said that El Naschie was a visiting scholar with access to libraries and collaborations at the department, but was not an honorary scholar working with the privileges of a professor. [Thus he did not have the right to claim Cambridge affiliation as he did for eleven years.]

Nature will continue to make its case until next Monday, calling the author of the piece [Quirin Schiermeier] and editors who worked on the article to testify this week. Should El Naschie appear in court, the proceedings will continue another week. A judgment is expected early next year. [See Odds on El Naschie v Nature outcome, which has been updated.]


Related posts:



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

5 comments:

  1. UPDATE 15:33, 16 November 2011: "El Naschie questions journalist in Nature libel trial", by Chelsea Whyte.

    Update: Mohamed El Naschie, a former editor of the scientific journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, appeared in London's High Court today for the libel lawsuit he has brought against the scientific journal Nature.

    El Naschie is representing himself.

    El Naschie responded that he felt it wasn't unheard of for journals to publish work that isn't peer-reviewed.

    The case continues.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "He also said that his work had been stolen. 'We published my work to secure it," he told the court. "Senior people are above this childish, vain practice of peer review.'"

    OMFG. The usual conspiracy theory claims.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And, of course, peer review is a "childish, vain practice". ROTFLMAO

    It is clear now, why the solicitors abandoned him and what "not having sufficient instructions to be able to progress the matter" means in reality.

    :D

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let me play devil's advocate here for a second. It seems the statement is absurd today...but 100 years ago Einstein was on same opinion.

    http://physicstoday.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_9/43_1.shtml

    "Moreover, the story raises the possibility that Einstein's gravitational-wave paper with Rosen may have been his only genuine encounter with anonymous peer review. Einstein, who reacted angrily to the referee report, would have been well advised to pay more attention to its criticisms, which proved to be valid."

    I wonder why The Great Man did not cite this precedent? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://physicstoday.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_9/43_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1

    That is an amusing point. If El Naschie had thought of that argument he would have made it. Maybe he will, still.

    ReplyDelete