Wednesday, November 16, 2011

University Ranking Watch on El Naschie v Nature

Richard Holmes covers our favorite case in El Naschie and Nature, Update on El Naschie and Nature, and Update 2 on El Naschie and Nature.

He writes

I am not an expert, but it seems that El Naschie does not appear to dispute any longer that his pattern of self-publication was unusual or that there had been little or no peer review. He is simply claiming that publication was necessary to preempt the theft of his work by rivals and that the absence of peer review was excused by his seniority. Whether that is inconsistent with Nature's comments is, I assume, a matter for the judge to decide.

I am about 85% certain that El Naschie has claimed in the past that his own papers were peer-reviewed. But I can't find that exact claim by him at the moment. He can't claim that in court, because he'd have to name the nonexistent reviewers, so he is dropping back to a position he sees as defensible.

His papers were not even proofread, let alone peer-reviewed.

El Naschie does claim in this Elbeet Beetak interview (watch from 5:00 to the end. You can turn on subtitles in English, German, Italian or Spanish) that his papers weren't mostly published in his own journal, and that he was a "chaired professor" which is baloney.

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. Well, one of his sock-puppets (P. Cooper) signed as a spokesperson for the editorial board of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals claimed in an e-mail to Nature:

    "Our papers are reviewed in the normal way expected from a scientific international journal published by a reputable international publisher."

  2. > Senior people are above this childish, vain practice of peer review.

    This is a perfectly understandable attitude, from someone expecting to become the next king of Egypt.

    But the question is whether this trial will emerge as too much of a farce to have any effect on British libel law.

    See this video taken at the trial.

    But the recent pointers to this website from more or less respectable venues suggest that its humble origins as a purveyor of homoerotic porn are slowly being forgotten.

  3. Someone said:
    Senior people are above this childish, vain practice of peer review.

    Let's assume that all world-class experts did often submit their research to peer-reviewed journals.

    Thus we can effortlessly conclude that those experts were not "above" that "childish, vain practice of peer review".

    Thus, according to "someone"'s allegations, "someone" would not consider those experts "senior people".

    Let now, let's say "EN", regularly claiming having been influenced by world-class experts, be the same "someone".

    "EN" would, as a consequence of his own pov, having been influenced by people he himself does not consider "senior people".


  4. Richard Holmes has Update 3 on El Naschie vs Nature. He says

    "It seems that El Naschie believes that expert witness Neil Turok is unqualified to understand his work.It is difficult to see how this argument, even if valid, is relevant to the point of whether or not peer review took place.

    Should the court decide in favour of El Naschie, it would provide some sort of justification for the methods used in the citations indicator in the Times Higher Education rankings which gave high scores to Alexandria University mainly or partly because of the many citations of papers by El Naschie.