Friday, February 24, 2012

Math2.0 discussion of El Naschie

Zoran Skoda and Yemon Choi are among the participants. I don't want this to disappear, so here it is reproduced below the fold.

1.Bruce Bartlett

The infamous Mohamed El Naschie of the Elsevier journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals fame sued Nature for defamation. The court case began in London in November 2011. El Naschie represented himself. At one point, he made the bizarre statement that "senior people are above this childish, vain practice of peer review." (see El Naschie Watch,

As far as I understand it, as of 24 Feburary 2012, the judge hasn't ruled yet.

In January 2012, he announced his intention to run for President of Egypt!

This only goes to show: this Elsevier journals issue is extremely serious.

Does anyone have any more information on the El Naschie court case, or on his run for the presidency? Someone in the UK?


Official interm decision for the case with Nature is online, but this is an old news. Another court fact is related to the involvement of Neil Turok as an expert in the court process, which seems to have been met by controversy from El Naschie.

3.Bruce Bartlett

Thanks. The bad reflection on Elsevier here is twofold: firstly, that he shouldn't have been able to run the sham journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals for so long, and secondly, that they should have fired him instead of just letting him "retire". Now he's running for president of Egypt. I'm sure he won't get it, but still this should never have been allowed to get to this point.

4.darij grinberg

London. Of course.

He has also made Baez take down the evidence from his blog: . This was not a direct attack, as far as I understood, but a legal threat to the university, which is much harder to counter when one is not formally the target.

That said, I don't think Elsevier are to be blamed of Naschie running for president in Egypt...

5.Andrew Stacey

(Please don't post anything here that gets me threatened with a take-down!)

6.Yemon Choi

The bad reflection on Elsevier here is twofold: firstly, that he shouldn't have been able to run the sham journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals for so long, and secondly, that they should have fired him instead of just letting him "retire".

Agreed 100% with first point (hopefully this statement of opinion will not get Andrew in legal trouble!) but not so much on second. In an ideal world, yes, but in practice I think they had to let him save some face in order to get him to go quietly. Just take a look at politics in the outside world ...

I kind of miss some of that idiocy that was on the Cafe, and is now taken down, because even to this day I still wonder if I just imagined some "supporter" claiming that there were 8 exceptional Lie groups, E1 up to E8...


I disagree strongly, and based on lots of insider information, that the reaction of Elsevier to the El Naschie scandal has been either prompt or complete and appropriate. One of the Elsevier employee told me much after the scandal that NOBODY inside company thought about it, or had any information on the El Naschie case (after all our ignored letters) and so on "EXCEPT FOR THE BIG BOSS". I should point out that there were some letter about the erroneous quality of the journal 2 years before I and then, after few months, John Baez and I publicly reacted, and Elsevier ignored those with usual statements that they are committed to hi quality and other bullshit.

Once the big scandal broke in November 2011, Elsevier did not do anything about it for many months and reflected just by the commitement and hi quality statements. Worse of all, once the editorial board finally got replaced and they euphemised it hiding their crime by calling it a retirement (I strongly disagree in any excuse to such a scandal; this level of blatant mishandling of editorial practices is a shame of the level asking for the strongest level of reaction), they restarted publishing the journal with continuing to publish the 942 papers accepted during El Nashie regime (including about a dozen of his own nonsense publications) after the change of board and after it was acknowledged that the old board and the old practice were not at all appropriate for a scientific journal. Hence they knew that the papers are accepted by the cowboy editorship and hence were not appropriately peer refereed, and despite that, continued to publish those papers, after a year of gap in publishing!!!! After that, Elsevier can not by any means any more say we did not know, they published 942 El Naschie-certified papers after the fact that they grudgly ackowledged the mistake.

I had my own paper accepted in Algebras and representation theory, to be informed in a couple of days that they found that the main result is essentially known a couple of days later and rejected the paper. So it is not true that one can not retract the acceptance of papers if new evidence is there. Like courts can arrest a person who has been proclaimed innocent in a previous court case, after he new evidence is found. But Elsevier wanted to continue selling the failed journal and even pubishing provable failed acceptance body of 942 El Naschie era certified papers, more than a year after El Naschie ceased his cowboy editorship. This is outrageous and for the Annals of Bad Publishing.


Thank you all for exposing this fraud. All the issues of the journal "Chaos, Solitons and Fractals" are still available on-line. Elsevier has no shame! The fraud is right there for everyone to examine. It is shocking, to say the least! We should make a copy all the issues of the journals before they are destroyed. El Naschie's papers should be preserved as spectacular examples of baloney. The journal should have a *negative* impact factor.

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. C'mon, sockpuppets, join the discussion and provide us with some news about the "wannabe pharaoh"! :D

  2. I know, right? This is a promising sockpuppet venue. They don't like commenting on El Naschie Watch because they know we can see their IP addresses.

  3. Jap, except for Iovane's followers and a couple of He's defenders, the Great Man's sockpuppets wouldn't dare to show up here.

  4. I like the idea of negative impact factor. I think Thomson-Reuters/ISI should consider this notion.