Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Arnold and Cohn on boycotting Elsevier

The authors cannot resist quoting El Naschie's famous testimony in Mrs. Sharp's courtroom, to wit

senior people are above this childish, vain practice of peer review

Arnold and Cohn

Thanks to Slipper.Mystery for pointing this out.

Speaking of Mrs. Sharp I am appalled at how long she is taking on what should be a straightforward kicking of El Naschie to the curb. Note that the above quote undermines Paragraph 4 Section i of the earlier summary by Mr. Justice Eady, saying

It is the Claimant's [i.e., El Naschie's] case that the offending article bore the following natural and ordinary meanings:

i) The Claimant has improperly misused his editorial privileges as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, in order to self-publish numerous papers he had written, which would not have been published elsewhere as they were of poor quality and had received no, or very poor, peer-review, thereby creating a falsely high rate of citation for his own work and a falsely high impact factor for the journal which he edited; and/or...

El Naschie was further undermined by the testimony of his friend Otto Rössler, who told the court that peer review was an impediment to the publishing of important new ideas like El Naschie's.

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 a bit peeved with Arnold, he loves reading blogs like this one and retractionwatch, learning about the newest scam at Elsevier, yet never "stoops down" to give credit. I attempted to post a few more examples (of Elsevier leadership failures involving misconduct in the their science/math catalogue) as comment on his IMU journal blog post. But these were not allowed through. How much you wanna bet he read them and took notes?

    Anyways, I guess the big shots aways kick the small guys to the side and take the glory. I suppose I'll take the old eastern block approach: my efforts are not for my own good, but for the good of Science...

  2. Some even think that this blog owes its little credibility to Arnold (e.g., Jason's letters to Editorial Boards of journals where J.-H. He is/was Editor would be not more than gossip, if Arnold wasn't involved), Baez and others, but they often forget that it's de facto the most authoritative source for El Naschie and his group, despite its despicable (to quote El Naschie) nature. Reading El Naschie Watch blog regarding El Naschie is as natural as reading Nature regarding main-stream science.

  3. Thank you, Shrink. That's exactly true. There is a reluctance by many academics to acknowledge that such a déclassé venue as El Naschie Watch could be the authority on anything. But we are the go-to guys on El Naschie and his friends. Everyone with skin in the game, and I mean everyone, reads us.

    Shrink didn't say so but he knows that's true because he reads the visitors log. :)