Friday, July 6, 2012

El Naschie loses; Nature wins

Devastating.



Here's Nature's take on it, reproduced below.

Nature | Breaking news
Nature Publishing Group wins long-running libel trial

Case brought by theoretical physicist [See Shrink's comment below.] Mohamed El Naschie dismissed.

Daniel Cressey
06 July 2012

A former editor of a theoretical physics journal has lost his libel claim against Nature Publishing Group, the publisher of Nature.

Mohamed El Naschie sued Nature Publishing Group and its news reporter Quirin Schiermeier over an article published in Nature in 2008 entitled ‘Self-publishing editor set to retire’. Campaigners have used the case as one of a number of examples showing the need for reform of England’s much criticized libel laws, which many believe make it too easy to suppress debate through costly and time-consuming libel cases.

Today, at a court in Bristol, judge Mrs Justice Sharp dismissed the libel action brought by El Naschie, writing in her judgment [doc file; or read the pdf embedded below; or here's html: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/1809.html] that the Nature article was “responsible journalism” and contained information of a “high order of public interest”.

The original article said that El Naschie was set to retire as the editor of the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals (CSF). It pointed out that a number of papers in the journal had been written by him, and that some scientists considered some of El Naschie’s papers to be of poor quality.

Today’s judgment states that “It is apparent that the Claimant [El Naschie] had little if any interest in the norms of scientific publishing or the ethical considerations which underpinned them”. It goes on to say that “The Claimant’s self-publication in CSF was excessive and unwarranted and amounted to an abuse of his position as Editor-in-Chief.”

In a section headed “The implausible absence of documentation” the ruling also says that El Naschie “failed to provide any documentary evidence whatever that his papers were the subject of peer review”. The ruling states “I am satisfied that his papers were not the subject of any, or any proper, peer review at all.”

Nature
doi:10.1038/nature.2012.10965

Here's the judgment embedded.

Mrs Sharp's Judgment

Here is a report in Bikya Masr, also reproduced below. It's nearly the same as Nature's.

Egypt physicist loses libel case against Nature Publishing Group
Bikya Masr Staff | 6 July 2012 | 0 Comments

CAIRO: An Egyptian theoretical physics journal editor lost his libel case against Nature Publishing Group, the publisher said in a statement on its Nature website.

Mohamed el-Naschie had filed a lawsuit against Nature Publishing Group and its news reporter Quirin Schiermeier over an article published in Nature in 2008, titled “Self-publishing editor set to retire.”

The case had seen many campaigners call on the British government to revamp its often criticized libel laws, which they argued were too lenient and made cases against publishers easier to win.

But in Bristol on Friday, a court dismissed the claim by Naschie, with judge Justice Sharp saying that Nature’s article was “responsible journalism” and contained information of a “high order of public interest.”

Nature said the original article had stated that Naschie was to retire as editor of the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals.

In the piece, and which Naschie took claim to, the article argued that a number of scientists considered his work to be of poor quality.

Today’s judgment states that “it is apparent that the Claimant [El Naschie] had little if any interest in the norms of scientific publishing or the ethical considerations which underpinned them.”

It goes on to say that “The Claimant’s self-publication in CSF was excessive and unwarranted and amounted to an abuse of his position as Editor-in-Chief.”

In a section headed “The implausible absence of documentation” the ruling also says that Naschie “failed to provide any documentary evidence whatever that his papers were the subject of peer review.”

The ruling stated that “I am satisfied that his papers were not the subject of any, or any proper, peer review at all.”

BM


I haven't read the judgment yet. Readers — feel free to point out interesting parts.

So far there is no coverage on El Naschie's sockpuppet blogs.
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

21 comments:

  1. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/1809.html
    is a remarkable document.

    The judge eviscerates every one of El Naschie's arguments, asserts that his articles were low quality (including that E-infinity is never defined), without peer review, that he falsely claimed affiliations, that he used a variety of pseudonyms to send emails on behalf of CSF, etc. Every conclusion is well-reasoned and impressively documented. It reads like a cleaned-up version of this blog (i.e., without the homoerotic graphics and other ad hominem attacks).

    Note paragraph 383: "It follows from my conclusions that the Defendants are entitled to their costs of the action" which means Mr "I can't afford a lawyer" is out $1M in Nature's legal fees.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The judgment requires some time to read, but one is almost immediately struck by the fact El Naschie didn't stand a chance because of his grotesque approach to the case: self-representation, ex-wife as his counselor, his acolytes as expert witnesses and of course noncompliance to court orders. It's just ridiculous that he continued with the case. Mrs Justice Sharp ordered the payment of Nature's costs; I hope Nature will go until the end to get every penny.

    BTW: "El Naschie Watch" is mentioned as a source of secondary evidence. That's quite interesting: I thought Mr Justice Eady excluded this blog as irrelevant. :D

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great!!! I'm looking forward to seeing a reaction from the "great man"...
    BTW, wouldn't it be time for an apology to Mrs Sharp for all the "slacker" jokes? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. PassingByAgain, You're right, I should apologize to her.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is amazing. Finally, El Naschie got peer reviewed!

    114. This argument does not assist the Claimant on the facts either. We are not living in the age of Galileo.

    132. Instead, the following style of argument is adopted: a series of numbers is quoted from disparate sources: the mathematical theory of fractal sets, the spectrum of string theory, the dimensions of various symmetry groups, the fundamental coupling constants in particle physics and their running with energy and even experimental data taken on the properties of knots in ropes. There is then a claim there are remarkable numerical coincidences between all these numbers, and that these coincidences point to the correctness of the "E-infinity theory". But after reading all 58 papers, Professor Turok was still none the wiser as to what the Claimant's "E-infinity theory" actually is.

    138. Article 7, two pages long, claims to provide it. Yet it does not.

    141. Professor Turok searched this article in vain for a derivation of Newton's constant, but found only a series of odd non-sequiturs.

    142. In section 2.1 of the article the Claimant writes down a quadratic equation, which is not justified, which is trivial numerology of no significance and which would not be publishable in any serious scientific journal.

    146. Some of the articles contain a series of randomly connected buzzwords which mean nothing in the context in which they are used.

    Then we have this:

    157. Curiously for example, shortly before the trial...the Claimant emailed Professor Turok directly at the Perimeter Institute asking that he be accepted there as a Visiting Scholar and Researcher

    And, uh, this:

    56. Though the Claimant sought to cast aspersions on Professor Keating's bona fides in his closing submissions, he certainly did not do so when cross-examining him, describing him for example, as "a good man" and a "top man"

    187. The Claimant claimed under cross-examination that Ms Boehm's computer has been the target of a "cyberous attack".

    304. Indeed given the Claimant's evidence it too was a fiction: he said: "There is nothing called the Editorial Board in reality. There is nothing called the Editorial Board. I am the journal, my Lady. I said it very clearly. This is all façade. This is all decoration…"

    ReplyDelete
  6. And the Great Man is the "master" (that he's the new Newton or Einstein is already known :D):

    45. Fourth, both Dr Marek-Crnjac and Professor He were strong advocates for the Claimant and therefore to that extent parti pris. Dr Marek-Crnjac referred for example to the Claimant as "the master". As can be seen from the Article itself, Professor He compared the Claimant to Einstein and Newton. This is antithetical to the requirement[7] that experts should not take it upon themselves to promote the point of view of the party instructing them or engage in the role of advocates.[...]

    ReplyDelete
  7. I find the paragraphs 201-205 about the review process in CSF particularly entertaining. Check this:

    204. The third example concerns a paper written by Esposti et al, of the Department of Mathematics of the University of Bologna. Their paper (“Sequence distance via parsing complexity: heartbeat signals”) was accepted by a regional CSF editor in February 2007. In July 2007 the authors were told by C. Cole by email that new referees had looked at it and required, as a condition of publication, additional references to papers published in CSF by Hao Bai Lin and others “on DNA and related subjects”. (“Publication will be halted until we receive either your revised manuscript electronically to this office – or an official email from you stating that you wish to withdraw from publication”).

    205. The authors then explained in their reply that that their paper did not relate to DNA. Nevertheless they asked to be directed to the papers which the referees apparently had in mind. This was the response from C. Cole. “Our referees are now on a holiday break. Only one of the Referees mentioned DNA – the others just refereed (sic) to many related works published in CS&F. I am sure you will find something on Elsevier’s site Science Direct. Just do what you can and resubmit.” Mr Caldecott described what was revealed here, and rightly so in my view, as disgraceful and utterly improper. Having dropped the completely inappropriate requirement for a reference to DNA – any additional references would do, so long as they were to papers published in CSF. The authors then appear to have called CSF’s bluff – adding a single reference to a work by Hao Bai Lin but published in another journal. It seems probable that the paper then only made it into CSF because, fortuitously, the authors sent it direct to Elsevier, because their email sending it to the chaossf address bounced back.

    ReplyDelete
  8. On Science 2.0, Hank Campbell notes with pleasure that the truth is still defense against libel.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Two interesting pieces in the judgement report

    248. The second group of pleaded misrepresentations were made in two CVs:the “China CV ” (dated 2005 or later)and a CV submitted for the 7 the Annual Conference of the
    Arab Thought Foundation, apparently prepared for a conference in Cairo in 2008
    (“the Conference CV ” also called the “FIKR 7 CV ”)These misrepresentations
    concerned Cambridge and Frankfurt.


    249. The Claimant accepts that both CVs were produced on his behalf, and sent out to
    conference secretaries. The China CV for example was sent under by email from Ms
    Hamid ’s email address in response to a request from Professor He made to the
    Claimant personally.
    Cambridge


    I think it is clear that they used Elnaschie watch as their source for information.
    "the 7 the Annual Conference of the
    Arab Thought Foundation, apparently prepared for a conference in Cairo in 2008..."

    ReplyDelete
  10. This a comment found on http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/395 commenting one of Elnaschie's article that have dealt by Trouk
    article 42 according to the table in page 88 of the judgement report.

    In one of his numerous fascinating articles which he dedicated to Gerardus tHooft and titled "On quarks confinement and asymptotic freedom"

    (Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 37 (2008)1289–1291)

    The great man El naschie gave a new miraculous explanation for confinement. But unfortunately the great man doesn't know enough physics, nor enough math, to get into such a deep topic. The man has clearly a big confusion between the number of flavors and number of generations. According to him

    page 1290 "...This term appear as 33 –2 f where f is the number of

    fermion-anti fermion loops considered...." where the great man

    meant the one loop beta function. In the same page one finds

    the expression of the one loop beta function b= 33- 2 N_f/12 Pi

    " .... For a number of generation equal to that of the standard model,namely N_f =3 one .nds b =0.716197....". But to the knowledge of El Naschie N_f should be interpreted as the number of flavors not the number of generations.

    Maybe the great man can check this in any standard textbook on the subject or the one he used which is the first reference listed at the end of his article.

    Another extraordinary achievement of El Naschie is his freshman

    explanation for the confinement phenomenon.

    In page 1291, the great man gave us his magic explanation for confinement "... We cannot see quarks for the same reason that we cannot see real water at +300 degree centigrade or - 30 degree centigrade. In both cases we can see vapor or ice and we know it was water but we cannot see water......"

    Let me ask the great man a technical question, if your approach is a non-perturbative and can cope only with the one loop expression of beta function. What about the other contributions to beta function namely two loop, three loop and four loop do you interpret them as Trans-infinite corrections. To your knowledge the four loop correction to beta function appeared in 1997, which means you can not find it in the old edition of your first reference
    Yndurain FJ.The theory of quark and gluon interaction.Berlin:Springer;1992.

    By now there is the fourth edition 2006, and you can give a look at.

    The astonishing thing is that El Naschie uses just very elementary math operations like addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Maybe in this particular
    paper he was a little more advanced and used the logarithm. That is just a pedagogical trick to make dummy people understand. On the
    top of all these, El Naschie explains low energy phenomena(relatively) using Planck scale language (let us not say physics!).

    Now, let us ask the following interesting question: if the great man El naschie dedicates this article to Gerardus tHooft (Nobel prize
    laureate), then what has Gerardus tHoof dedicated to him? Although the question seems difficult, tHooft has made it easier for us. In his webpage tHooft gave an account of How to Become Bad theoretical
    Physicists.(http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theoris
    tbad.html).The content of this page was
    of course dedicated to every successful case. tHooft did not mention any name but El Naschie can easily recognize himself as a champion of this webpage.

    At last, we argue the great man to devote part of his time to learn proper math and physics (although it is toooo late now!).

    Sciences and knowledge is not about using
    English in a pedantic and impressive way. One can still do good science even with broken English but not with broken and sick mind.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Zahy, very good, I will ad those. Yes, the defense used El Naschie Watch as a guide, clearly. I also think Mrs Sharp read our Introduction carefully.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Look there's a sock puppet comment already on the Nature report on the ruling:

    http://www.nature.com/news/nature-publishing-group-wins-long-running-libel-trial-1.10965

    ReplyDelete
  13. Note that "theoretical physicist" is now missing from the (second) title. Nature reads this blog, obviously. :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hilarious! Shrink, your powers of observation are amazing. I have added the strikethrough.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Everyone who needs to know about Mohamed El Naschie reads this blog. Everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Also there's an adition to the (second) title:

    "[...], but campaigners say it proves need for libel reform."

    It reflects a heavy update to the article (you should also add that) and a final remark:

    "El Naschie now has until the end of August to decide whether to apply for leave to appeal."

    I think Nature is sloppy not to have make clear such an update.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I mean: ...not to have made clear the article was updated.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes, even crummy news outlets document their changes clearly. I will make no more edits to this version, and people can compare it to what Nature has online.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Spiros Kakos also thinks peer review is a vain practice and is consequently sympathetic towards the Great Man:

    http://harmonia-philosophica.blogspot.com/2012/07/philosophy-wire-peer-review-best.html

    Spiros should join the Brotherhood and serve as an editor for the kooky Naschie-He journal(s). :D

    ReplyDelete