|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> El Naschie v Macmillan Publishers Ltd (t/a Nature Publishing Group) & Anor  EWHC 1809 (QB) (06 July 2012)
Cite as:  EWHC 1809 (QB)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| PROFESSOR MOHAMED SALAH EL DIN HAMED EL NASCHIE
|- and -
|MACMILLAN PUBLISHERS LTD (TRADING AS NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP)
MR QUIRIN SCHIERMEIER
Andrew Caldecott QC and Aidan Eardley (instructed by Taylor Wessing LLP) for the Defendant
11, 14, 16-18, 21, 22, 25, 28-30 November and 1-2 December 2011
20 December, 12 January, 19 January 2012
Crown Copyright ©
Mrs Justice Sharp:
The words complained of
Self – publishing editor set to retire
1. The editor of a theoretical–physics journal, who was facing growing criticism that he used its pages to publish numerous papers written by himself, is set to retire early next year.
2. Five of the 36 papers in the December issue of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals alone were written by its Editor-in-Chief, Mohamed El Naschie And the year to date has seen nearly 60 papers written by him appear in the journal.
3. A civil engineer by training, El Naschie attempts to combine aspects of particle physics and chaos theory. Many of his papers revolve around the idea that fractal properties of space-time can influence elemental particles and physical constants.
4. Most scientists contacted by Nature comment that El Naschie's papers tend to be of poor quality. Peter Woit, a mathematical physicist at Columbia University in New York, says he thinks that "it's plain obvious that there was either zero, or at best very poor, peer review, of his own papers". There is, however, little evidence that they have harmed the field as a whole.
5. El Naschie, who was born in Cairo and now splits his time between England and Germany, rejects any charges of sloppy peer review. "Our papers are reviewed in the normal way expected from a scientific international journal published by a reputable international publisher," he told Nature in an e-mail signed by P. Cooper, who claimed to be a spokesperson for the editorial board of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. Elsevier, which publishes the journal, is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics, which holds that good editors "ensure that all published reports of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers".
6. On 25 November, Elsevier's director of corporate relations, Shira Tabachnikoff, wrote an e-mail to Nature saying: "Dr El Naschie's retirement as Editor-in-Chief of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals will be announced to readers in the first issue of 2009. Elsevier and Dr El Naschie have been in discussion for quite some time about the details of his retirement and the transitional arrangement for papers under review."
7. In a separate e-mail Tabachnikoff wrote: "[We are] committed to supporting our editors in maintaining high standards for both the editorial and peer- review process. At times there may be discussions about particular scientific issues and fields, even at the level of individual editorial decisions. That is a part of the normal process of scientific publishing."
8. El Naschie defended the journal's publication record, saying: "We put more emphasis on the scientific content and the originality of the papers and slightly less emphasis on prestigious addresses and impressive affiliations." His website lists a number of such affiliations, including honorary professorships at Shanghai Jiao Tong University and Donghua University, also in Shanghai. By his own account, which could not be confirmed by Nature despite a number of attempts, he is an advisor to the Egyptian Ministry for Science and Technology and a principal adviser to the Ministry of Science and Technology of Saudi Arabia.
9. But he is not, as he claims on his website, a distinguished fellow of the Institute of Physics at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany, says Walter Greiner, a former director of the institute. Greiner also says El Naschie has ignored his requests to remove his name from the list of members of the journal's honorary editorial board. Through Cooper, El Naschie says that it would not be "appropriate" to address these concerns.
10. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals was founded by El Naschie in 1991. It costs US $4,520 a year, and usually comes bundled with access to other Elsevier journals. Most large research organizations have electronic access for this reason.
11. The journal has a relatively high impact factor of 3.025 for 2007. But that may be the result of a high rate of self-citation, says Zoran Škoda, a theoretical physicist at the Ruder Boskovic Institute in Zagreb, Croatia. Of the 31 papers not written by El Naschie in the most recent issue of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, at least 11 are related to his theories and include 58 citations of his work in the journal.
12. In May, Škoda sent letters to members of the journal's editorial board asking whether they agreed with El Naschie's editorial practices. In return, he says, he and his institute director received a letter, signed by a P. Green who identified himself or herself as a legal advisor to the editorial board, threatening legal action should Škoda continue sending "defamatory" letters.
13. Škoda notes that Ji-Huan He, the journal's regional editor for China and a mechanical engineer and computer scientist at Donghua University, also cites El Naschie's work frequently. The current issue of the journal has one paper by He that cites himself 14 times and El Naschie twice. He is also editor of the International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation, which in a 2005 editorial said: "Men of genius like Einstein and El Naschie very often ask some straightforward and seemingly innocent questions, which may turn out to have undreamed of answers."
14. A small minority of physicists cautiously recognizes the originality of El Naschie's ideas. "They're at least interesting," says Werner Martiennsen, a retired physicist at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, and one of the regional editors for Europe on Chaos, Solitons and Fractals.
Summary of conclusions
The scope of the action
Issue One: Meaning
(Particulars of Claim Paragraph 5)
|Defendants' Lucas-Box Meanings
(Amended Defence Paragraph 7)
|5.1 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
5.2 The Claimant has lied on his website about his academic and professional affiliations, in particular his false claim to be a Distinguished Fellow of the Institute of Physics at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany, as well as his false, or probably false, claims to be an advisor to the Egyptian Ministry for Science and Technology and a principal advisor to the Ministry of Science and Technology of Saudi Arabia; and/or
5.3 The Claimant's lie about his affiliation to the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany was so bad that Walter Greiner, a former director of the Institute of Physics at the Goethe University, had asked for his name to be removed from the Honorary Editorial Board of the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, a request which the Claimant has deliberately ignored; and/or
5.4 In the premises, the Claimant was unfit to act as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, and has been forced to retire."
|(a) The Claimant abused his position as Editor-in-Chief by publishing in Chaos Solitons and Fractals ('CSF') an excessive number of articles written by himself.
(b) The Claimant's articles tended to be of poor quality.
(c)Whilst CSF was under the Claimant's editorial control his articles had been subject to (at best) very poor peer-review before publication in CSF.
(d) CSF's Impact Factor may have been inflated by an excessive rate of citation of the Claimant's articles in CSF during his editorship.
(e) There were reasonable grounds to suspect that the Claimant's imminent retirement as Editor-in-Chief was connected to these aforesaid faults as Editor-in-Chief. Alternatively, if the Article meant and was understood to mean that the Claimant was dismissed or forced to retire because of his faults as Editor-in-Chief, then it is true in that meaning also.
(f) The Claimant was cavalier about his academic and professional affiliations, having falsely claimed to be a distinguished fellow of the Institute of Physics at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt, and having made other suspect claims to impressive academic affiliations. If, which is denied, the Article meant that the Claimant had claimed affiliations to which he knew he was not entitled, the Defendants will contend that the Article was also true in that meaning.
(g) There were reasonable and serious grounds for suspecting that the Claimant used, or caused others to use, fictitious names in order to respond to enquiries about his editorial practices.
i) It is obvious that the Claimant's papers published in CSF have been subjected to no, or only very poor peer review;
ii) The Claimant's papers published in CSF tend to be of poor quality;
iii) CSF's impact factor of 3.025 for 2007 may be the result of an excessive rate of citation of the Claimant's own articles published in CSF.
Issue Two: Justification
Defendants' Expert Reports
The Claimant's Expert Reports
Overlap between the issues
Two important matters relating to the plea of justification: (a) the ethics and norms of scientific publication; and (b) citation issues
(a) Ethical considerations
"The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society of society-owned or sponsored journals. An important role of the publisher is support for the extensive efforts of journal editors"
"Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Elsevier shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing."
"[A]dopt suitable policies for handling submissions from themselves, employees or members of the editorial board to ensure unbiased review (and have these set out in writing)."
"Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interests resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers."
The norms of scientific publishing
The peer review system generally
Standards for editorial practice in scientific publishing
i) The Editor-in-Chief should not select the referees for his or her own papers and the referees' identities should be kept strictly confidential (i.e. not divulged to him or her);
ii) The final publication decision, based on the referees' reports, should be clearly and explicitly delegated to another independent member of the Editorial Board with no conflict of interest (that is, not for example someone who collaborates with the Editor-in-Chief or whose judgement might be influenced by a close working or personal relationship with him or her);
iii) The choice of the referees should ideally be made by this Board member, or someone with no conflict of interest in the matter; and
iv) The referees themselves should have no conflict of interest either. They should not for example be collaborators, former students or close colleagues of the Editor-in-Chief, nor should they be people known to be uncritically sympathetic to the Editor-in-Chief. The referees should be chosen for their ability to provide an independent, unbiased assessment.
(b) Citation issues
"I worked for 15 years to establish C&F (sic) as the leading periodical on the subject with the highest impact factor in all mathematical journals of Elsevier. Only another Journal published outside Elsevier has an impact factor of 4.5. This is the Journal of Prof. Ji-Huan He who I was able to persuade to give us a hand In CS&F."
Lucas-Box (a): The Claimant abused his position as Editor-in-Chief by publishing in CSF an excessive number of articles written by himself.
The numerical position on self-publication
|Journal||Chaos Solitons and Fractals||Communications in Mathematical physics||Annals of Mathematics||Physical Review Letters||Annals of Physics||Nuclear Physics B||Nuclear Physics B||Physical
|Name||Claimant||M Aizenman||No single editor or equivalent||Jack Sandweiss||Frank Wilczek||Hirosi Ooguri||Robert Dijkgraaf||Erick J. Weinberg|
|Title||Editor- in Chief||Editor- in -Chief||N/A||Editor||Editor- in -Chief||Supervisory Editor||Supervisory Editor||Editor|
|Total articles from that year to end 2008 (approx)||333||13||N/A||144||87||56||29||22|
|No of those articles appearing in journal (approx)||290||5||N/A||51||7||16||12||18|
|No of those articles appearing in other journals (approx)||43||8||N/A||93||80||40||17||4|
The poor quality of the papers published
Whether the Claimant's self-publication practices complied with the norms of scientific publishing
Lucas-Box (b) The Claimant's articles tended to be of poor quality.
i) A failure to define terminology and concepts, including in particular a failure to present the principles and equations of "E-infinity theory" and the predictions which are said to be deduced from it;
ii) Strongly expressed conclusions, unsupported by any, or any intelligible process of logical reasoning; in particular, the repeated unexplained reliance on numerical coincidences in support of the assertion that the Claimant's "E-infinity theory" is correct;
iii) Statements which are meaningless or obscure, even to a readers with expertise in the field of theoretical physics;
iv) Statements which are simply wrong;
v) Elementary errors of spelling and grammar;
vi) A lack of any, or any substantial, contribution of new knowledge to the field;
vii) An excessive degree of citation of other articles written or co-written by the Claimant, in particular in order to justify assertions which should have been supported by self-contained argument or references to the work of independent authors (the articles published by the Claimant in CSF in 2008 contained approximately 301 citations of his own articles in CSF, including citations of "in press" articles: i.e. those articles which were due to be, but which had not at the material time, been formally published);
viii) The use of those articles to advertise other articles by the Claimant.
i) A failure to define terminology and concepts, including in particular a failure to present the principles and equations of "E-infinity theory" and the predictions which are said to be deduced from it
ii) Strongly expressed conclusions, unsupported by any, or any intelligible process of logical reasoning; and the repeated unexplained reliance on numerical coincidences in support of the assertion that E-infinity theory is correct
i) Article 11 ends with a prediction that 5 of the elementary particles referred to should be detected soon. However, none of this relates to the title of the paper, nor is the claim in any way detailed or justified;
ii) Article 46 begins by quoting a standard formula for the action S of an instanton. The Claimant then reinterprets this in terms of 16 four-dimensional spheres, but there is no logical connection. He then leaps to the dimensions of Lie groups and holography and E-infinity. These statements are all non-sequiters: there is no logical argument presented. Professor Turok described this paper "as merely a collection of buzzwords."
iii) Statements which are meaningless or obscure, even to a reader with expertise in the field
iv) Statements which are simply wrong
v) Elementary errors of spelling and grammar
vi) Lack of any, or any substantial, contribution of new knowledge to the field
vii) and viii) Self-citation and Self-promotion
The Claimant's response to Professor Turok's criticisms
Lucas-Box (c): Whilst CSF was under the Claimant's editorial control his articles had been subject to (at best) very poor peer review before publication in CSF.
"Q. Do you take the view that peer review remains important wherever you are operating in this broad field that we are describing?"
A. I would put it far stronger than that. Peer review is essentially what separates theoretical physics from chaos. The point is we are working on speculative theories where we are going well beyond the range of experiment. The best guide we have is mathematics and logic and rigour. Unless one meets those standards, like I say, the very high standards established by Maxwell, Einstein, Stephen Hawking and others, the whole subject would just amount to idle speculation. So mathematical precision, rigour, clarity is the foundation of the field. The best way of ensuring that the field lives up to the highest standards in that respect is peer review because you need somebody independent to scrutinise your work and spot flaws you may not have noticed.
A famous example was Andrew Wiles. This is in mathematics, but he announced that he had proven Fermat's last theorem. Then his colleagues analysed the proof and found a flaw… it was not intentional but when the flaw was recognised it then took him a couple of years to find it and luckily for him he was able to rectify it. So this peer review process is extremely important for catching errors of logical thinking or mathematical argument."
Lack of quality in the context of peer review
"Q. Just looking at the last two sentences of the conclusion, you will see [it says]: "Employing the same counting procedure and noting that on this basis 60 elementary particles have been experimentally observed one must be inclined to think that another 9 particles are still missing"?
Q. First, have you any comment to make about that sentence?
A. Yes, it is very hard to interpret. It depends on how you count the number of particles, but I think the 60 elementary particles is not consistent with the counting I would do, which would be 120. But then the statement that another nine particles are missing, there is no discussion of what they are or what their properties would be, so it is very very hard to make sense of this statement.
Q. Then the last sentence: "It is very likely that at least 5 of these particles will be detected experimentally in the not very distant future"?
A. Any referee would have said how? What properties? What kind of experiments? You will notice that reference 9 is to his own paper, which I have looked at and, as far as I can see, it gives no characterisation of the expected properties of the particles at all."
The implausible absence of documentation
i) There were no internal documents from CSF setting out the policy and procedures for arranging the review of a paper by the Editor in Chief (or anyone else);
ii) There were no disclosed records of which papers by the Claimant went to which reviewer;
iii) There were no referee reports of the Claimant's papers, or correspondence between CSF and reviewers about the review of his papers. In her second witness statement, Ms Boehm claimed there was a policy of "deleting" reviews once a paper was published (see paragraph 182 above, and the Claimant's pleaded case was to similar effect). Though it is not clear from the context whether Ms Boehm was talking about deletion of electronic files or disposal of hard copy documents, or both, her claim was contradicted by the fact that some referee reports on other authors' papers had survived;
iv) A number of individuals named as reviewers of the Claimant's submissions to CSF provided witness statements for him (Professor He, Professor Iovane, Professor Ord, Dr Marek-Crnjac and Shokry Nada). It might be thought they would co-operate with the Claimant and provide him with their own copies of reports, if they had retained them. But none were provided. Where documents have been "mentioned" in witness statements, the Defendants requested them under CPR 31.14. The request yielded no documents to evidence review of the Claimant's papers. One of the witnesses, Shakry Nada, said he has not retained copies either;
v) The Claimant refused to identify which reviewers reviewed which of his 2008 papers, even though he knew (from Ms Boehm's witness statement) who they were likely to be. His original objection was that to make these inquiries would violate the confidentiality of the review process, but Eady J considered this argument, rejected it and ordered that the Claimant should provide a list;
vi) The Claimant did not provide any disclosure of electronic documents or emails evidencing peer review of his own papers submitted to CSF. This in spite of the fact that email was used for corresponding with reviewers (at least as one of several methods) as long ago as 2001. This is demonstrated by a letter from Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie dated 3rd August 2001. The recipient was a Mr J. Giles of Nature. In it, Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie described the refereeing process she said was undertaken at CSF, and said this: "Due to the large number of papers handled and in order to expedite publication, refereeing is frequently done by fax or email";
vii) As to the specific email addresses in question:a) firstname.lastname@example.org appears to have been the principal address used for the administration of CSF since mid-2007. Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie claimed, in February 2010, that 13,000 emails had disappeared from the outbox but asserted that there were at that time "over 15,000" emails in the inbox. No emails sent to this address relating to peer-review of the Claimant's papers have ever been disclosed. Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie accepted in cross-examination that the inbox had not been searched for the purposes of this action;b) A.email@example.com is an address associated with Ms Boehm. If it is correct that she handled the peer review of the Claimant's papers, then one would expect to see emails between herself and reviewers evidencing that process. The Defendants asked the Claimant to search this email account in a letter sent in advance of standard disclosure. Whether or not emails to/from this address are, strictly speaking, within the Claimant's "control" for disclosure purposes, the Claimant could reasonably be expected to have asked Ms Boehm for them: she has assisted him in this litigation by providing 4 witness statements and conducting some correspondence on his behalf. No relevant documents have been provided. The Claimant claimed under cross-examination that Ms Boehm's computer has been the target of a "cyberous attack". This was not a claim which she herself made until her 3rd witness statement dated 23 November 2011;c) Mheddini@yahoo.com appears to be the email address of Mervat Hamid, a friend of the Claimant, who sometimes typed his papers and claims to have sent them to referees, during the period he was in Cairo or Alexandria. The Claimant's own case is that he was predominantly in those locations in 2006-2008;d) In her witness statement Ms Hamid said this: "I did not keep a record of the names of referees I sent his work to because once his papers got accepted I immediately deleted the computer files that contained their details and I stress here that this procedure took place for every paper I typed for him. [The Claimant] always stressed that I do so without fail". In advance of standard disclosure, the Defendants asked the Claimant to search this email account. No relevant documents were ever provided. In cross-examination, the Claimant denied having asked Ms Hamid to delete the computer files. Instead, he claimed that Ms Hamid's computer has suffered a cyber attack as well, something she herself made no mention of in her Witness Statement;e) LTho410189@aol.com is another email address registered to Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie which appears to have been used for CSF business prior to the change to firstname.lastname@example.org in mid 2007 and sporadically thereafter. Again the Claimant was asked to search it; again there was no relevant disclosure.
An assessment of the Claimant's own case on peer review, taking it at its face value
Evidence of what happened to other authors who submitted papers to CSF for publication
Lucas-Box (d) CSF's Impact Factor may have been inflated by an excessive rate of citation of the Claimant's articles in CSF during his editorship.
Lucas-Box (e): There were reasonable grounds to suspect that the Claimant's imminent retirement as Editor-in-Chief was connected to these aforesaid faults as Editor-in-Chief. Alternatively, if the Article meant and was understood to mean that the Claimant was dismissed or forced to retire because of his faults as Editor-in-Chief, then it is true in that meaning also.
"Although the journal has a growing impact factor, we are concerned that this is too dependent upon self-citation…
The journal appears to have a high acceptance rate with many accepted papers coming from China"
"Charon had the nerve to cancel my contract as I was an au-pair working for her over the summer holiday. Then she possessed sufficient insensitivity writing to me reminding me that she cancelled my contract…I am now in possession of the full facts behind the conspiracy which has be sewn (sic) against me to deprive me from the fruits of my 17 years work and I am determined that a vicious plan, designed partly to defame me and ruin my reputation will not succeed and will be resisted with all means at my disposal within legality...
I agree with you that a court case will be painful and costly for all concerned. I want an exit and an honorable (sic) one. I am 65 and intended to resign in 3 years anyway…
After working for so long…I should not be kicked out like that, and I will not be, come what may…
I need a minimum of one year grace period for an exit…"
Elsevier's internal documents
"…although we received comments on El Naschie, we did not actively solicit feedback or attempt an external review of his science, with opinions from other scientists. Instead we focussed on simple facts: high degrees of self-citation, publishing huge amounts in his own journal and no indication of recent publication elsewhere.
They told us a very clear story which led us to terminate his agreement… On El Naschie's existing papers [i.e. those already accepted for publication in CSF], we cannot prove that they have been through a peer review process. His editorial office, without EES, is a 'black box'…"
Lucas-Box (f): The Claimant was cavalier about his academic and professional affiliations, having falsely claimed to be a distinguished fellow of the Institute of Physics at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt and having made other suspect claims to impressive academic affiliations. If, which is denied, the Article meant that the Claimant had claimed affiliations to which he knew he was not entitled, the Defendants will contend that the Article was also true in that meaning.
The pleaded false claims
i) "he is a fellow of the Physics Institute of the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt"; and
ii) "He is Honorary Professor in Shanghai's Jiao Tong University".
"Dear Mr Poynder
You can send whatever you want to say to or ask Prof. El Naschie through me and I will attempt to forward it to him. If you need information for whatever reason about Prof. El Naschie his homepage is: http//www.el-naschie.net/el-naschie-physicist.asp?site=256&lang=
"The Claimant falsely claimed in the China CV and the FIKR 7 CV to have been a professor at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Cambridge University ('DAMTP'). Further, in his papers published in CSF and other journals from 1991 until around July 2001 the Claimant used the words "DAMTP, Cambridge, UK" (or materially similar words) beneath his name, in order falsely to suggest that he held an academic post at, or academic affiliation with, DAMTP. In fact, as the Claimant knows, the Claimant has never been a professor at DAMTP, nor has he held any academic post there or had any academic affiliation with DAMTP, although he had been permitted to use DAMTP's address for administrative purposes until about late 2000."
"5.30 In June 1993, Professor Crighton, the Head of DAMPT [sic] at Cambridge University, certified that the Claimant was a Visiting Scholar in the Department (a status that the Claimant had already held from January 1992 to February 1993). On 10 May 1996, Professor Crighton wrote on the headed paper of the Department a formal notification to the world at large that the Claimant was "with the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University". Thereafter, until Professor Crighton's death in 2000, the Claimant maintained a close working relationship with Professor Crighton at the Department."
5.31 Professor Sir Hermann Bondi was instrumental in introducing the Claimant to the DAMPT [sic]. Professor Bondi became acquainted with the Claimant when the Claimant was studying in Germany in the late 1960s. The two spoke and corresponded regularly on a range of scientific matters, and Professor Bondi subsequently invited the Claimant to Churchill College, Cambridge, on a number of occasions in order to further their scientific discussions. Professor Bondi was also a founding member of the Honorary Editorial Board of CSF and remained on the Board until his death in 2005.
5.32 In light of the foregoing, the attempt made in paragraph 7.20 to cast doubt on the Claimant's academic association with the DAMPT [sic] is unsustainable."
"…my colleagues were put out, and some rather more than put out, by the use of our name on your letterhead. They feel, with considerable justice, that our name is really all we have […] Second, it is undoubtedly best to have the name on your journal identical with that where most of the business will be carried out, and you will see that we still have to send on one or two things a week from here because of the use of the DAMTP address."
Prof. M. S. El Naschie
University of Cambridge
Dept. of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
Cambridge CB3 9EW
i) The Claimant continued in his published papers to suggest he had an academic post at DAMTP and/or was employed by the University. He did the same at conferences. In 1998 at an international conference organised by the International Group for Chaos Studies at the Ben-Gurion University in Israel, he was on the International Programme Committee, listed as "M. S. El Naschie, University of Cambridge, U.K) and 2001 where the American University of Cairo Physics Department held a talk by the Claimant listing him as "Affiliated with Cambridge University, U.K." (a claim made after the determination of his Visiting status in April 2001 as well as the warning in 1993);
ii) In about 1996 the Claimant appears to have suggested to the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST), the Saudi Arabian national science agency, that he was a Professor in DAMTP. A "To whom it may concern" certificate, from the President of KACST said "This is to certify that Prof. M.S. EL NASCHIE who is now a professor in The Department of Applied Mathematics & Theoretical Physics in Cambridge is also a principal advisor for Science & Technology in King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology";
iii) In the China CV which was being used in 2006 and the Conference CV being used in 2008 (many years after he had told by Professor Pedley in April 2001 that his limited status as a Visiting Scholar had been determined) the Claimant was claiming to be a Professor in the DAMTP from 1991 to 2002. It may not be without significance, that unlike the website, these CVs were not generally accessible, and were used abroad;
iv) Thus in the China CV under the heading "Academic Progress", after listing various other positions held by the Claimant it said this: "1992 – 2002 Prof. DAMTP, Cambridge, England, UK. And in the Conference CV under the heading "Academic Career" it said this: "Professor, DAMTP 1991-2002, Cambridge, U.K".
v) ina CV Another CV (which can be dated to 1999 or later) said this "Present Position: DAMTP, U of Cambridge, since 1992, UK".
Jiao Tong Shanghai ("JTS")
Lucas-Box (g) There were reasonable and serious grounds for suspecting that the Claimant used, or caused others to use, fictitious names in order to respond to enquiries about his editorial practice.
|08.06.07||Email from "C.Cole" (Chaossf@aol.com) to Zelinka re referee reports on paper submitted to CSF|
|24.07.07||Email from "H.G. Boehm" (Chaossf@aol.com) to Grigolini|
|29.07.07||Email from "C.Cole" (Chaossf@aol.com) requiring Esposti et al to revise "Sequence Distance" paper, previously accepted by Grigolini|
|30.07.07||Email from "C.Cole" (Chaossf@aol.com) to Grigolini|
|21.08.07||Email from "C.Cole" (Chaossf@aol.com) to D'Abramo accepting the 'CTT Paper' for CSF|
|22.08.07||Email from "C.Cole" (Chaossf@aol.com) to Esposti re revision of "Sequence Distance" paper|
|October 2007||CSF correspondence with Costello & ors, signed "C. Cole"|
|05.10.07||D'Abramo alerts CSF to error in the CTT Paper; acknowledged by "C.Cole"|
|25.10.07||Email exchanges between D'Abramo and "H.G Boehm" re CTT Paper|
|13.05.08||Email from "C.Cole" (Chaossf@aol.com) to Dr Costello de Lacy referring to referee reports of his paper|
|15.05.08||Email from "C.Cole" (Chaossf@aol.com) to Martin Tanke|
|16.05.08||Email from "C.Cole" (Chaossf@aol.com) to Martin Tanke|
|19.05.08||Email from "C.Cole" (Chaossf@aol.com) to Martin Tanke|
|19.06.08||Email from "P.Green, Legal Adviser" (Chaossf@aol.com) to Zinic complaining about Skoda's letter to Iovane, a member of the Editorial Board|
|19.11.08||Email from "P.Cooper" (Chaossf@aol.com) sent to QS|
|20.11.08||Email from "Dr. H.G. Boehm" (A.email@example.com) to QS|
|Email from "Dr H.G. Boehm" (A.firstname.lastname@example.org) to QS|
|QS email to "Dr H.G. Boehm" (A.email@example.com) asking him to confirm the role in which he is writing|
|QS email to "P.Cooper" asking him to identify himself|
|Email from "P.Cooper" (Chaossf@aol.com) to Nature's "Exec" email address|
|21.11.08||Email from "P. Stanton Legal Advisor" (Chaossf@aol.com) to Nature (this email not discovered by the Defendants until May 2009)|
|26.11.08||Email from Claimant (using Chaossf@aol.com ) to Tanke, copying an email addressed to "C.Cole". Covering email states "I just received the email copied below from a journalist…"|
|28.11.08||2 emails from "Dr H.G. Boehm" (A.firstname.lastname@example.org) to QS|
|29.11.08||Email from "C.Cole" (Chaossf@aol.com) to QS|
|10.01.09||Email circular from "H.G. Boehm" (Chaossf@aol.com) denying that the Claimant is stepping down|
The Claimant's evolving case
i) The email from P. Cooper of the 19 November 2008 from Chaossf@aol.com under the heading "Re: Interview request from Nature" said this:"Dear Dr. Schiermeier,"The Editorial Board of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals have directed us to answer your email of 18th November, 2008.A clear answer to the main thrust of all your questions is that naturally and without doubt Chaos, Solitons & Fractals follows all the procedures required by our guidelines. Our papers are reviewed in the normal way expected from a scientific international journal published by a reputable international publisher.We may add that in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals we put more emphasis on the scientific content and the originality of the paper and slightly less emphasis on prestigious addresses and impressive affiliations. In that particular respect, we are proud that our journal is truly independent and does not belong to any scientific interest group or structure.With regard to other questions. I do not think it is appropriate to address them in this form. It would be discourteous vis a vis the Editorial Board and their members. The academic title and affiliation of all members of the Editorial Board as well as naturally the Editor in Chief are printed in each issue of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals in a highly visible form. In addition Prof. Dr. Dipl-Ing M.S. El Naschie has a home page which is easily found from which you can obtain all the information you wish. For your convenience. It is our pleasure to give it to you…I trust this answers your email satisfactorily.Yours sincerelyP. Cooper"
ii) The email from P. Green to Professor Zinic (Dr Škoda's senior director in Croatia) of the 19 June 2008, sent from Chaossf@aol.com under the heading "Serious complaint" said this:"Dear Prof. Zinic,I apologize for writing out of your jurisdiction but I thought before incurring costs and asking for legal assistance in Croatia, that I should write to you directly in the hope that you may use your good efforts to put a firm end to the following extremely serious affair.One of your members of research staff a Dr. or Prof. Zoran Skoda has written the following letter to Prof. Iovane from University of Salerno"Dear Prof. Iovane.you are a member of the editorial board of Chaos, Solitons and fractals. The main editor, El Naschie repeatedly publishes alchemistry articles in his own journal. Being a member of the editorial board, you compliantly adhere to this corruption and promotion of pseudoscience. As a responsible scientist, I am asking you to explain your position. I will take further action, including contacting European Mathematical Society. Max Planck Gesselschaft, European Physical Society and ElsevierZoran Skoda, mathematical physicistInstitute Rudjer Boskovic…CROATIA"I am sure you will agree with me that this letter is defamatory, intimidatory and constitutes harassment. What prompts Dr. Skoda to appoint himself a judge of not only science but also corruption and what authority does he have to ask Prof. Iovane to explain himself, as if he is a master of interrogation. A man who writes a letter of this form is in our opinion unfit to hold a position in your institution.I have consulted with Prof. Iovane as well as Prof. El Naschie who is the subject of the defamatory allegations. We do believe that Dr. Skoda has acted on instructions from outside Croatia and received favors (sic) in return. This makes the situation even more severe than it is.We are instructed to instill (sic) Court proceedings in England where the defamation was received and in Croatia where it was issued. Never the less (sic) we propose that if Dr. Skoda is reprimanded by you (sic) Institution which he is also bringing into disrepute by using your name in such a way and if he undertakes not to repeat this scandalous and libelous (sic) statement or anything similar, then for the sake of peace we will not pursue this matter further.Please also note that Dr. Skoda has written to other people in a similar manner and has used the premises of your Institution for spreading his libelous (sic) statements.We look forward to receiving your answer by email by the close of business on Tuesday 24th June, 2008. Thank you for your attention to this matter.P. GreenLegal Adviser"
We have received many letters from a German scientist/journalist working from your offices in Munich. The journalist tried to extract from Prof. Otto Rossler information regarding Chaos, Solitions & Fractals and according to Prof. Rossler he was putting words into his mouth which he did not say or mean. We have therefore refused to answer his questions on the telephone and we requested that things were put in writing. Suddenly we received a letter this morning requiring a photograph of Prof. El Naschie to be included in the article about him and Chaos, Solitons & Fractals which is about to be published.
We would like to inform you in no ambiguous terms that we regard the entire matter with the greatest distrust. We are sure that the entire affair is part and parcel of the controversy related to a relatively recent article which appeared in your sister publication, Scientific American.
The article in question is by [three individuals]…Many have commented that at worst plagiarism was committed in this article and at best the Authors of this article have intentionally, or unintentionally omitted giving credit to the originators of the main idea, namely the Egyptian Prof. Mohamed El Naschie, the English/Canadian Prof. Garnet Ord and the French Prof. Laurent Nottale.
You may read all the comments made on this article in order to appreciate the size of the controversy.
To make things worse, it seems that the Authors have enlisted the services of one of their Editors, Dr. John Baez in order to launch a viscous (sic) defamatory campaign against Prof. El Naschie. The allegations were so horrendous and so false that it will be leading to a criminal prosecution.
As a result of all that it seems that somewhere it was decided to go on the attack and to use an article full of misinformation in one of the world's most prestigious journals, namely Nature.
Of course we would not dream of interfering with your work but we implore you to look into this matter very thoroughly before you make a final decision which is yours to make but we most definitely reserve our right to answer to whatever is alleged in this article and to take all legal means to protect our interests and the interests of our publisher Elsevier Science Ltd.
cc England Palmer Solicitors"
i) First, from 2005 or 2006, Ms Boehm had a full time job running a hotel in Germany and was not closely involved in the running of CSF;
ii) Second, although Ms Boehm was said to have access to email@example.com, the Defendants have not discovered any emails sent from that address in her name (though there are 2 emails, one post-dating publication, sent from this email address signed H.G. Boehm). Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie said in evidence that she "assumed" that Ms Boehm had used the address in the past, but did not know whether she had done so since starting work at the hotel. When Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie found emails sent to chaossf which she wished to draw to Ms Boehm's attention, she said she forwarded them to Ms Boehm's private email address or work email address. All this suggests that, by 2008 at least, Ms Boehm was not using the chaossf address;
iii) Third, Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie accepted that she would have been in touch with the Claimant about his diary and whereabouts in advance of the meeting with Mr Tanke on 5 June 2008 and that "it was he and I corresponding about dates, if I remember correctly". It was she who eventually fixed the date and booked the venue. She had in any event been closely involved in the Elsevier discussions throughout, including sending letters with her own "take" on the issues surrounding the termination of the Claimant's position at CSF (something she had also done when in respect of his dispute with DAMTP). It is implausible to suggest that the correspondence from C. Cole to Mr Tanke on this particular and highly sensitive subject was conducted by Ms Boehm rather the Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie;
iv) Similarly implausible is Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie's professed lack of surprise in cross-examination, at seeing unfamiliar names appearing on outgoing emails from chaossf;
v) The firm "England Palmer Solicitors" purportedly copied in to the P. Stanton email to Nature of 21 November 2008 was a firm known to the Claimant and Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie. The Claimant's evidence was that Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie found the firm and instructed them. There is however no reason to believe the firm was known to Ms Boehm;
vi) When Ms Boehm read the transcript of the Claimant's evidence (as she said she had in a letter to the court) she then sent a further witness statement dated 1 December 2011, stating she did know Mr England. The description she gave of him however was patently based on the transcript. The Claimant had described him as tall, blond but not very efficient. In her 1 December witness statement Ms Boehm now said "I know he is tall, blond and not very efficient". This was a transparent attempt to help Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie out of her difficulty;
vii) The P. Stanton email included a telltale misspelling: "viscous" (instead of "vicious"): see paragraph 306 above. The same misspelling occurred in Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie's trial witness statement which she typed herself, and in 3 other documents which admitted she had either typed or had a hand in typing (the Part 18 Response, the Claimant's witness statement dated 9 May 2011 and Mervat Hamid's witness statement dated 27 July 2011);
viii) Again, having read the transcript, Ms Boehm tried to help out, casually dropping a "viscous" into her letter of 1 December 2011. It was the first evidence of Ms Boehm using either "vicious" or "viscous", although she has been forthright, previously, in her denunciation of the "campaign" against the Claimant. This, like her earlier intervention was a transparent attempt to help Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie out of her difficulty, but it ended up confirming rather than undermining the contention that the false name emails were sent by Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie rather than her;
ix) The P Stanton email had been preceded some 22 minutes earlier, by an email to Mr Tanke, also sent from Chaossf, but this time signed by Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie personally, referring to the request for a photograph and making very similar points to the P. Stanton email. It said this:"Dear Martin,We have this morning received an email from Nature, copy enclosed requesting from Mohamed a photograph to be included in an article which will appear next in Nature about him and naturally about CS&F about which they have been asking many questions.Mohamed is confident that this is part and parcel of the plot against him to divert attention from the plagiarism committed against him by [the same three individuals identified in the P. Stanton email] in their article in Scientific American.I am sure you know that the publisher of Nature and the publisher of Scientific American are one and the same and as I have said, they are trying to divert attention from the real problem which is the plagiarism which they committed and the possible legal action against Scientific American.It might be within your power to use your contacts to stop the publication of this article by a journalist from Bavaria who is apparently a friend of [one of the persons named above].We are confident that the intention of this article is defamatory towards Elsevier as well as Mohammed.Regards,Lydia Thorsen-El Naschie"
x) Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie said the first email was dictated to her by the Claimant, or at least reflected the gist of what he told her but could given no proper explanation for how the strikingly similar second email from P. Stanton came about without her involvement.
"…at this point Mohamed was fully in control of this stuff. He was well aware of all the journalists we were getting e-mails from, or to most of the e-mail addresses…
He kept repeating "I want everybody to be in on this picture so everybody knows what they are doing, everybody is aware of what is happening". We all felt under huge pressure"
Issue 3: Honest Comment
Issue 4: Reynolds Privilege
"1. The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true. 2. The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject matter is a matter of public concern. 3. The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories. 4. The steps taken to verify the information. 5. The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect. 6. The urgency of the matter. News is often a perishable commodity. 7. Whether comment was sought from the plaintiff. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the plaintiff will not always be necessary. 8. Whether the article contained the gist of the plaintiff's side of the story. 9. The tone of the article. A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact. 10. The circumstances of the publication, including the timing."
The genesis, preparation and publication of the Article
i) The Claimant had claimed suspicious affiliations to academic institutions on papers that he had published online, for example to Frankfurt University;
ii) The Claimant had been using a "dishonest (unauthorised) affiliation" to DAMTP;
iii) Dr Škoda had written to other CSF Editorial Board members in May 2008 querying the editorial malpractices at the journal. Two CSF Editorial Board members had responded to his letter in terms supportive of Dr Škoda's complaint. The first, Professor Greiner, said he had been appointed to the Editorial Board without being asked. The second, Professor Michael Thompson of University College London, said the same;
iv) An email was subsequently sent to Dr Škoda's director at IRB, Professor Zinic, signed "P. Green, Legal Adviser", threatening legal action. Another member of the Editorial Board, Professor He, was the main editor of an applied mathematics journal called the "International Journal on Non-Linear Sciences and Numerical Simulation" ("IJNSNS"). At 5.099, IJNSNS had a higher Impact Factor than the two leading journals in mathematical physics and pure mathematics, respectively the Communication in Mathematical Physics and Annals of Mathematics. Dr Škoda had looked into this and concluded that the Impact Factor appeared to be artificially inflated due to frequent cross-referencing between a small group of authors, including the Claimant and Professor He. He also found many papers to be of poor quality;
v) There may have been other members of the Editorial Board who would not normally have obtained the positions and grants they had but for the help of the cross-publication network, and by publishing papers on obscure subjects that were not subject to proper peer review;
vi) Elsevier had been using Professor He's high citation figures in its advertising and marketing. Dr Škoda's email noted that he had first been alerted to CSF by an advert that he had received from Elsevier highlighting the fact that Professor He was the most-cited mathematician in the last 2 or 3 years. Dr Škoda had taken a closer look at a paper and concluded that it was "nonsense", was lacking in any meaningful content, and contained over 250 citations – none of which were to the 10 leading mathematics journals;
vii) Dr Škoda pointed to what appeared to be inflated claims as to the Claimant's standing as a scientist which had been removed from his webpage the previous week, after he and Professor Baez had drawn attention to them.
I understand your concern, and being retired, I intend to resign from the Editorial Board immediately. Others may not realise they are on it (my name just appeared on the cover). "
All the best
"You are right. I'm carried as an Editor even though I've never been asked. I withdraw my editor ship (sic) by writing to the journal today. "
"Dr El Naschie's retirement as Editor in Chief of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals will be announced to readers in the first issue of 2009. Elsevier and Dr El Naschie have been in discussion for quite some time about the details of his retirement and the transitional arrangement for papers under review."
i) In total, the Claimant was cited 138 times (in 18 of the 36 papers) of which at least 121 citations were to papers in CSF;
ii) The Claimant's 5 single-authored papers contain 62 citations of his own work, of which 57 were to papers in CSF;
iii) 11 of the 31 papers not written by the Claimant seemed to relate to his theories. These 11 papers included at least 58 citations of his work in CSF, of the 68 citations of his work in total;
iv) Two of the papers seemed to have no direct connection to the Claimant's ideas, but cited the Claimant 3 and 5 times, respectively;
v) Paper 24 was written by Professor He. It contains 14 citations of Professor He's own work and 2 citations of the Claimant's papers;
vi) 5 papers included (in total) 7 citations of the Claimant's papers published in Professor He's journal, IJNSNS;
vii) The letter to the editor includes 2 citations of the Claimant's work in CSF.
"How scientific articles come to be published has a wide importance and relevance to the scientific community. Nature's readers depend on the publication of their articles to help build their careers. A publication record is more than just statistics – investment, funding and procurement decisions are often taken on the basis of these figures. If there are grounds for believing that one author's pieces are being accepted for publication in preference to another's, for reasons other than merit, then our readers will want to know."
The Claimant's side of the story
The nature of the Claimant's response and the effect on Nature's assessment of the Claimant
|1||35||1||String theory, exceptional Lie groups hierarchy and the structural constant of the universe|
|2||35||1||Super- symmetric quantum gravity inverse coupling from the Exceptional Lie symmetry groups hierarchy|
|3||35||1||Notes on exceptional lie symmetry groups hierarchy and possible implications for E-infinity high energy physics|
|4||35||1||Exceptional Lie groups hierarchy and some fundamental high energy physics equations|
|5||35||1||Noether's theorem, exceptional Lie groups hierarchy and determining of electromagnetism|
|6||35||1||Symmetry group prerequisite for E-infinity in high energy physics|
|7||35||2||Quarks confinement – A simple mathematical derivation|
|8||35||2||Conformal E-infinity theory, exceptional Lie groups and the elementary particle content of the standard model|
|9||35||2||Quantum gravity unification via transfinite arithmetic and geometrical averaging|
|10||35||2||The exceptional Lie symmetry groups hierarchy and the expected number of Higgs bosons|
|11||35||2||From E-eight to E-infinity|
|12||35||2||Derivation of Newton's gravitational fine structure constant from the spectrum of Heterotic superstring theory|
|13||35||2||The fundamental algebraic equations of the constants of nature|
|14||35||2||Conjectures regarding kissing spheres hierarchy and quantum gravity unification|
|15||35||2||Hierarchy of kissing numbers for exceptional Lie symmetry groups in high energy physics|
|16||35||3||Extended renormalizations group analysis for quantum gravity and Newton's gravitational constant|
|17||35||4||The exceptional eightfold way to a possible Higgs field|
|18||35||4||Roots lattice hierarchies of exceptional Lie symmetry groups and the elementary particles content of the standard model|
|19||35||5||Quarks confinement via Kaluza-Klein theory as a topological property of quantum classical spacetime phase transition|
|20||35||5||Non- perturbative super symmetric quantum gravity coupling|
|21||36||1||High energy physics and the standard model from the exceptional Lie groups|
|22||36||1||On a major exceptional Lie symmetry groups hierarchy and quantum gravity|
|23||36||2||Deriving quarks confinement from the topology of quantum spacetime and heterotic string theory|
|24||36||3||Asymptotic freedom and unification in a golden quantum field theory|
|25||36||3||On a transfinite symmetry group with 10 to the power of 19 dimensions|
|26||36||3||Freudental magic square and its dimensional implication for and high energy physics|
|27||36||4||Transfinite harmonisation by taking the dissonance out of the quantum field symphony|
|28||36||4||On dualities between Nordstrom-Kaluza- Klein, Newtonian and quantum gravity|
|29||36||4||A derivation of the fine structure constant from the exceptional Lie group hierarchy of the micro cosmos|
|30||36||5||Quantum golden field theory – Ten theorems and various conjectures|
|31||36||5||A new look at quarks confinement|
|32||36||5||One and two – stein space hierarchies in high energy physics|
|33||36||5||On a canonical equation for all fundamental interactions|
|35||37||1||Kaluza- Klein unification- Some possible extensions|
|36||37||1||Removing spurious non-linearity in the structure of micro– spacetime and quantum field renormalization|
|37||37||2||An outline for a quantum golden field theory|
|38||37||2||Exact non- perturbative derivation of gravity's fine structure constant, the mass of the Higgs and elementary black holes|
|39||37||3||Bounds on the number of possible Higgs particles using grand unification and exceptional Lie groups|
|40||37||3||Average exceptional Lie and Coxeter group hierarchies with special reference to the standard model of high energy particle physics|
|41||37||5||Mathematical foundation of E- Infinity via Coxeter and reflection groups|
|42||37||5||On quarks confinement and asymptotic freedom|
|43||38||2||On the phase transition to quarks confinement|
|44||38||3||The standard model physical degrees of freedom interpretation of the electromagnetic fine structure coupling|
|45||38||3||P-Adic analysis and the transfinite E8 exceptional Lie symmetry group unification|
|46||38||4||Yang - Mills instanton via exceptional Lie symmetry groups and E-infinity|
|47||38||4||Towards a quantum field theory without Gribov copies and similar problems|
|48||38||4||Deriving the largest expected number of elementary particles in the standard model from the maximal compact subgroup H of the exceptional Lie group|
|49||38||4||From classical gauge theory back to Weyl scaling via E – infinity spacetime|
|50||38||4||Quasi exceptional E12 Lie symmetry group with 685 dimensions, KAC- Moody algebra and E-infinity Cantorian spacetime|
|51||38||4||P-Adic unification of the fundamental forces and the standard model|
|52||38||4||The internal dynamics of the exceptional Lie symmetry groups hierarchy and the coupling constants of unification|
|53||38||4||Using Witten's five Brane theory and the holographic principle to derive the value of the electromagnetic fine structure constant|
|54||38||5||Fuzzy multi-instanton knots in the fabric of space-time and Dirac's vacuum fluctuation|
|55||38||5||An energy balance Eigenvalue equation for determining super strings dimensional hierarchy and coupling constants|
|56||38||5||Anomalies free E – infinity from von Neumann's continuous geometry|
|57||38||5||Eliminating gauge anomalies via a "point-less" fractal Yang - Mills theory|
|58||38||5||Fuzzy knot theory interpretation of Yang-Mills instantons and Witten's 5 Brane model|
Figure 4: Distribution of Citations by Source Title shows that, of 6320 citations to Claimant's work that reported an identifiable source in Google Scholar, 5096 (80.6%) of these were from materials published in CSF. The next 9 sources, in order of descending frequency of citation are also shown in Figure 4. Collectively, these titles account for 264 (4.2%) of citations to Claimant's work. The remaining 407 sources provided 960 additional citations to the Claimant's work, representing the final 15.2% of citation.
Figure 5: Citations to Claimant from CSF or other sources vs time shows how the concentration of citations in CSF developed across time, following the same shape of the line showing the total citations to the Claimant's work.
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SHARP DBE
(TRADING AS NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP)
UPON the Claimant's Claim having been tried at the Royal Courts of Justice without a Jury
On 11, 14, 16-18, 21, 22, 25, 28-30 November and 1-2 December 2011, with closing submissions lodged on 20 December 2011, 12 January 2012, 19 January 2012;
IT IS ORDERED THAT
Dated this 6th Day of July 2012
Note 1 See Lucas-Box v News Group Newspapers Ltd  1 WLR 147. [Back] Note 2 This term has a special meaning in this context: for a definition, see paragraph 77 below. [Back] Note 3 See Control Risks Ltd v New English Library  1 WLR 183. [Back] Note 4 CPR 35 PD 3.2(1) and paragraph 13.6 of the Protocol. [Back] Note 5 CPR 35.10(3), CPR 35 PD 3.2(3), and paragraph 13.14 of the Protocol. [Back] Note 6 CPR 35.3 and paragraph 4 of the Protocol. [Back] Note 7 CPR (PD 35, annex, para 4.3) [Back] Note 8 Communications in Mathematical Physics, the premier journal covering the broad spectrum of Mathematical Physics (A*); Physical Review Letters, arguably the premier journal covering the whole of Physics: (A*); Annals of Physics, covering the broad spectrum of Physics: (A); Nuclear Physics B covering quantum field theory and high-energy physics (A*); Physical Review D, similar to Nuclear Physics B (A).
[Back] Note 9 It assigns each journal to a tier as follows: A* - one of the best in the field, or sub-field; A – very high quality; B - - solid, though not outstanding, and C – does not meet the criteria of the higher tiers. Most journals were, as at February 2010 classified as A, B or C, with a small number classified as A*. For the methodology underpinning these classifications see the ERA website at http://www.arc.gov.au/era. [Back] Note 10 The Claimant initially disputed that one of the papers (paper 19) appeared in 2008, but eventually accepted that it did so, and the reference to 2007 at the head of the paper is a misprint. [Back] Note 11 An extract from the Clay Mathematics Institute’s own information is as follows.
“In order to celebrate mathematics in the new millennium, The Clay Mathematics Institute of Cambridge, Massachusetts (CMI) established sevenPrize Problems. The Prizes were conceived to record some of the most difficult problems with which mathematicians were grappling at the turn of the second millennium; to elevate in the consciousness of the general public the fact that in mathematics, the frontier is still open and abounds in important unsolved problems; to emphasize the importance of working towards a solution of the deepest, most difficult problems; and to recognize achievement in mathematics of historical magnitude…The seven Millennium Prize Problems were chosen by the founding Scientific Advisory Board of CMI, which conferred with leading experts worldwide. The focus of the board was on important classic questions that have resisted solution for many years. Following the decision of the Scientific Advisory Board, the Board of Directors of CMI designated a $7 million prize fund for the solution to these problems, with $1 million allocated to the solution of each problem.” [Back] Note 12 See paragraphs 225 and 226 below. [Back] Note 13 The Claimant complains of redactions made to the Elsevier documents. The redactions were made before the documents were disclosed to the Defendants for the purpose of withholding sensitive commercial information. There were no further redactions by the Defendants. [Back] Note 14 In a letter to Professor Landshoff of DAMTP, in September 2000 applying in that letter to be a student of one of the Professors there. [Back] Note 15 Section 5 provides as follows: “In an action for libel or slander in respect of words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges.” [Back] Note 16 The Claimant himself sent emails from this address on 18 & 20.11.08. [Back] Note 17 The Claimant himself sent an email from this address on 18.11.08 at 19:56. [Back] Note 18 The Claimant himself sent an email from A.firstname.lastname@example.org at 14:32, commenting on H.G.Boehm’s email sent at 12:38. [Back] Note 19 The Claimant himself sent an email from this address on 21.11.08 at 15:53; Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie sent one at 12:30. [Back] Note 20 The identity of C Cole was not yet in issue as it was added by amendment to the Defendants’ case. [Back] Note 21 Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd  2 AC 127 [Back] Note 22 For the text see paragraph 298 ii) above. [Back] Note 23 See the observations by Lord Hoffman in Jameel at  and . [Back] Note 24 The print out available is dated 29 May 2009 but there is no suggestion that it was modified between November 2008 and the date of this printout. [Back]
Note 1 See Lucas-Box v News Group Newspapers Ltd  1 WLR 147. [Back]
Note 2 This term has a special meaning in this context: for a definition, see paragraph 77 below. [Back]
Note 3 See Control Risks Ltd v New English Library  1 WLR 183. [Back]
Note 4 CPR 35 PD 3.2(1) and paragraph 13.6 of the Protocol. [Back]
Note 5 CPR 35.10(3), CPR 35 PD 3.2(3), and paragraph 13.14 of the Protocol. [Back]
Note 6 CPR 35.3 and paragraph 4 of the Protocol. [Back]
Note 7 CPR (PD 35, annex, para 4.3) [Back]
Note 8 Communications in Mathematical Physics, the premier journal covering the broad spectrum of Mathematical Physics (A*); Physical Review Letters, arguably the premier journal covering the whole of Physics: (A*); Annals of Physics, covering the broad spectrum of Physics: (A); Nuclear Physics B covering quantum field theory and high-energy physics (A*); Physical Review D, similar to Nuclear Physics B (A). [Back]
Note 9 It assigns each journal to a tier as follows: A* - one of the best in the field, or sub-field; A – very high quality; B - - solid, though not outstanding, and C – does not meet the criteria of the higher tiers. Most journals were, as at February 2010 classified as A, B or C, with a small number classified as A*. For the methodology underpinning these classifications see the ERA website at http://www.arc.gov.au/era. [Back]
Note 10 The Claimant initially disputed that one of the papers (paper 19) appeared in 2008, but eventually accepted that it did so, and the reference to 2007 at the head of the paper is a misprint. [Back]
Note 11 An extract from the Clay Mathematics Institute’s own information is as follows. “In order to celebrate mathematics in the new millennium, The Clay Mathematics Institute of Cambridge, Massachusetts (CMI) established sevenPrize Problems. The Prizes were conceived to record some of the most difficult problems with which mathematicians were grappling at the turn of the second millennium; to elevate in the consciousness of the general public the fact that in mathematics, the frontier is still open and abounds in important unsolved problems; to emphasize the importance of working towards a solution of the deepest, most difficult problems; and to recognize achievement in mathematics of historical magnitude…The seven Millennium Prize Problems were chosen by the founding Scientific Advisory Board of CMI, which conferred with leading experts worldwide. The focus of the board was on important classic questions that have resisted solution for many years. Following the decision of the Scientific Advisory Board, the Board of Directors of CMI designated a $7 million prize fund for the solution to these problems, with $1 million allocated to the solution of each problem.” [Back]
Note 12 See paragraphs 225 and 226 below. [Back]
Note 13 The Claimant complains of redactions made to the Elsevier documents. The redactions were made before the documents were disclosed to the Defendants for the purpose of withholding sensitive commercial information. There were no further redactions by the Defendants. [Back]
Note 14 In a letter to Professor Landshoff of DAMTP, in September 2000 applying in that letter to be a student of one of the Professors there. [Back]
Note 15 Section 5 provides as follows: “In an action for libel or slander in respect of words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges.” [Back]
Note 16 The Claimant himself sent emails from this address on 18 & 20.11.08. [Back]
Note 17 The Claimant himself sent an email from this address on 18.11.08 at 19:56. [Back]
Note 18 The Claimant himself sent an email from A.email@example.com at 14:32, commenting on H.G.Boehm’s email sent at 12:38. [Back]
Note 19 The Claimant himself sent an email from this address on 21.11.08 at 15:53; Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie sent one at 12:30. [Back]
Note 20 The identity of C Cole was not yet in issue as it was added by amendment to the Defendants’ case. [Back]
Note 21 Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd  2 AC 127 [Back]
Note 22 For the text see paragraph 298 ii) above. [Back]
Note 23 See the observations by Lord Hoffman in Jameel at  and . [Back]
Note 24 The print out available is dated 29 May 2009 but there is no suggestion that it was modified between November 2008 and the date of this printout. [Back]