This is off-topic for Wikipedia specifically, but on-topic for those interested in the reliability of academic sources generally:
There's currently a big discussion in the academic science publishing & library world over the case of M. S. El Naschie, the editor in chief of "Chaos, Solitons and Fractals," an expensive Elsevier journal. It appears he's been using the journal to essentially self-publish his own pet theories (300+ single-author papers), as well as misrepresenting his own academic credentials. This has been going on for years, but someone apparently just noticed now. The journal is typically bundled with subscriptions to other Elsevier journals in big academic libraries, so a fair number of people in the math community have access to it.
* Here's a nice summary: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/11/25/elsevier-math-editor-controver... * the original post that broke the story: http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2008/11/the_case_of_m_s_el_naschie.html * and the Nature article on all of this: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081126/full/456432a.html
What I find fascinating is that the way the debate is playing out, at least in public blog posts and comments, is very similar to the way such debates in Wikipedia play out (and at least one scientist-wikipedian I know drew the connection, as well) -- accusations of sockpuppetry by Naschie to bolster his own reputation, a sort of walled-garden of self-citations on Naschie's part, accusations of failure to properly oversee the process on the part of Elsevier, and a kind of he-said she-said debate about whether his credentials are proper or not -- not to mention an interesting argument over whether his math is legit or not between various experts in the field ("appeals to authority" don't work when everyone is more or less an authority, though many people seem to be concurring that Naschie's work is nonsense).
Of course, what's interesting and troubling for us is that this is a respected publisher who apparently did all the normal things in setting up an academic journal that is typical of the sort of thing Wikipedia is supposed to use as a "reliable source." But (naturally, I suppose) the academic publishing process is as open to failure as any other publishing or reporting process.* And I can't help but think that in a more open process -- an open access journal, say, or even Wikipedia -- this would not have gone on for so long or played out in the same way.
(At any rate, someone knowledgable might want to check over our own relevant math/physics articles and make sure there's nothing fishy there).
-- phoebe
* Note this is not a rant about [[WP:RS]]; I <3 reliable sources and think we should use more of them whenever possible. But a grain or three of salt is always helpful.