[WikiEN-l] OT: Peer review gone awry - "The Case of M. S. El Naschie"

[phoebe ayers]

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-controversy/
* 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.

-- 
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *