From: Ivan Oransky [mailto:ivansciam@gmail.com]
Sent: 04 October 2016 13:03
To:
joy.christian@einstein-physics.orgSubject: from Retraction Watch
Thanks for submitting the comment. So that we can approve it, can you provide evidence of where Gill "presented himself as an 'expert'"?
Ivan Oransky, MD
Vice President and Global Editorial Director, MedPage Today
http://medpagetoday.comDistinguished Writer in Residence, New York University's Arthur Carter Journalism Institute
Co-Founder, Retraction Watch
http://retractionwatch.comVice President, Association of Health Care Journalists
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine
http://twitter.com/ivanoransky917-359-2113
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Joy Christian <joy.christian@einstein-physics.org> wrote:
Hi Ivan,
It is right there in your story: “Gill told us he and others contacted the journal to raise concerns about the study.”
You can ask the journalist who wrote the story to find out why he interviewed Gill in the first place when Gill only
contacted the Journal as a non-expert layman. Why did the journal pay any attention to him at all when Gill only
presented himself as a non-expert layman. I think it is extraordinary of Annals of Physics to remove my paper
based on the misgivings of someone who raised concerns about a highly technical study only as a non-expert.
Joy Christian
From:
ivansciam@gmail.com [mailto:ivansciam@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ivan Oransky
Sent: 04 October 2016 13:35
To: Joy Christian
Subject: Re: from Retraction Watch
Thanks Joy. Whether one needs to be qualified as an "expert" to offer critiques is certainly an interesting question (on which we probably disagree), but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking for evidence that Gill presented himself as an expert, which you claim twice in your comment. That's different from whether or not the journal should have taken his critiques into consideration.
Ivan
From: "Joy Christian" <joy.christian@einstein-physics.org>
To: "Ivan Oransky" <ivan-oransky@erols.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 8:51:40 AM
Subject: RE: from Retraction Watch
Ivan,
I know exactly what you are asking for. You know very well that the journal which did not even inform me about the removal of my paper even after two months of repeated requests of clarification from me is hardly going to provide evidence of how Gill presented himself to them. To be sure, he didn’t present himself as a compulsive liar and a third-rate statistician with psychopathic tendencies, which would have been far more accurate. So, no, I cannot provide you “evidence” beyond quoting from your story and knowing how Gill presents himself to others. He is a criminal and you are protecting him, whether you realize it or not.
Joy
From: Ivan Oransky [mailto:ivansciam@gmail.com]
Sent: 04 October 2016 13:56
To:
joy.christian@einstein-physics.orgSubject: from Retraction Watch
Thanks for responding, Joy. Regardless of why evidence may or may not be available, we leave the burden of providing evidence for claims in comments to commenters, so I'll leave it unapproved until you can send that evidence.
Best,
Ivan