IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against me

[Joy Christian]

.
For the record, IEEE has dismissed the plagiarism allegation made by Richard D. Gill against one of my papers on Bell's theorem, published in their journal IEEE Access.

The issue goes back at least to 2013. I have reported on the issue before on this forum, about Gill's attempts to take false credits. See viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111&p=4672#p4666

Unfortunately, Gill continues to make similar allegations at other venues, online and offline. I do not want to continue washing dirty laundry publicly, but if Gill continues to make false claims, then I will be forced to take further action. But not at this forum. Fred won't allow it here in any case. I will take action at an appropriate venue at the time of my choosing.
.

[gill1109]

.
For the record, IEEE has dismissed the plagiarism allegation made by Richard D. Gill against one of my papers on Bell's theorem, published in their journal IEEE Access.

The issue goes back at least to 2013. I have reported on the issue before on this forum, about Gill's attempts to take false credits. See viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111&p=4672#p4666

Unfortunately, Gill continues to make similar allegations at other venues, online and offline. I do not want to continue washing dirty laundry publicly, but if Gill continues to make false claims, then I will be forced to take further action. But not at this forum. Fred won't allow it here in any case. I will take action at an appropriate venue at the time of my choosing.
.

I told them a week ago that I would like to withdraw the accusation. It’s good to hear that they have passed the message on to Joy, and that they did this so rapidly.

The accusation has *not* been dismissed. The investigation has been dropped at the request of the accuser.

That doesn’t mean that I think the accusation was invalid! Quite the contrary. All it means is that I didn’t care any more whether or not they continued their investigation.

Actually, the person who takes false credits is Joy Christian, and that has been proven conclusively.

I think that IEEE finds the whole matter extremely embarrassing. They are much more concerned with their reputation than with any childish squabble between a couple of scientists who are not even real engineers. They are happy with following the rules of publishing the paper, then the comment, then the reaction to the comment; now we can forget about the whole thing. I’m able to present my point of view in their journal. Their membership, and readers in general, can do with it all just what they like. Including: ignore it.

A glance at Google scholar tells you enough. These works of Joy are having close to zero impact. The case was really closed already, 15 years ago.

[Joy Christian]

I told them a week ago that I would like to withdraw the accusation. It’s good to hear that they have passed the message on to Joy, and that they did this so rapidly.

The accusation has *not* been dismissed. The investigation has been dropped at the request of the accuser.

That doesn’t mean that I think the accusation was invalid! Quite the contrary. All it means is that I didn’t care any more whether or not they continued their investigation.

The above assertions made by Richard D. Gill are not correct. What he claims above is not what I have been informed by IEEE.

According to the message I received from IEEE, the plagiarism claim by Gill was taken very seriously and investigated by the editors as well as their experts on Intellectual Property Rights.

See here: https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html

Following the investigation by the above experts, the plagiarism allegation by Gill was "dismissed" (their word). They wrote to me that "This case does not warrant further investigation."

That is the official message I have received from IEEE.
.

[gill1109]

They were right that the case did not warrant further investigation. I agree, a complete waste of everyone’s time!

Christian writes clearly that he uses my code. He misrepresents what it does, but that’s because he does not understand what it does. That’s obvious to anyone who looks at it. I’m perfectly happy with the situation now. IEEE was very relieved at my action, too. Everyone happy and relieved.

[Joy Christian]

IEEE was very relieved at my action...

Gill's plagiarism claim was dismissed because it did not have merit and did not warrant further investigation. All else is a patent and pathetic falsehood.
.

[FrediFizzx]

IEEE was very relieved at my action...

Gill's plagiarism claim was dismissed because it did not have merit and did not warrant further investigation. All else is a patent and pathetic falsehood.
.

Yeah, his claim was pretty silly besides no merit if you ask me.
.

[gill1109]

Yet I suspect IEEE will be retracting Joy's IEEE Access paper for some other reasons pretty soon. It is actually possible, you know!

[Joy Christian]

Yet I suspect IEEE will be retracting Joy's IEEE Access paper for some other reasons pretty soon. It is actually possible, you know!

Yes, it is certainly possible for any paper by anyone. On the other hand, it is impossible for Gill's "paper" in Entropy because it is an inside job, a result of Trump-style academic nepotism.

Gill is one of the editors of Entropy, and his friend, Andrei Khrennikov (who is not an editor of Entropy but edited the volume in which Gill's "paper" is published as a guest editor) pushed Gill's paper through despite numerous conceptual and mathematical flaws in it. Andrei Khrennikov fought tooth-and-nail to save Gill's paper when I complained about it to the Chief Editor.
.

[minkwe]

... he uses my code. He misrepresents what it does, but that’s because he does not understand what it does. That’s obvious to anyone who looks at it.

I've seen this before somewhere?

[FrediFizzx]

... he uses my code. He misrepresents what it does, but that’s because he does not understand what it does. That’s obvious to anyone who looks at it.

I've seen this before somewhere?

Sure, it's about something from 7 years ago. Joy gives him credit for it and he still bitches about it. Go figure.
.

[gill1109]

... he uses my code. He misrepresents what it does, but that’s because he does not understand what it does. That’s obvious to anyone who looks at it.

I've seen this before somewhere?

Yes, you’ve seen it before, Michel. That doesn’t make it untrue!

What’s happened in the last 7 years is that IEEE and RSOS have now published papers with references and with links to the code on RPubs. And the comments in the code have been rewritten. This is a bit like covering up a crime by returning to the crime scene to remove evidence. Except that it was not a crime but an accident. I do not claim intent to deceive. Think of it as a well-intended action to make what was believed to be an underlying truth more plainly visible.

Unfortunately, when you update an RPubs page, the original is not preserved. This is very unfortunate in cases of disputed priority or attribution. It becomes much harder to establish the true timeline.

[Joy Christian]

I do not claim intent to deceive.

I, on the other hand, explicitly claim that Richard David Gill is lying with intent to deceive. Gill is now actively engaged in deceiving the physics community right here, online, once again, as he has been doing for the past nine years regarding my work on Bell's theorem. I have recorded here plenty of times the underhand tactics used by Gill and his friends to undermine my work on Bell's theorem: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183&p=5995#p5995

For the record, I have not touched my RPubs simulations in over seven years, and it says so on the pages that Gill claims I have "rewritten." Proof: https://rpubs.com/jjc/13965

The bottom line is this: Gill stole Michel Fodje's "EPR-simple" simulation (published in 2013), translated it into R, and called it "Pearle's detection loophole model." This is all on record, for everyone to see: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111&p=4672#p4666

Then, Gill had the audacity to allege that I had plagiarized his code and complained about it to IEEE many months ago. And now that his bogus allegation is thrown out by IEEE after a thorough investigation, and once again he has failed to have one of my papers retracted, he is now engaged in backpaddling and pretending that he withdrew his allegation. Pathetic!
.

[FrediFizzx]

Yeah, the Pearle function isn't even necessary. I think it makes more physical sense to generate the hidden variable from the singlet vector.
.

[gill1109]

Yeah, the Pearle function isn't even necessary. I think it makes more physical sense to generate the hidden variable from the singlet vector.

Exactly! Now we’re cool.

[FrediFizzx]

Of course it is pretty easy to incorporate the singlet vector into the Pearle function.



Not sure if that means anything special though beyond eliminating an extra variable. Probably not.
.

[FrediFizzx]

You can see from the histogram that most of the action is from 0 to 0.5. That is why 0 to 1/2 works as well.
.

[Joy Christian]

.
I would like to record here an example of how effortlessly and knowingly Richard D. Gill makes false claims and false statements.

In one of his papers in the journal Entropy, of which he (at least for now) is one of the editors, he makes the following claim regarding my paper published in Royal Society Open Science:

I wrote complaining that my computer code had been stolen. A committee is evaluating the paper and an “expression of concern” has been posted. I have the impression that the journal is
just waiting for the problem to go away.

But the first two statements above by Gill contain outright, demonstrable, and provable falsehoods.

To begin with, he never wrote to RSOS complaining that his "computer code had been stolen", at least not up to the time of publication of his Entropy paper. The editors of RSOS have been kind and gentlemanly enough to share with me every complaint they have received regarding my paper. There has been no mention of a stolen computer code in the complaints.

Secondly, the official "expression of concern" published by RSOS, as well as its follow-up, says absolutely nothing about any stolen computer code. Because there was no such complaint, and, to begin with, I never stole or plagiarized anyone's computer code.

Finally, the only computer simulations that are included or cited in my RSOS paper are based on GAViewer. They were first written down by Alber Jan Wonnink and later improved by Fred Diether. As far as I know, Gill has never written a single computer program based on GAViewer in his life. Therefore, he does not have an iota of more claim on the codes published or cited in my RSOS paper than I have a claim on Buckingham Palace.

What is astonishing is that Gill knows very well that he has no claim over any GAViewer code and still publishes an allegation in a journal that I stole his computer code in my RSOS paper. He engages in such falsehoods about me as a part of his systematic nine-year-long campaign of character assassination.
.

[gill1109]

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9380450
Now onward, with the Joy's other IEEE Access paper, and his RSOS paper. Some squabbling about my Entropy paper soon to be concluded, too. Meantime my paper on Gull's proof of Bell's theorem is nearing completion.

[gill1109]

For the record: “The case was investigated and discussed at length with the EIC, IEEE Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Office and myself. Ultimately, the dates, information, and data do not provide sufficient evidence for IEEE to pursue this matter further. Since you have already submitted a comment article to address your technical concerns about the IEEE Access article, we consider this matter to be closed.”

[Joy Christian]

For the record: “The case was investigated and discussed at length with the EIC, IEEE Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Office and myself. Ultimately, the dates, information, and data do not provide sufficient evidence for IEEE to pursue this matter further. Since you have already submitted a comment article to address your technical concerns about the IEEE Access article, we consider this matter to be closed.”

The false allegations of plagiarism against me by Gill were DISMISSED by IEEE because of lack of merit. The case, therefore, did not warrant further investigation and closed by IEEE.

On the other hand, the case that Gill stole Michel Fodje's simulation code, translated it into R, called it "Pearle's detection loophole model", and published it, is very much OPEN.
.