Joy Christian wrote:.
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 wrote:
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.
gill1109 wrote:
IEEE was very relieved at my action...
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:
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.
.
gill1109 wrote:
Yet I suspect IEEE will be retracting Joy's IEEE Access paper for some other reasons pretty soon. It is actually possible, you know!
gill1109 wrote:... 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.
minkwe wrote:gill1109 wrote:... 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?
minkwe wrote:gill1109 wrote:... 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?
gill1109 wrote:
I do not claim intent to deceive.
FrediFizzx wrote:Yeah, the Pearle function isn't even necessary. I think it makes more physical sense to generate the hidden variable from the singlet vector.
Richard D. Gill wrote:
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.
gill1109 wrote:
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.”
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests