Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Postby minkwe » Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:23 am

Heinera wrote:Why should he do a full withdrawal in order to correct a petty point that has no material implications for the contents of the paper? He could even correct the phrase to "published on Github with no references to existing literature". That would certainly be unassailable.

He has 6 days left. If you think your opinion is the final word on scientific publishing ethics, then go have a beer and relax.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Postby Heinera » Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:42 am

minkwe wrote:He has 6 days left. If you think your opinion is the final word on scientific publishing ethics, then go have a beer and relax.

Thanks, but I'll save the beer for next Tuesday when I see what kind of clown act you plan to stage...
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Postby minkwe » Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:50 am

Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote:He has 6 days left. If you think your opinion is the final word on scientific publishing ethics, then go have a beer and relax.

Thanks, but I'll save the beer for next Tuesday when I see what kind of clown act you plan to stage...

What's your problem bruh!? This does not concern you.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Postby minkwe » Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:58 am

Why should he do a full withdrawal in order to correct a petty point that has no material implications for the contents of the paper?


https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00106
Later versions of the programs included an explanation of how they worked, including formulas, though still no reference whatever to the literature on the two loopholes which Fodje exploits, not even to the concept of an experimental (i.e., in principle, avoidable) loophole. The documentation available now does make a lot of the "reverse engineering" in this paper superfluous. I plan to incorporate its results in a new paper with a wider focus.


The author admits that the misstatements are material. I'm not interested in your foolish outbursts.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Postby Heinera » Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:58 pm

minkwe wrote:What's your problem bruh!? This does not concern you.

Well, if you don't want other people chipping in, why do you start a thread on a public forum? I guess you can easily find Richard's email address?
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Postby minkwe » Wed Apr 07, 2021 1:06 pm

Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote:What's your problem bruh!? This does not concern you.

Well, if you don't want other people chipping in, why do you start a thread on a public forum? I guess you can easily find Richard's email address?

You think your behaviour was appropriate to jump in making false claims about the arxiv process, and accusing me of planning a "clown act"? You can say whatever you want but I'm going to be ignoring all future posts from you.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Postby gill1109 » Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:43 pm

The new version is on arXiv, and on Researchers.one (another preprint server). The substance of the paper is unchanged but suggestions that Michel did not document his model are removed. If you want more changes, Michel, let me know, and I’ll see what I can do.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00106

https://researchers.one/articles/20.01.00001

Abstract:

In this note, I analyze the data generated by M. Fodje's (2013, 2014) simulation programs "epr-simple" and "epr-clocked". They were written in Python and published on Github only. Inspection of the code and program descriptions showed that they made use of the detection-loophole and the coincidence-loophole respectively. I evaluate them with appropriate modified Bell-CHSH type inequalities: the Larsson detection-loophole adjusted CHSH, and the Larsson-Gill coincidence-loophole adjusted CHSH (NB: its correctness is conjecture, we do not have proof). The experimental efficiencies turn out to be approximately eta = 81% (close to optimal) and gamma = 55% (far from optimal). The observed values of CHSH are, as they should be, within the appropriately adjusted bounds. Fodjes' detection-loophole model turns out to be very, very close to Pearle's famous 1970 model, so the efficiency is close to optimal. The model has the same defect as Pearle's: the joint detection rates exhibit signalling. The coincidence-loophole model is actually a clever modification of the detection-loophole model. Because of this, however, it cannot lead to optimal efficiency
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Postby minkwe » Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:12 pm

I've already explained the remedy I'm seeking. It is proper and reasonable, and consistent with the COPE guidelines for published works. The versions containing misstatements were published. Those versions must be retracted. If they can't be deleted, comments must be attached to them making it clear to potential readers that they contain misstatements of facts. Simply posting a new "sanitized" version while leaving the errant version published, without any notice to potential readers does nothing to remedy the problem.

I've now explained this multiple times. You know what is required.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Postby gill1109 » Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:31 pm

minkwe wrote:I've already explained the remedy I'm seeking. It is proper and reasonable, and consistent with the COPE guidelines for published works. The versions containing misstatements were published. Those versions must be retracted. If they can't be deleted, comments must be attached to them making it clear to potential readers that they contain misstatements of facts. Simply posting a new "sanitized" version while leaving the errant version published, without any notice to potential readers does nothing to remedy the problem.

I've now explained this multiple times. You know what is required.

I know what you require. But I don’t plan to do anything else, right now. So: good luck with your mission.

I think that you are behaving extremely unreasonably. You’ve had years to raise this question with me. Suddenly you feel personally deeply aggrieved and seek draconian measures within a few days. You raise these issues on a public forum where I might not even have seen them. Luckily, I happened to see your hullabaloo, and I acted immediately. If you can persuade anybody to paste any kind of notice on top of historically archived versions of this obscure paper in which nobody has any interest at all, good luck. I’m not going to bother the folk at arXiv.org or at Researchers.one with your problems. If they reach out to me I will put forward my picture of the sequence of events.

So once again: good luck. I’m sure the experience will be educative. Anytime you would like a Zoom meeting over some beers, let me know. My experience with this sort of conflict is that the first thing authorities do is to try to arrange some sort of reconciliation.

A preprint is not exactly a “published work”. It is put in a public place so that people can react to it. You’ve had quite a few years. It has been peer reviewed, but was not accepted for publication because the editors and reviewers did not find it of any interest. I was not informed of any errors.

Perhaps you should actually take a look at the content. There are lots of useful tips for you, which you could use to improve your simulation models. You could publish a paper about them, too. It’s a pity that your work goes to waste.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Postby gill1109 » Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:57 am

The arXiv is not technically a publisher. It’s a repository. An archive! It does not subscribe to COPE. COPE guidelines are guidelines set up and agreed on and followed by a consortium of serious publishers of serious scientific journals.

Articles posted on arXiv are subjected to moderation. Moderation is not peer review. Moderation mainly consists of checking that a submitted paper has been submitted to the appropriate section of arXiv.

Researchers.one is also a repository. And: anyone can post comments on papers which are posted there. So anybody who wants to say anything about my analysis of Michel’s models can get an account on Researchers.one and say it there. That’s an appropriate place for a public discussion.

Seems to me that Michel could write up his own presentation of his simulation models and post it on arXiv (or viXra or Researchers.one or on a personal blog...). He did very nice work and it deserves to be better known.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Postby gill1109 » Thu Apr 08, 2021 1:07 pm

Improved again, now with the graphs which somehow went missing, but nobody noticed ... https://researchers.one/articles/20.01.00001.
New arXiv version should be up there on Monday. There is also a version on Preprints.org which is being updated too.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Postby minkwe » Thu Apr 08, 2021 1:21 pm

1. Publication is the act of making a document/content available to the public. It is not restricted to publication by peer-reviewed journals. Posting a tweet on Twitter is a publication. Posting any content on the internet is a publication. Posting a news article online is a publication. This is the commonly understood meaning of "publication" in the English language. The author understands this definition since he uses it in the second sentence of the article in question.

2. Once a document is published on the internet that contains errors of fact, there are ethical requirements on how to properly correct the record. Many journals follow the COPE guidelines, others have their own (https://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk/c ... the-record, https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar- ... on-notices). These procedures are not developed in isolation but developed based on common ethical standards. These standards apply whether a publication service subscribes to a specific set of guidelines or not. Please contact the ethics office at your institution if in any doubt.

3. If an errant publication defames someone else, it is not the burden of the subject of the defamation to correct the record. The author of the document and his "publisher" are liable and if acting ethically, must act to correct the record in a timely and ethically acceptable manner that does not compound the problem. Further, the author and publisher must make sure further dissemination of the error is prevented.

4. If an errant article is still available to be shared and accessed online without clear notice that it contains an error, then the record has not been corrected, even if a new version of the article without the error has also been published. One way to correct the record is by adding a correction notice. "The correction notice should provide clear details of the error and the changes that have been made to the Version of Record." (https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis ... -articles/)

5. My requests are reasonable and in line with ethical standards on how to correct the record. I refer to COPE guidelines to show that what I'm requesting is reasonable. All I want is for the author to
  • stop the dissemination of defamatory statements about me,
  • and to correct the record in an ethically acceptable manner.

To stop dissemination, all errant versions must be removed, or in the alternative, a note must be affixed to them indicating the nature of the error they contain. If they are removed, new versions must explain clearly that previous versions contained an error.

I have given ample time to allow this to be done. Seven days starting on April 6th, the day I provided notice of the errors. The author has not indicated that he needs more time. Rather, he has indicated he is unwilling. He has simply removed text from a new version, leaving the errant versions online with no comments providing clear details of the error and the changes that have been made to the record. This is unacceptable.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Apr 08, 2021 7:59 pm

.
Bring him down!
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Postby gill1109 » Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:02 am

minkwe wrote:1. Publication is the act of making a document/content available to the public. It is not restricted to publication by peer-reviewed journals. Posting a tweet on Twitter is a publication. Posting any content on the internet is a publication. Posting a news article online is a publication. This is the commonly understood meaning of "publication" in the English language. The author understands this definition since he uses it in the second sentence of the article in question.

2. Once a document is published on the internet that contains errors of fact, there are ethical requirements on how to properly correct the record. Many journals follow the COPE guidelines, others have their own (https://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk/c ... the-record, https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar- ... on-notices). These procedures are not developed in isolation but developed based on common ethical standards. These standards apply whether a publication service subscribes to a specific set of guidelines or not. Please contact the ethics office at your institution if in any doubt.

3. If an errant publication defames someone else, it is not the burden of the subject of the defamation to correct the record. The author of the document and his "publisher" are liable and if acting ethically, must act to correct the record in a timely and ethically acceptable manner that does not compound the problem. Further, the author and publisher must make sure further dissemination of the error is prevented.

4. If an errant article is still available to be shared and accessed online without clear notice that it contains an error, then the record has not been corrected, even if a new version of the article without the error has also been published. One way to correct the record is by adding a correction notice. "The correction notice should provide clear details of the error and the changes that have been made to the Version of Record." (https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis ... -articles/)

5. My requests are reasonable and in line with ethical standards on how to correct the record. I refer to COPE guidelines to show that what I'm requesting is reasonable. All I want is for the author to
  • stop the dissemination of defamatory statements about me,
  • and to correct the record in an ethically acceptable manner.

To stop dissemination, all errant versions must be removed, or in the alternative, a note must be affixed to them indicating the nature of the error they contain. If they are removed, new versions must explain clearly that previous versions contained an error.

I have given ample time to allow this to be done. Seven days starting on April 6th, the day I provided notice of the errors. The author has not indicated that he needs more time. Rather, he has indicated he is unwilling. He has simply removed text from a new version, leaving the errant versions online with no comments providing clear details of the error and the changes that have been made to the record. This is unacceptable.


Dear Michel,

I consider that your requests are unreasonable. I have explained why. Your first step should have been to approach me directly, assuming good faith on my part, with a personal request. Instead, you started out of the blue uttering threats and issuing deadlines on a public forum, without notifying me personally that this was what you were planning to do.

*If* you now switch to normal civilized behaviour, I could perhaps consider adding a note on the front page of the current version saying, for instance, that all previous versions contain some serious errors and should be ignored. Perhaps we could hold a Zoom meeting to agree on a mutually acceptable formulation? Or each nominate a lawyer to hold such a meeting on our behalves?

If you manage to get arXiv.org (or Researchers.one, or Preprint.org) to remove old versions or paste a "retracted" note on them, I would be surprised. But I would have no problem with that. You can't rewrite history. In fact, you are writing new history by your current actions.

By the way, I do not agree that my original paper was defamatory of you. Moreover, I have kept you in touch with all developments of that research over the 7 or more years since my first RPubs publications of my versions of your model.

Notice, I can withdraw a paper on arXiv, but the existing versions remain available. They can't be changed.
https://arxiv.org/help/withdraw

I made some more changes this morning to the paper. It's already up on Researchers.one.
https://researchers.one/articles/20.01.00001
Should be on arXiv on Monday morning.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00106
Preprint.org is very slow, but I have submitted a new version.
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202001.0045/v1

By the way, my work showed that your models have some very serious blemishes (in common with the Pearle model). I suggest you look for ways to improve them. Though, since we now have had successful "loophole-free" experiments using pulsed emissions and fixed time slots, that is really superfluous. Models which effectively exploit the detection and coincidence loopholes have mainly historical interest.

*****

Emails from me to Michel are presently being blocked by him. I just emailed him the new “title page” of the arXiv version of my paper. So he will have to wait till Monday to see it. More delay in arriving at a mutually agreeable resolution.

He had better unblock me and send me an email if he wants this issue resolved in a civilized fashion.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Postby gill1109 » Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:02 am

Michel's first version of the epr-clocked "README.md" file is dated 27 February 2014 and its contents are:

epr-clocked

Simulation of a clocked EPR experiment violating the CHSH


Later it became clear that Michel understood the word "clocked" very differently from me. I admit that a better word would have been "pulsed".

The "coincidence loophole" was already well known and everyone knew how to take account of it (modified CHSH) or to neutralise it altogether (pulsed lasers and predetermined time-slots as basic experimental unit).

Karl Hess claimed that he and Walter Philipp had discovered it and that Jan-Åke Larsson and I had stolen it from them. But later Karl said that it was discovered by Saverio Pascazio in the 1980's. So he admitted that he and Philipp had unwittingly stolen it themselves.

http://www.ba.infn.it/~pascazio/pub.html
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Postby minkwe » Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:25 am

gill1109 wrote:Michel's first version of the epr-clocked "README.md" file is dated 27 February 2014 and its contents are:

epr-clocked

Simulation of a clocked EPR experiment violating the CHSH



You better check carefully before you make further defamatory claims: https://github.com/michel4j/epr-clocked ... 3b286b01b8
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Postby minkwe » Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:39 am

gill1109 wrote:Your first step should have been to approach me directly, assuming good faith on my part, with a personal request. Instead, you started out of the blue uttering threats and issuing deadlines on a public forum, without notifying me personally that this was what you were planning to do.

In other words, your position is that you will continue the dissemination of a defamatory article against me, and will not take the necessary steps to correct the record because my notice to you was public and not private? This cannot be a reasonable position as your ethics office will advise you.

*If* you now switch to normal civilized behaviour, I could perhaps consider adding a note on the front page of the current version saying, for instance, that all previous versions contain some serious errors and should be ignored. Perhaps we could hold a Zoom meeting to agree on a mutually acceptable formulation? Or each nominate a lawyer to hold such a meeting on our behalves?

I have acted very reasonably. You are of course free to have a different opinion. All that matters is that you are have been made aware of the error in published versions of your paper. You are also aware of how to remedy the problem, and the ethical basis for the requested remedy. In my opinion, your initial attempts were completely inappropriate and did more harm than correcting the record, as evidenced by changing the abstract from "without any documentation at all" to "very little documentation", to "little documentation", to completely removing the phrase without any correction notice added. This is what you have done since receiving notice. It is not enough. We don't need any zoom meeting. If you want you can seek legal representation on your own.

If you manage to get arXiv.org (or Researchers.one, or Preprint.org) to remove old versions or paste a "retracted" note on them, I would be surprised. But I would have no problem with that. You can't rewrite history. In fact, you are writing new history by your current actions.

It is not my problem what your publishers can or can not do. You published the articles with them containing the errors, you must correct the record together with them. If you think it is okay to publish a defamatory article and then later claim "sorry it's on arxiv and I can't take it down anymore", then you have found a loophole that allows anyone to defame anyone else without recourse. This cannot stand. But I have already shown you that arxiv has procedures for resolving problems like these. You've simply decided you will not follow them.

By the way, I do not agree that my original paper was defamatory of you. Moreover, I have kept you in touch with all developments of that research over the 7 or more years since my first RPubs publications of my versions of your model.

There is a record on this forum of our discussions concerning my simulations and the result of those discussions leading to a breakdown in communication and the reasons why. Those discussions were from a few days after the code was published on GitHub in March 2014 and contain an extensive reference to the README files. (See viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23&p=613&hilit=README#p613) for example, and the other comments in that thread.

I objected to the contents of the paper but I was willing to let it stand as differences of opinion until I discovered you had published new versions in 2020 which included defamatory misstatements of fact. I discovered these versions on Tuesday this week. I have not asked you to take down the original version. I have been very specific about the remedy I'm seeking and those requests are reasonable. If the only way for you to fix the issue is to take down all versions, then you will have to decide if your preference is to continue the dissemination of defamatory information about me, over withdrawing an article you have described yourself as "obscure paper in which nobody has any interest at all". Secondly, the most damaging allegations in your paper were introduced in January last year after I had informed you in response to a question by email privately that the documentation was included in the original version of the code and has been there ever since. If you do not remember, please review our email conversation from Dec 31, 2019 to Jan 3, 2020. Note that the problematic versions were published from Jan 1, 2020 to Jan 6, 2020.


Notice, I can withdraw a paper on arXiv, but the existing versions remain available. They can't be changed.
https://arxiv.org/help/withdraw

I made some more changes this morning to the paper. It's already up on Researchers.one.
https://researchers.one/articles/20.01.00001
Should be on arXiv on Monday morning.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00106
Preprint.org is very slow, but I have submitted a new version.
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202001.0045/v1

A withdrawal that includes a notice with clear details of the error and the reason for withdrwal will be satisfactory. This is possible according to the Arxiv process I've previously linked.

By the way, my work showed that your models have some very serious blemishes (in common with the Pearle model). I suggest you look for ways to improve them. Though, since we now have had successful "loophole-free" experiments using pulsed emissions and fixed time slots, that is really superfluous. Models which effectively exploit the detection and coincidence loopholes have mainly historical interest.

This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. You never understood the point of the models as I tried to explain to you multiple times. But you are free to write whatever you want about my models. But you are not allowed to misstate facts and add demonstrably false defamatory statements about me.

Emails from me to Michel are presently being blocked by him. I just emailed him the new “title page” of the arXiv version of my paper. So he will have to wait till Monday to see it. More delay in arriving at a mutually agreeable resolution. He had better unblock me and send me an email if he wants this issue resolved in a civilized fashion.

I am not going to describe here the reasons why I blocked your emails but I can assure everyone it was not because of unreasonableness on my part. If you want me to describe why I blocked you, I can do so. But that is irrelevant at this point. Since blocking your emails, you have since found a way to email me and we have exchanged a few often very pleasant emails since. This included our communication from 2019/2020. I have not blocked any further emails from you since then, although it is possible that previous email addresses are still blocked. I have not received any new emails from you with a corrected title page but if such a revision contains a correction notice that is consistent with "The correction notice should provide clear details of the error and the changes that have been made to the Version of Record. ", then that will be acceptable.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Postby minkwe » Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:28 pm

Richard has now addressed this issue to my satisfaction with an appropriate correction notice. This thread may now be closed.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Retraction Request to Gill concerning arXiv:1507.00106

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:09 am

minkwe wrote:
Richard has now addressed this issue to my satisfaction with an appropriate correction notice. This thread may now be closed.

It is quite clear that Richard D. Gill is afraid of you for some reason. He is not afraid of me like he is of you. His daily petty harassments of me continue unabated even after all these ten years. The online community knows only a fraction of what he has been up to for the past ten years. I had hoped that you would finally bring him down for good. Pity that he has caved in.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 84 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library