Richard Gill has been forced to apologize to me by Entropy

[Joy Christian]

.
The statistician Richard D. Gill of Leiden University has been forced to publicly apologize to me by the journal Entropy. It is a rather small victory for me, considering the ten years of harassment I have endured. But still, it is something. The apology is published as a correction to one of Gill's papers in Entropy (linked below). His paper contains a huge number of incorrect claims about me and my work, but, apparently, there is no law in academia against making such false claims: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/5/631

His apology reads as follows:



The following was my complaint to Entropy. I have censored the last sentence of it because it makes some personal comments about Gill's character that are not suitable for this forum:

Dear Professor Knuth,

I am writing about one of the papers recently published in your journal Entropy by the author Richard D. Gill. Namely, this paper: https://doi.org/10.3390/e22010061.

The paper is a critique of my work of the past thirteen years, but does not cite the following three papers of mine that have already addressed the issues raised by Gill:

(1) Refutation of Richard Gill's Argument Against my Disproof of Bell's Theorem: https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529

(2) Macroscopic Observability of Fermionic Sign Changes: A Reply to Gill: https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393

(3) https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem

Apart from this, Gill’s paper is of extremely poor quality and contains numerous mathematical and conceptual mistakes.

More seriously, it contains several ad hominem attacks on me as well as on the editorial boards of the journals Royal Society Open Science and IEEE Access in which two of my papers are recently published. Gill’s paper reads like a tabloid newspaper rather than a serious scholarly article. It is extraordinary that your journal has published such a poor-quality paper.

Much more seriously, Gill’s paper contains defamatory and libelous claims. He claims that I stole his computer code and he wrote to Royal Society Open Science about it. Neither of these claims is true.

Many other personal attacks on me in his paper are also not true. In fact, they are demonstrably false.

In any case, unless Gill’s paper is retracted from Entropy, I will be forced to launch legal action against the journal, based on defamation by publishing libelous smear.

You may not be aware of the fact that Richard D. Gill ... (personal comments censored by me for this forum).

Sincerely,

Joy Christian

[local]

The statistician Richard D. Gill of Leiden University has been forced to publicly apologize

Justice at last!

[Justo]

I sympathize with Joy Christian and congratulate him although I do not agree with some of his scientific views.
What is the point of personally attacking someone because he is wrong or we think he is wrong? That's a deplorable attitude and is even worse when it happens among scientists.

[Joy Christian]

The statistician Richard D. Gill of Leiden University has been forced to publicly apologize

Justice at last!

The irony is, Richard D. Gill is one of the editors of the journal Entropy. But that does not put him above academic decency, just as Presidency does not put a POTUS above the law!
.

[Joy Christian]

The statistician Richard D. Gill of Leiden University has been forced to publicly apologize

Justice at last!

The irony is, Richard D. Gill is one of the editors of the journal Entropy. But that does not put him above academic decency, just as Presidency does not put a POTUS above the law!

In addition to the above, let me point out here how extraordinarily poor the journal Entropy is. The first mistake the journal made was to publish Gill's extremely poor quality paper that was rejected even by the arXiv moderators. Apart from personal attacks on me, his paper contains numerous elementary mathematical mistakes. After I complained to the journal, they had Gill's paper reviewed again by a committee of new reviewers. But none of the reviewers were able to spot Gill's mathematical mistakes. I was sent one of the reviews, and that reviewer repeatedly stated that he/she was not able to find any mistakes in Gill's paper. But, after I pointed out to Gill one of his very silly mistakes, he attempted to correct that mistake in the correction note I have linked above, only to make the matter worse. To prove that I am not making just empty claims, let me point out Gill's mistakes in his correction note, which the journal's reviewers also failed to spot:



I have reproduced the above paragraph directly from Gill's correction note: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/5/631. His first mistake was to claim that bivectors square to +1. Anyone who is familiar with an undergraduate course in Geometrical Algebra would never make such a mistake. But after I pointed out that mistake to him, in his correction note he admits that bivectors square to -1. But he then claims that the trivector M, which he explicitly defines as M = e1e2e3, squares to +1. Again, no undergraduate student of Geometric Algebra would make such an elementary mistake, especially after reproducing the correct definition of M = e1e2e3 from a textbook. Anyone, apart from Gill and the reviewers of his correction note in Entropy, can verify that M = e1e2e3 squares to -1, not +1.

So what is going on here? What is going on is that neither Gill nor the reviewers of his paper in Entropy have any knowledge or understanding of even the most basic concepts in Geometric Algebra. I know what argument Gill has been trying to make in the above paragraph. But he lacks the basic training in Geometric Algebra or Clifford algebra to be able to make a coherent or meaningful argument. Consequently, he resorts to all sorts of personal attacks on me to distract the readers. There are also other mistakes in Gill's paragraph, but I won't go into those.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Is that the paper I told Gill that he should trash it? It is so bad and full of nonsense I could barely stand to read it.
.

[Joy Christian]

Is that the paper I told Gill that he should trash it? It is so bad and full of nonsense I could barely stand to read it.

No, that is another one. As you say, that one is equally trashy.
.

[gill1109]

I was delighted to apologise to Joy, and to remove various words, phrases and paragraphs which were not very polite. At the same time I was able to make a necessary mathematical correction. The paper is much improved and much more effective. There is no place for ad hominems in civilized scientific publishing.

[Joy Christian]

I was delighted to apologise to Joy, and to remove various words, phrases and paragraphs which were not very polite. At the same time I was able to make a necessary mathematical correction. The paper is much improved and much more effective. There is no place for ad hominems in civilized scientific publishing.

I am not buying your hypocrisy, and increasingly other people are also able to see through it.

Your paper is junk paper, as are all your other papers about my work. It contains many mistakes and falsehoods. It claims to survey my work of fourteen years, but it does no such thing.
.

[gill1109]

I was delighted to apologise to Joy, and to remove various words, phrases and paragraphs which were not very polite. At the same time I was able to make a necessary mathematical correction. The paper is much improved and much more effective. There is no place for ad hominems in civilized scientific publishing.

I am not buying your hypocrisy, and increasingly other people are also able to see through it.
Your paper is junk paper, as are all your other papers about my work. It contains many mistakes and falsehoods. It claims to survey my work of fourteen years, but it does no such thing.

It seems I’m the only one writing papers about (or inspired by) your work, Joy. I have three in the pipeline.

Do keep on researching and writing!

[Joy Christian]

I was delighted to apologise to Joy, and to remove various words, phrases and paragraphs which were not very polite. At the same time I was able to make a necessary mathematical correction. The paper is much improved and much more effective. There is no place for ad hominems in civilized scientific publishing.

I am not buying your hypocrisy, and increasingly other people are also able to see through it.
Your paper is junk paper, as are all your other papers about my work. It contains many mistakes and falsehoods. It claims to survey my work of fourteen years, but it does no such thing.

It seems I’m the only one writing papers about (or inspired by) your work, Joy. I have three in the pipeline.

You are not "inspired" by my work. You are threatened by it. It makes your life meaningless. It proves that you have wasted decades of your life chasing a wild goose of Bell's theorem.
.

[Joy Christian]

.

.

[gill1109]

I was delighted to apologise to Joy, and to remove various words, phrases and paragraphs which were not very polite. At the same time I was able to make a necessary mathematical correction. The paper is much improved and much more effective. There is no place for ad hominems in civilized scientific publishing.

I am not buying your hypocrisy, and increasingly other people are also able to see through it.
Your paper is junk paper, as are all your other papers about my work. It contains many mistakes and falsehoods. It claims to survey my work of fourteen years, but it does no such thing.

It seems I’m the only one writing papers about (or inspired by) your work, Joy. I have three in the pipeline.

You are not "inspired" by my work. You are threatened by it. It makes your life meaningless. It proves that you have wasted decades of your life chasing a wild goose of Bell's theorem.
.

I am not threatened in the least. Bell's theorem is really just a hobby. I presently work on forensic statistics, scientific integrity, survival analysis and a number of other topics. I'm retired and have many other hobbies.

[Joy Christian]

You are not "inspired" by my work. You are threatened by it. It makes your life meaningless. It proves that you have wasted decades of your life chasing a wild goose of Bell's theorem.

I am not threatened in the least. Bell's theorem is really just a hobby. I presently work on forensic statistics, scientific integrity, survival analysis and a number of other topics. I'm retired and have many other hobbies.

Harassing those who disagree with your views --- with personal attacks --- is your primary hobby. I am not the only one who knows this. Let us not forget the words of Prof. Karl Hess:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=49&p=2545&hilit=third+rate#p2545
.

[Joy Christian]

.
The journal Entropy, where Richard D. Gill's critique of my work and his apology to me is published, is published by the MDPI publishers. There is much discussion online claiming that all journals published by MDPI are predatory journals. Now Oxford Academics have officially joined the debate. Last week, a paper was published about the legitimacy of MDPI in the Oxford Journal Research Evaluation, which concluded that all MDPI journals are predatory journals: https://academic.oup.com/rev/advance-ar ... 20/6348133.
.

[gill1109]

.
The journal Entropy, where Richard D. Gill's critique of my work and his apology to me is published, is published by the MDPI publishers. There is much discussion online claiming that all journals published by MDPI are predatory journals. Now Oxford Academics have officially joined the debate. Last week, a paper was published about the legitimacy of MDPI in the Oxford Journal Research Evaluation, which concluded that all MDPI journals are predatory journals: https://academic.oup.com/rev/advance-ar ... 20/6348133.
.

Like Joy Christian, I am also publishing in IEEE Access and in Royal Society Open Science. It is interesting to see how these journals are imitating the publication practices of publishing houses like MDPI. Extremely fast refereeing. Publishing of referee reports, so that the editorial board does not have to make difficult scientific evaluations.

[gill1109]

Well, some of the MDPI journals are more predatory than others. There are some good names on the editorial board of "Entropy" and there have been quite a few decent papers published there. Of course, I am a member of the editorial board and I have submitted to Entropy three times, two papers were published and one was (I think justly) rejected. They got pretty thorough reviews, and that resulted in a better final version of the published papers. The journal also handled Joy Christian's complaint very painstakingly and that too led to further improvement. The two published papers were not breathtakingly significant but they weren't bad either, in my own opinion. One of them has been cited three times already and not by myself or by people I know. [One of the three citing papers is already published, the other two are arXiv preprints which look rather serious and should end up published too]. Anyway: I recommend Joy and Fred submit their latest work to Entropy. Review is quite swift. Impact Factor is presently 2.49. If I'm asked to review their paper I'll recuse myself

[gill1109]

.
The journal Entropy, where Richard D. Gill's critique of my work and his apology to me is published, is published by the MDPI publishers. There is much discussion online claiming that all journals published by MDPI are predatory journals. Now Oxford Academics have officially joined the debate. Last week, a paper was published about the legitimacy of MDPI in the Oxford Journal Research Evaluation, which concluded that all MDPI journals are predatory journals: https://academic.oup.com/rev/advance-ar ... 20/6348133.
.

Here is another paper published in an MDPI journal:
On the Role of Einstein–Cartan Gravity in Fundamental Particle Physics
by Carl F. Diether III and Joy Christian
Universe 2020, 6(8), 112; https://doi.org/10.3390/universe6080112
Received: 7 July 2020 / Revised: 2 August 2020 / Accepted: 3 August 2020 / Published: 5 August 2020

This article belongs to the Special Issue Torsion-Gravity and Spinors in Fundamental Theoretical Physics. The special issue contains just five papers. Three are by Italians from Genua one of whom is the editor of the special issue.

[Joy Christian]

.
The journal Entropy, where Richard D. Gill's critique of my work and his apology to me is published, is published by the MDPI publishers. There is much discussion online claiming that all journals published by MDPI are predatory journals. Now Oxford Academics have officially joined the debate. Last week, a paper was published about the legitimacy of MDPI in the Oxford Journal Research Evaluation, which concluded that all MDPI journals are predatory journals: https://academic.oup.com/rev/advance-ar ... 20/6348133.
.

Here is another paper published in an MDPI journal:
On the Role of Einstein–Cartan Gravity in Fundamental Particle Physics
by Carl F. Diether III and Joy Christian
Universe 2020, 6(8), 112; https://doi.org/10.3390/universe6080112
Received: 7 July 2020 / Revised: 2 August 2020 / Accepted: 3 August 2020 / Published: 5 August 2020

This article belongs to the Special Issue Torsion-Gravity and Spinors in Fundamental Theoretical Physics. The special issue contains just five papers. Three are by Italians from Genua one of whom is the editor of the special issue.

We had to pay 1,800 Swiss francs for this. MDPI journals are predatory journals. By contrast, I did not have to pay a penny to IJTP, RSOS, and IEEE Access for my five papers in them.
.

[gill1109]

.
The journal Entropy, where Richard D. Gill's critique of my work and his apology to me is published, is published by the MDPI publishers. There is much discussion online claiming that all journals published by MDPI are predatory journals. Now Oxford Academics have officially joined the debate. Last week, a paper was published about the legitimacy of MDPI in the Oxford Journal Research Evaluation, which concluded that all MDPI journals are predatory journals: https://academic.oup.com/rev/advance-ar ... 20/6348133.
.

Here is another paper published in an MDPI journal:
On the Role of Einstein–Cartan Gravity in Fundamental Particle Physics
by Carl F. Diether III and Joy Christian
Universe 2020, 6(8), 112; https://doi.org/10.3390/universe6080112
Received: 7 July 2020 / Revised: 2 August 2020 / Accepted: 3 August 2020 / Published: 5 August 2020

This article belongs to the Special Issue Torsion-Gravity and Spinors in Fundamental Theoretical Physics. The special issue contains just five papers. Three are by Italians from Genua one of whom is the editor of the special issue.

We had to pay 1,800 Swiss francs for this. MDPI journals are predatory journals. By contrast, I did not have to pay a penny to IJTP, RSOS, and IEEE Access for my five papers in them.
.

That's appalling, Joy. I'm glad you didn't have to pay those other journals. I suppose the editor (in the case of RSOS and IEEE) was so keen to publish your work that the fee could be waived. I did pay a strongly reduced fee for the publication of my two papers published by Entropy because of my refereeing and reviewing (co-editor) work for the journal. MDPI journals tend to have huge editorial boards because the idea is that journals will initially be filled by papers by those same editors.

I brought that Oxford paper to the attention of the editor-in-chief of Entropy. The editorial board will discuss it. We agree that we have to do more work to stop the MDPI organisation from corrupting the journal by too fast and too superficial reviewing and too many special issues filled by papers by friends of the guest editor after minimal review.

We had to pay 1,800 Swiss francs for this. MDPI journals are predatory journals. By contrast, I did not have to pay a penny to IJTP, RSOS, and IEEE Access for my five papers in them.

Yeah, but our paper there is in the right special issue of Universe on torsion gravity. It was worth it. And Luca Fabbri, the guest editor, is no slouch about torsion gravity. 1264 full text views plus between the arXiv version and the published version I think we have 8 citations.
.

I'm glad to hear that, Fred.

"Oxford Academic Journals" is a company, part of Oxford University Press, hence part of Oxford University; and it publishes a huge number of journals. Let's hope they hold to high publishing standards. But remember, they are a commercial company as well as formally part of Oxford University. They benefit from the allure of the name.