<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Chaos Continues in Math Journal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/02/06/chaos-continues-in-math-journal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/02/06/chaos-continues-in-math-journal/</link>
	<description>What&#039;s Hot &#38; What&#039;s Cooking in Scholarly Publishing - from the Society for Scholarly Publishing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:01:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Controversial Math Journal Relauches: New Editors, Focus on Rigorous Review &#171; The Scholarly Kitchen</title>
		<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/02/06/chaos-continues-in-math-journal/#comment-8874</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Controversial Math Journal Relauches: New Editors, Focus on Rigorous Review &#171; The Scholarly Kitchen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:43:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=2846#comment-8874</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] journal then put a stop to submissions , resumed publication, and spent several months publishing a long backlog of accepted manuscripts, [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] journal then put a stop to submissions , resumed publication, and spent several months publishing a long backlog of accepted manuscripts, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chaos Plays Catch-up &#171; The Scholarly Kitchen</title>
		<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/02/06/chaos-continues-in-math-journal/#comment-3076</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chaos Plays Catch-up &#171; The Scholarly Kitchen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 10:56:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=2846#comment-3076</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] with an extensive backlog of articles in-press, reducing the number to 706 (as of May 5), down from 942 reported three months ago when the journal announced a &#8220;temporary submission stop.&#8221;  Since resuming publication, [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] with an extensive backlog of articles in-press, reducing the number to 706 (as of May 5), down from 942 reported three months ago when the journal announced a &#8220;temporary submission stop.&#8221;  Since resuming publication, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zoran Skoda</title>
		<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/02/06/chaos-continues-in-math-journal/#comment-2652</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Zoran Skoda]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2009 20:27:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=2846#comment-2652</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Elsevier has made the worst possible decision by starting to publishing the backlog of papers which were accepted during the provable badly (or no) peer reviewed age of El Naschie and the rest of complying board. Before Elsevier could claim, well this is the editor&#039;s resposibility, we BELIEVED that the peer reviewing practicies were maintained at hi level. Now they DO know of the problem, and they issues January 15 issue of chaossf with papers accepted by El Naschie&#039;s board, without reexamining them for quality. This is MANIFEST ACCEPTANCE by Elsevier of LOW QUALITY STANDARDS. You know that the papers were accepted in a process doubted by majority of public scientific community, you are reviewing the future of the process but you are happy with taking over 900 papers from that old pool to print! It is unbelieable a major company, not to say world-class SCIENTIFIC publisher would ever dare to be so irresponsible!

Moreover, the number of papers accepted by around New Year was about 900, it has grown since by at least around 40 new articles. That means that the old board is still acting and that Elsevier is doing this. Instead Elsevier bans on new submissions what is an unheard practice for a journal in existance! 

One should either cancel the journal or do a Hercules job of make it a quality journal. Though I do not believe the latter were easy. the rest of the board was complient to bad peer reviewing practices. Some of the members of the board confirmed in letters to me that their names were there without their prior consent. Most of others did not respond to my emails if they agreed or not with the current editorial practices as of June 2008. Now who would like to take a role of an editor in the board with such a history. The whole board needs to be replaced at minimum. But I think the chances to regain the value after being so reluctant and defending the undefendable, and prolonging the agony by publishing the badly reviewing papers, is close to zero. I received letters from many members of scientific community and the opinion in general is that chaossf has practically no chance to survive, all the damage the bad past and current practices of the board 
and reluctance of Elsevier to act have done. 

Zoran Skoda]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Elsevier has made the worst possible decision by starting to publishing the backlog of papers which were accepted during the provable badly (or no) peer reviewed age of El Naschie and the rest of complying board. Before Elsevier could claim, well this is the editor&#8217;s resposibility, we BELIEVED that the peer reviewing practicies were maintained at hi level. Now they DO know of the problem, and they issues January 15 issue of chaossf with papers accepted by El Naschie&#8217;s board, without reexamining them for quality. This is MANIFEST ACCEPTANCE by Elsevier of LOW QUALITY STANDARDS. You know that the papers were accepted in a process doubted by majority of public scientific community, you are reviewing the future of the process but you are happy with taking over 900 papers from that old pool to print! It is unbelieable a major company, not to say world-class SCIENTIFIC publisher would ever dare to be so irresponsible!</p>
<p>Moreover, the number of papers accepted by around New Year was about 900, it has grown since by at least around 40 new articles. That means that the old board is still acting and that Elsevier is doing this. Instead Elsevier bans on new submissions what is an unheard practice for a journal in existance! </p>
<p>One should either cancel the journal or do a Hercules job of make it a quality journal. Though I do not believe the latter were easy. the rest of the board was complient to bad peer reviewing practices. Some of the members of the board confirmed in letters to me that their names were there without their prior consent. Most of others did not respond to my emails if they agreed or not with the current editorial practices as of June 2008. Now who would like to take a role of an editor in the board with such a history. The whole board needs to be replaced at minimum. But I think the chances to regain the value after being so reluctant and defending the undefendable, and prolonging the agony by publishing the badly reviewing papers, is close to zero. I received letters from many members of scientific community and the opinion in general is that chaossf has practically no chance to survive, all the damage the bad past and current practices of the board<br />
and reluctance of Elsevier to act have done. </p>
<p>Zoran Skoda</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chicago Boyz &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Junk Science Warning Signs, Part II</title>
		<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/02/06/chaos-continues-in-math-journal/#comment-2508</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chicago Boyz &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Junk Science Warning Signs, Part II]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:27:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=2846#comment-2508</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Phil notes in a follow-up post, El Naschie has been replaced as EIC, probably a case of too little, too [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Phil notes in a follow-up post, El Naschie has been replaced as EIC, probably a case of too little, too [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philip Davis</title>
		<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/02/06/chaos-continues-in-math-journal/#comment-2343</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Philip Davis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:58:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=2846#comment-2343</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Go to the following page on Science Direct
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09600779/
and click on &quot;Articles in Press&quot; located at the top of the left column.  As of today (Feb 10), there are 943 articles in press.

I can&#039;t comment on the legal hearsay.  The journal description page says that the publisher is seeking a new editor.

The note about the &quot;temporary submission stop&quot; has been removed.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Go to the following page on Science Direct<br />
<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09600779/" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09600779/</a><br />
and click on &#8220;Articles in Press&#8221; located at the top of the left column.  As of today (Feb 10), there are 943 articles in press.</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t comment on the legal hearsay.  The journal description page says that the publisher is seeking a new editor.</p>
<p>The note about the &#8220;temporary submission stop&#8221; has been removed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Baez</title>
		<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/02/06/chaos-continues-in-math-journal/#comment-2342</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Baez]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:23:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?p=2846#comment-2342</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;
It’s official — the embattled editor-in-chief of the math journal,  Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, is out. 
&lt;/i&gt;

Where did you get this news?  As of today, the website for the journal still says &quot;the Founding Editor for Chaos, Solitons and Fractals Dr El Naschie will retire as Editor-in-Chief.&quot;  It&#039;s said this since late December, but there have been reports saying that El Naschie does not intend to step down, and is threatening to sue the publisher (Elsevier) to maintain control of his journal.

Where is the list of 942 accepted articles?  How many are by El Naschie, or other people working on &quot;E-infinity theory&quot;?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i><br />
It’s official — the embattled editor-in-chief of the math journal,  Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, is out.<br />
</i></p>
<p>Where did you get this news?  As of today, the website for the journal still says &#8220;the Founding Editor for Chaos, Solitons and Fractals Dr El Naschie will retire as Editor-in-Chief.&#8221;  It&#8217;s said this since late December, but there have been reports saying that El Naschie does not intend to step down, and is threatening to sue the publisher (Elsevier) to maintain control of his journal.</p>
<p>Where is the list of 942 accepted articles?  How many are by El Naschie, or other people working on &#8220;E-infinity theory&#8221;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

