Friday, May 29, 2015

...into the bucket of jellied eels, spread across the Toast Of The Not Knowing

Not Toast Of The Not Knowing

A little more on the lawsuit flop against John Mashey - Stoat has posts (one of them with a brilliant headline), and John M links to his lawyers' brief arguing for dismissal. If you thought the summary of the flaws in the case looked bad, read the full brief. The jaw drops.

Per Stoat, it made Retraction Watch, but just a tiny mention and not a full article that it deserves. I poked around George Mason websites for a combative student newspaper to cover this, but wasn't sure I found much.

UPDATE:  thought I'd respond to the speculation about motivations and timing, that when the effort is this haphazard and flawed, it will be very difficult to figure out what "rational" intent lay behind it.


Russell Seitz said...

Who knowst this Toast ? It is a usage passing slippery .

Russell Seitz said...

Sorry for the doubletake, Brian- it takes an extra week for Oz sequel sequels to propagate to screens this far northeast

JohnMashey said...

Perhaps a brief summary, from a lawyer's viewpoint (not mine) of the more jaw-dropping items?

Anonymous said...

Gee, where are the legions of Willard Tony's bat-monkeys flying to defend their heroes, Wegman and Said, who supposedly overturned decades of climate science? Could their absence mean they're finally running out of steam, and the "hockey stick" wars are over? Could Wegman and Said be too toxic even for the luckwarmers to defend? Are they abandoned in their hour of need, yea, even by St. Judy of Uncertainty?

Taylor B

Hank Roberts said...

Motivation? What motivation could there be for finding
"... lawyers ... to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.”


EliRabett said...

Eli wants copies of what the subpeonys on GMU and Wiley produced.

JohnMashey said...

Sometimes Eli actually can have what he wants.
When my lawyers found out that there had been subpoenas, they asked.
Apparently GMU refused, but Wiley gave them some material, which Johns finally supplied to them around 05/15/15, i.e., 2 weeks after the case was over, as it had not been filed with court.

Eli can see for himself, as Ed Wegman, Yasmin Said, Milt Johns Sue John Mashey For $2 Million attached the 24-page PDF from Wiley. See Appendix §B.4, p.24 of the detailed report for some discussion.

It actually was a subset of emails and letters that I, Ted Kirkpatrick and David Graves had sent, all of which, to my knowledge, are included in the detailed report, since there was nothing to hide. I used the copy of Ted's email I got from Wiley, because Ted happened to be away, and his copies caught up with me later.

If you check the Wiley complaints chronology spreadsheet, the Wiley BATES numbers are given at left, so you can see which items they included and which they did not. Of course, they didn't have ones that went to other people, unless forwarded, but many are missing.

For instance, Wiley included none of the later discussions with Helen Bray from Wiley UK, who told us things like:
"When concerns were first raised about two articles in 2011, we carried out an investigation and found that some of the citations to sources could have been made more clearly. The review articles concerned were revised with a clear accompanying statement to note the revisions."

The subpoena was answered by Wiley Hoboken, which may easily not have caught things from Helen Bray in UK, and possibly the lawyer didn't even know those discussions happened. We also don't know what search limitations were agreed to during phone call between Wiley and Johns.

Anyway, the subpoena results not only did NOT help their case in the slightest, they in fact contradicted it, because the complaints were clearly focused on plagiarism problems in the 2 WIREs:CS papers, Said's false rank and affiliation, and general concerns about the extent and quality of peer review.

See §A,1 for the strange chronology:
03/10/14 Complaint filed
04/15/14 Subpoena to Wiley, perhaps intended to find John Doe(s)? My early involvement was certainly known [MAS2012a].
06/02/14 Wiley responds to subpooena, §B.4 (added)
06/12/14- near-identical Said suit filed 06/11/14, court-dated 12th
06/13/14 GMU subpoena issued
06/14/14 Letter sent to DeSmog, §B.5

You'd think that the subpoena results would have told them there wasn't even the slightest case, but instead, they escalated.

Eli might look at pp.1-4 of the detailed report and then peruse interesting sections, as there are many carrots that could not be stuffed into the blog post.