{"id":887204,"date":"2026-10-19T01:40:35","date_gmt":"2026-10-19T01:40:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/887204\/"},"modified":"2026-10-19T01:40:35","modified_gmt":"2026-10-19T01:40:35","slug":"authors-respond-with-a-bit-like-a-threat-after-journal-reveals-postdocs-identity-retraction-watch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/887204\/","title":{"rendered":"Authors respond with \u2018a bit like a threat\u2019 after journal reveals postdoc\u2019s identity \u2013 Retraction Watch"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In March, Thomas Harvey sat in on a talk at the American Physical Society\u2019s summit in Denver on a new model of the universe that claimed to eliminate the need for dark matter and dark energy. William George, a fluid dynamicist who spent his career studying turbulence and an emeritus professor at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, gave the presentation.<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cIt was very rambling,\u201d said Harvey, a postdoc working in high energy theory at MIT, \u201cand it was very clearly wrong.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

After the talk, Harvey found George\u2019s paper<\/a> on the topic in Physics of Fluids. He decided to flag the problems he saw on PubPeer<\/a> under a pseudonym, including errors in the math and misapplied principles of general relativity, and then sent a \u201cpolite email\u201d to the editors.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s where it went very wrong,\u201d Harvey said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Harvey\u2019s email about the paper went to Savvas Hatzikiriakos, one of the journal\u2019s two co-editors in chief, expecting it would remain confidential. \u201cI just kind of assumed that surely any sensible journal would operate that way,\u201d he told Retraction Watch. AIP Publishing, which publishes the journal, has guidelines for editors<\/a> that make it their responsibility to \u201cprotect the anonymity of individuals raising concerns.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Instead, the editors shared Harvey\u2019s concerns with the authors \u2014 as well as his name, his institution and that he was a postdoc. In their reply, George and coauthor Thomas Johansson, also retired from Chalmers, acknowledged the paper contained a math error but insisted the conclusions were correct. The authors also suggested Harvey be \u201cencouraged to withdraw\u201d his criticisms, and wrote if the criticisms were published, \u201cwe will surely do our best to make them public and take our chances in the public arena.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

The authors\u2019 response also recounted a \u201csimilarly aggressive young post-doc\u201d who had criticized an earlier paper, resulting in it not being published in Physics of Fluids. They made it a point to present the postdoc\u2019s comments \u201cin every forum for several years,\u201d and the postdoc \u201cnever managed to live down the stupidity and arrogance of his stupid remarks.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

George told Retraction Watch he wrote this example to again make the point that what goes in print stays there. \u201cHarvey was correct in recognizing we had made an error. And that was useful. But he handled it stupidly,\u201d George told us in an email. \u201cIf our theory proves to be correct, he (and many others) will look rather stupid.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Harvey said he isn\u2019t worried, since the authors are retired and work in a different field. But added \u201cit felt a bit like a threat\u201d to his career.\u00a0<\/p>\n

George rejected that interpretation in an email to Retraction Watch. \u201cCertainly not a threat. But an attempt to make him aware that things you say in print last forever,\u201d he wrote. \u201cAnd when you say dumb things and especially say them maliciously (which he did in the original comment), they tend to live for a very long time.\u201d<\/p>\n

Harvey learned his identity had been shared when Hatzikiriakos sent him the authors\u2019 reply. Harvey wrote back to him and his co-editor Gerald Fuller, concerned that his identity had been shared without his consent. \u201cA researcher should be able to flag a mathematical error to a journal without having their identity disclosed and without receiving threats in return,\u201d he wrote. In a call with Retraction Watch, he described the situation as \u201cbasically editorial malpractice.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Hatzikiriakos apologized to Harvey for disclosing his identity, calling it an \u201coversight,\u201d and said Harvey\u2019s original email didn\u2019t indicate his comment was submitted in confidence. Hatzikiriakos suggested he submit a formal comment to the journal, which would be reviewed alongside a response from the authors.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is the only formal process available to address and potentially correct fundamentally flawed published work, thereby preventing the dissemination of incorrect conclusions,\u201d Hatzikiriakos wrote.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cI didn\u2019t really want to do this,\u201d Harvey told Retraction Watch, \u201cbut as they had already leaked my identity, I felt I had little to lose.\u201d<\/p>\n

AIP Publishing said it is aware of concerns about the paper and about how the criticisms were handled, and is reviewing the case. \u201cWe are unable to comment further while the review is underway,\u201d said media relations specialist Hannah Daniel.<\/p>\n

There are \u201cmany things wrong\u201d with the paper itself, according to Harvey. One is an algebraic error in one of the paper\u2019s central equations. \u201cThey\u2019re trying to do cosmology, and they\u2019re left with the universe that is empty,\u201d Harvey said. With their equation, \u201cthere\u2019s nothing in the universe.\u201d He called this error, and others he pointed out, \u201celementary.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

George acknowledged the math error. \u201cObviously we screwed up,\u201d he wrote on PubPeer<\/a>, and promised to issue an erratum, but maintains the rest of the analysis is still valid. In the original response to Harvey\u2019s criticisms, the authors argued that physicists are \u201chopelessly biased against our findings,\u201d calling their critics \u201capostles of the status quo\u201d which is \u201cprecisely WHY our results are published in a fluids journal.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

According to George, arXiv told him and his coauthor they were not qualified to submit a paper on cosmology or astrophysics. (Disclosure: Retraction Watch cofounder Ivan Oransky is chair of arXiv\u2019s board of directors but is not involved in day-to-day management or editorial decisions.) He said he pitched the paper to the Physics of Fluids editor-in-chief instead, and supplied a list of potential referees. Physics of Fluids has been his go-to journal for controversial ideas since his first paper there in 1973, George said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are surely not withdrawing the original paper,\u201d he told Retraction Watch.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Harvey is now waiting on the journal to publish his comment, as well as the authors\u2019 response. Eight referees reviewed his comment, and none of them defended the original paper, according to the documents seen by Retraction Watch. Several recommended the article be retracted, and some stated that the authors\u2019 response did not resolve the issues.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Hatzikiriakos, the journal\u2019s editor, told Harvey that publishing a comment and response would be of greater benefit to the scientific community, per the referees\u2019 suggestions \u2014 though this suggestion did not appear in the referee comments seen by Retraction Watch. Hatzikiriakos did not respond to our requests for comment.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In George and Johansson\u2019s draft formal response, shared with Retraction Watch, they stand by their results, with the \u201csingle exception\u201d of correcting the equation, \u201chowever upsetting they may be to the [General Relativity] and Astronomy communities.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another paper rejected from arXiv is now in edits at Physical Review Fluids, an APS journal, according to George. \u201cIt will probably cause similar outrage, since it too shows Dark Matter is not necessary,\u201d he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

After Retraction Watch wrote to AIP, its research integrity and ethics manager emailed Harvey promising a \u201cthorough review.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cIf I see something that is clearly incorrect, it\u2019s published in a prestigious, apparently well-established journal \u2026 and is out of scope,\u201d Harvey said, \u201cprobably, I have some kind of moral obligation to try and point this out.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

The next time he finds a problem with a paper, he will make it clear he expects anonymity, Harvey told Retraction Watch. \u201cI thought I was doing them a favor,\u201d he said, \u201cbut it didn\u2019t seem to be viewed that way.\u201d<\/p>\n

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a\u00a0tax-deductible contribution to support our work<\/a>, follow us\u00a0on X<\/a> or Bluesky<\/a>, like us\u00a0on Facebook<\/a>, follow us on LinkedIn<\/a>, add us to your\u00a0RSS reader<\/a>, or subscribe to our\u00a0daily digest<\/a>. If you find a retraction that\u2019s\u00a0not in our database<\/a>, you can\u00a0let us know here<\/a>. For comments or feedback, email us at\u00a0[email\u00a0protected]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n\tRelated\n<\/p>\n

\t