original ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 07:53:29 +0100
From: Friedrich Busse busse@uni-bayreuth.de
To: brosa@Mailer.Uni-Marburg.DE
Subject: JFM

Dear Dr. Brosa,

Attached is a third short referee's report on your paper "Hydrodynamic Vector Potentials" with S. Grossmann. The referee has remarked in his letter to me that he finds the paper so badly written, that he can not believe that Professor Grossmann, whom he apparently knows, has read it. He says that there may be "a grain of new result hidden in the pile of alphanumerical garbage", but he is unable to see it. I am mentioning this to indicate how frustrated the referee must have been.

Sincerely yours, F. Busse

----------------

Referee's Report

This manuscript by Brosa "and Grossmann" (??) is written so poorly that I must recommend its unconditional rejection. It is unbelievable to see such an unspeakable text being submitted to a prestigious journal.

original ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:35:13 +0100 (CET)
From: "Brosa Ulrich Priv.-Doz. Dr."
To: grossmann@physik.uni-marburg.de
cc: busse@uni-bayreuth.de

Lieber Herr Grossmann,

das Problem zeigt sich immer deutlicher. Weiter unten finden Sie eine E-Post von Prof.Busse. Sowohl der "Report" als auch Busse Bemerkungen verletzen das Gebot der Sachlichkeit. Busse hat nicht einmal wahrgenommen, dass abwertende Urteile begruendet werden muessen. Er selbst hat sich keine Meinung gebildet, sondern er verkraucht sich hinter einem anonymen Gutachter.

Ihr ub

Angehängt wurde der erste E-Brief

translation tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

Dear Professor Grossmann,

More and more the problem shows itself. Please find below an e-mail by Prof.Busse. Both "Report" and Busse's remarks violate the precept of objectivity. Busse didn't even perceive that negative assertions must be substantiated. He didn't build an own judgment, but conceals himself behind an anonymous referee.

Yours sincerely, ub

The first e-mail was appended

original ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:19:36 +0100 (CET)
From: "Brosa Ulrich Priv.-Doz. Dr."
To: busse@uni-bayreuth.de
cc: grossmann@physik.uni-marburg.de

Herr Dr.Busse,

in Ihrem E-Brief, dessen Kopie anhängt, beschuldigen Sie mich des Betruges. Ich hätte Prof.S.Grossmann als Mitautor genannt um die Veröffentlichung einer Arbeit zu erschleichen. Damit haben Sie sich an einer Beleidigung und einer üblen Nachrede beteiligt (Paragraphen 185 und 186 des Strafgesetzbuches). Dass Sie sich dabei hinter einer anonymen Person verschanzen, macht die Sache nicht besser.

Sie hätten erkennen müssen, dass "Referee's Report" die Regeln der Wissenschaft, des Rechts und des Anstands nicht erfüllt. Die abwertenden Urteile wurden überhaupt nicht begründet. Auch ist "Referee's Report" vollkommen unspezifisch. Er könnte sich beispielsweise auch auf Ihre eigenen Arbeiten beziehen.

Sie hätten diesen Report gar nicht bekannt machen dürfen, sondern dem Autor erklären müssen, dass ein Gutachten nicht aus Beleidigungen bestehen darf. Stattdessen steigern Sie in Ihrem Anschreiben die Unsachlichkeit: "pile of alphanumerical garbage".

Vermutlich haben Sie sich keinerlei Gedanken gemacht, wer Ihre Besoldung letzten Endes bezahlt. Das tun solche Leute wie ich. Ihre wichtigste dienstliche Verpflichtung ist es, die Methoden der Wissenschaft in Forschung und Lehre zu vertreten. Da Sie erwiesenermaßen nicht einmal zwischen wissenschaftlicher Kritik und ehrabschneiderischen Unflätigkeiten unterscheiden können, liegt berechtigtes Interesse und ein Beweis vor um Ihre Qualifikation in Frage zu stellen.

Wenn Sie nicht innerhalb von 7 Tagen um Entschuldigung bitten, werde ich mit den Mitteln des Rechtsstaats gegen Sie vorgehen. Der Fall besitzt öffentliches Interesse. Unter ähnlichen Verfehlungen hatten in den letzten Jahren viele Wissenschaftler zu leiden. Dass dabei auch Vorschriften des StGB missachtet wurden, dürfte aber neu sein.

Brosa 14.2.2000

Angehängt wurde der erste E-Brief

translation ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

Dr.Busse:

In the e-mail, that is appended, you accuse me of fraud: I had nominated Prof.S.Grossmann as an coauthor to underhandedly obtain the publication of a paper. Thus you participated in insult and libel (paragraphs 185 and 186 of the German Penal Code). Your hiding behind an anonymous person does not excuse your behavior.

It was up to you to see that "Referee's Report" violates the rules of science, law and decency. No reasons were given for the degrading assertions. All the more "Referee's Report" is completely unspecific. For example, it might apply to your papers as well.

It was your duty not to diffuse this report. Rather you should have explained to its author that reports must not consist of insults. Instead you increase the impertinence: "pile of alphanumerical garbage".

Probably you never thought who pays your salary. This is done by people like me. It is your main obligation to promote science and teaching. Since you are, as has been shown, not able to differentiate between scientific critique and slanderous filth, there is legitimate interest and a proof to question your qualification.

If you won't apologize within 7 days, I will apply all available legal remedies against you. The case is relevant for the public. Within the last years, many scientist had to suffer from similar offenses. It might be novel, however, that commandments of the penal codes were disregarded.

Brosa Feb.14, 2000

The first e-mail was appended

original ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:41:29 +0100 (MET)
From: Siegfried Grossmann
To: Ulrich Brosa
cc: Fritz Busse

Matthäus 5, Vers 9

und

selbstverständlich bin ich Koautor von "Hydrodynamic Vector Potentials", wissend um und mitverantwortend bei jedem Wort

Siegfried Großmann

translation ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

Matt. 5:9

and

I am of course coauthor of "Hydrodynamic Vector Potentials" knowing and co-responsible for every single word

Siegfried Grossmann

original ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

From: Friedrich Busse
To: brosa@Mailer.Uni-Marburg.DE (Brosa Ulrich Priv.-Doz. Dr.)
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:22:11 +0100 (CET)

Dear Dr. Brosa,

You are misunderstanding entirely my role as editor. I have not even found time to read the paper and thus have not formed an opinion about it. I am just acting as the "mailman" delivering to you the opinions of some experts of the field. These opinions are often not very objective. But if a well known expert of the field expresses his frustration with the paper then the authors should perhaps feel encouraged to write a clearer and more accessible paper. I have no reason to assume that the referee's intentions were malicious.

Sincerely yours,

F. Busse

comment ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

After many fruitless arguments with the chiefs of Journal of Fluid Mechanics the paper was sent to the European Physics Journal and was accepted, see below. Anyway, procedures like those just described exhibit the submediocrity of the scientific community. Most of its "work" is as irrelevant as its intriques disgusting. One must look for alternatives. Ulrich Brosa

original ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:09:27 +0100
From: TBOHR@nbivms.nbi.dk
To: grossmann@Physik.Uni-Marburg.DE
Cc: TBOHR@nbivms.nbi.dk
Subject: Acceptance of paper B01424

Dear Siegfried,
I did finally get a response from the referee.
I have also read the paper myself with great interest and
I am very happy to accept it for publication in EPJB, and again,
I excuse the long delay!
I enclose the referee report.
Best wishes & Merry Christmas

Tomas

------------------------------------------------

Referee report for MS B01424
'Hydrodynamic Vector Potential'
by Ulrich Brocha and Siegfried Grossmann.

This paper describes the way of solving the Navier-Stokes equations by means of hydrodynamic vector potentials. The latter is the generalization of the conventional 2D stream function to 3D flows. The authors give a general introduction to the vector potential approach and pay special attention to the mathematical background, viz. the completness of the eigenmode space and convergence rate of the numerical method. A brief and clear example of the Petrov-Galerkin method is given, and the importance of 3D modes in linear stability analysis of the onset of turbulence is outlined.

The main result of this paper is the calculation of the eigenvalues of plane Poiseuille-Couette flow between parallel walls. The results achieved are compared with those published by Orzsag and Dolph and Lewis. The advantages of the vector potential method both in the speed and accuracy of the algorithm are showed. Finally, this work illustrates the possible misleading role of Squire's theorem in the investiagtion of 3D Couette flows near the laminar-turbulent transition point.

The manuscript is a generalization of recent papers, published in Reviews of Modern Physics and The European Physical Journal by the same authors. The present paper has rather good reference list and could be suitable as a review or for the purposes of education.

However, in my opinion, authors should explain more clearly the calculation of velocity field at the page 3 and probably also write down the explicit expression for the velocity in terms of the vorticity. Also, there is a misprint at page 20. Supposedly "Fig. 9" should be "Fig. 3" since Fig. 9 does not exist.

I have also the following suggestion for minor corrections:
1. The dots in all divergences seems to have fallen out.
2. On p. 2, the Laplace equation should be the Poisson equation, "capable to determine" -> "capable of determining"
3. On p. 3 "Opening with ...enjoys several good arguments" is not standard English. One possibility could be: "Taking the vorticity equation (4) as a starting point leads to several advantages".
4. p. 4 "made sure" -> "insured by".
5. On p. 5:, bottom: "managed by providers" -> (perhaps) "triggered by excitations"
6. p.7: Formula (12) didnŐt come out right.
7. p. 8: Eqs (3) should probably be Eqs (12).
"leads to"

I conclude that (after the appropriate changes) the paper will fit the requirements for publication in Eur. Phys. J.-B.

original ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:33:05 +0100
From: TBOHR@nbivms.nbi.dk
To: grossmann@physik.uni-marburg.de
Cc: TBOHR@nbivms.nbi.dk
Subject: Re: Acceptance of paper B01424

Dear Siegfried,
Thank you very much for greetings and the revised paper. Everything looks perfect, so I shall simply send it back to EPJB.

I wish you lots of happy moments in 2002!

Tomas

HOME