Summary of JEMT emails

 

The following trail of email evidence verifies the dishonesty of the statement in the Manchester University  Formal Enquiry Report that , "

 

“If Mr Courtney disagreed with the results, he should have pursued the accepted practice in the academic community of writing to the editor of the journal and presenting a rebuttal which, like the original paper, would be presented for peer review before being published.
The Panel did not uphold this allegation.”
 

They also provide evidence that the practice of burying bad research is not just a British disease, it is active in America as well.

 

 

Document 1

 

 

 

 

Document 2

 

 

 

Document 3

 

This email is important because it provides proof that Dr Oyadiji who was selected as the scapegoat for the Manchester University formal enquiry and his fellow authors, Dr Turner and Professor Wright, who were perversely identified as "independent witnesses"  were all aware that prior to the formal enquiry, Mr Courtney had attempted to follow accepted academic practice by submitting his objections to the journal editor.

 

 

 


 

Document 4

 

 

 

Document 5

 

 

 


 

Document 6

 

 

 

Document 7

 

 

 

Document 8

 

Comment

The following email relates to the curious related case of a “ghost” journal paper. This paper, if published would have provided peer reviewed evidence that the JEMT paper was misleading.

 

 

 


 

Document 9

 

 

 

Document 10

 

 

 

Document 11

 

 

 


 

Document 12

 

 

 

Document 13

 

 

Comment This email continues, as for the previous email.

 

 


 

Document 14

 

 

 

Document 15

 

Comments This email was copied to
 

(i)  Mr DiVietro,
 (ii) David Kidd at the EPSRC,
(iii) the president of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers who own the JEMT,
(iv) Professor Coombs,
Vice-President (Innovation and Economic Development at Manchester University
(v) the Manchester University registrar.

 

 

Professor Coombs and the Registrar were senior members of Manchester University that Bill Courtney had previously complained to. - But without success.

It provides proof that they were aware of his attempts to follow accepted academic practice by submitting his objections to the journal editor.

 

The Formal Enquiry Panel were supplied with full copies of his correspondence with these people.

 

 

 


 

Document 16

 

Comment This email was copied to the president of the
                American Society of Mechanical Engineers

 

 

 

 

 Document 18

 

 

 

 

 

Document 19

 

 

 

 

Document 20

 

 

 

 

 

 

Document 21

 

Comment The president of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers sent the following instruction to the
               journal publisher.

 

 


 

Document 22

 

Comment Mr DiVietro failed to respond to his instructions from the president.

               So the following strongly worded email was sent and copied to the president.

 

 

 

 

Document 23

 

 

 

Comments

 

Philip DiVietro kept his word and phoned from his office.

During this phone call he explained that there were (unspecified) “legal reasons” for the ASME not examining the evidence. Bill was advised to submit his case for retraction to Manchester University.

But

(i)  No reason for the twelve month delay in making this suggestion was made.

(ii) Mr DiVietro was coy about putting his excuse in writing.

 

Subsequently a Formal Enquiry Panel at the University refused to examine the evidence using the spurious excuse that it should have been sent to the journal Editor.

But, Document 1 above provides proof that his first action was to contact the Efitor.