El Naschie v Macmillan Publishers Ltd (t/a Nature Publishing Group) & Anor

In a libel claim concerning reporting of scientific publishing practices, substantial truth, honest comment and responsible journalism were established. An editor of a peer-reviewed journal must protect the integrity of independent peer review, particularly when publishing his own work. Excessive self-publication, inadequate safeguards and the absence of proper independent review may amount to abuse of editorial position. Scientific quality may be assessed by reference to clarity, accuracy, logical reasoning and contribution to knowledge without deciding whether the underlying theory is correct. Honest comment may cover evaluative opinions on published material where the factual basis is indicated and the opinion is pertinent. Reynolds privilege protects responsible journalism on matters of high public interest where the defamatory material makes a real contribution and the information-gathering, verification and publication process is responsible and fair.

The claimant, an editor of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, sued the publishers of Nature and its journalist over an article reporting alleged excessive self-publication, poor peer review, poor-quality papers, inflated citation metrics, false affiliations and the circumstances of his departure as editor.

The defendants admitted that the article was defamatory but relied on justification, honest comment and Reynolds privilege. The trial concerned meaning and liability. Damages did not arise because the court concluded that the article was substantially true, contained defensible comments and resulted from responsible journalism.

1. Meaning. The article conveyed meanings substantially corresponding to the defendants’ pleaded meanings. The reference to the impact factor “may” have resulted from self-citation alleged a possibility, not an established fact. The article suggested that the claimant’s affiliation claims were false and cavalier, rather than necessarily that he had lied. It conveyed reasonable grounds to suspect that his retirement was connected with his editorial failings, rather than expressly asserting forced retirement.
2. Justification. The evidence established excessive self-publication, poor-quality papers, inadequate or absent peer review, excessive journal-to-editor self-citation and the claimant’s forced departure from the editorship. The claimant’s papers were assessable for clarity, accuracy, logical reasoning and contribution to knowledge. It was unnecessary to determine the correctness of his scientific theories. An editor publishing in his own journal required stringent independent safeguards, including independent selection of referees and delegation of the publication decision. Those safeguards were absent.
3. The evidence also established that the claimant had made materially misleading claims about academic affiliations and that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the use of fictitious names in correspondence. The unproved imputation concerning a possible connection between a false affiliation and Professor Greiner’s resignation did not defeat justification because it did not materially injure the claimant’s reputation having regard to the proved charges, within section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952.
4. Honest comment. The allegations concerning peer review, paper quality and the possible inflation of the impact factor were recognisable comments. Their factual bases were indicated, and each was pertinent to the subject matter.
5. Reynolds privilege. The article concerned matters of high public interest, including the integrity of scientific peer review. The defamatory material made a real contribution to that public interest. The investigation involved multiple sources, approaches to the claimant and Elsevier, internal checking, citation analysis, editing and legal review. The article’s tone was moderate and balanced, and the claimant’s side was included. The defence therefore succeeded.
6. The claim was dismissed. The defendants were awarded their costs, subject to assessment if not agreed.