The encyclopedia · R&D & Science · Strategic decision · 1999–2010
Five buzzword papers passed peer review — physics spent a decade saying no
Two French TV hosts got five buzzword papers into physics journals — and the editors spent a decade explaining why.
Classical and Quantum Gravity · 2001
What happened
Igor and Grichka Bogdanov were France's best-known science twins: hosts of the television show Temps X from 1979 to 1989 and authors of the 1991 bestseller Dieu et la Science. In the 1990s they enrolled for doctorates. Grichka passed in mathematics in 1999 with the lowest possible grade; Igor failed the same day and was told he could retry if he first published three peer-reviewed papers.
In 2001 and 2002 the brothers published five papers in peer-reviewed physics journals, including 'Topological field theory of the initial singularity of spacetime' in Classical and Quantum Gravity. The papers claimed to describe the first instant of the Big Bang and even the time before the singularity — territory physics cannot yet reach. At least one referee report found the flagship paper 'sound, original, and of interest'. In July 2002, with the papers in hand, Igor received his doctorate in theoretical physics.
The affair broke on 22 October 2002, when physicist Max Niedermaier emailed a colleague calling the papers 'delightfully meaningless combinations of buzzwords'. The message spread like wildfire, and within weeks the field's leading names were on the record: David Gross judged the papers 'nutty' from the abstract alone, Carlo Rovelli called them 'really empty', and Peter Woit called them 'complete nonsense'. The editors of Classical and Quantum Gravity issued a statement that the paper 'does not meet the standards expected of articles in this journal' — and declined to withdraw it.
The papers were never retracted, so the field kept having to answer for them: the CNRS concluded in 2010 that the theses 'have no scientific value' and that 'rarely have we seen a hollow work dressed with such sophistication'. By 2007 the papers had collected six citations, four of them self-citations. The brothers became cosmology professors at a Belgrade university in 2005, and in 2012 170 scientists signed an open letter defending their right to criticise. Alan Sokal said he was 'almost disappointed' the affair was not a hoax — it was worse: genuine nonsense, passed by real referees.
Why it happened
- Referees checked the jargon, not the logic: a 'sound, original, and of interest' report on a paper the journal later said should never have been published.
- The degree depended on publication: Igor could only retry his thesis by getting three papers through review, so the goal was acceptance, not correctness.
- Celebrity did the persuading: TV fame and a bestseller made supervisors and reviewers assume substance, and 'familiarity with the jargon' was treated as competence.
- Repudiation without retraction: the papers stayed in the literature, citable and unchallenged, so a decade of physicists had to dismantle them in public.
The lesson
When reviewers certify jargon instead of logic, nonsense enters the literature; and a journal that repudiates a paper without retracting it leaves the nonsense standing as evidence.
Aftermath
The Bogdanovs got what they set out for — doctorates, and from 2005 chairs of cosmology at Megatrend University in Belgrade — while the journals kept every contested paper. The affair became physics' standing warning that 'peer review is not physics': the CNRS report on the theses remains the reference case for credentialing the well-connected. The brothers sued critics on and off for a decade with mixed results, and in 2012 170 scientists signed an open letter defending the right to critique their work. By then the papers had been cited six times, four of them by the authors themselves.
Sources
- Wikipedia — Bogdanov affair (full timeline: five papers 2001–02, Niedermaier email, referee reports, theses, CNRS report 2010, citations, lawsuits)
- John Baez — 'The Bogdanoff Affair' archive (Niedermaier's email, referee reports, Nicolai/Woit/Smolin/Sokal quotes, fake 'Professor Yang' email)
- New York Times (Dennis Overbye) — 'Are They a) Geniuses or b) Jokers?' (9 Nov 2002; Gross 'nutty', Rovelli 'really empty', Woit 'nonsense', CQG editors' repudiation without retraction)
spotted an error? The club wants to know.
More like this
Blondlot announced N-rays — a visitor removed the prism and he still saw them
A respected psychologist published evidence of ESP — the replication crisis was born
Social Text published a hoax paper — and exposed the cost of peer review without rigor
Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →
Comments · 0
Sign in to join the comments.