Re: Ba`i Review cu?a TS Nguyen Xuan Tuyen

["Nguyen Tien Zung" <tienzung@darboux.math.univ-montp2.fr>]

Hi ba'c AiViet et al
 
>    What can guarantee that the Tuyen's paper is bad and the reviewer is 
> right. 

The review tells us that at least one of the two must be bad. Now all other

evidences lay against Mr. Tuyen: He never reacted to the review publicly
(as far as I understand), which means he admits that. He lost his thesis
and somehow misteriously a copy of his thesis in the National Lib. is also
lost (?!)
Today I just checked his list of publications. One can say "not an
excellent one".
I'll write more about that.

To make things more clear, the concerned parties can do the following
things
(just a suggestion, I'm not going to get involved in this matter):
- go to the Libraries in Russia to make a copy of his thesis
- copy his papers (all his papers were published in ex-USSR in Russian,
except
for one published in VN if I understand well).
- form a special comission to study this matter if necessery

>If few reviewer refuse to review the paper will not be reviewed
> at all. 

That's not true for Math Reviews as far as I know. (If all referees refuse
to
make report on a paper, it is true that the paper will not (almost
certainly)
be published). For Math. Reviews, if a reviewer refuses, AMS will send the
paper
to another reviewer, and so forth. Notice here a big difference between
reviewers
and referees: referees are usually estabished mathematicians and carefully
chosen by the journals, reviewers are not. Anyone with 2 publications or so
can be a reviewer. I have some friends who were reviewers since they were
students with some (not-so-important) publications.

>For an objective outsider, Hung or Tuyen are equal.
  
Equal chances, not equal results

>   Nothing tells Math Rev. that Tbilisi's journal is a bad one. 

What you say sounds like "nothing tells that Acta Math. Vietnamica
is not as good as Acta Math. (of Sweden)".

> We should 
> live with conventions: 
>   -It is for MathRev. to decide which Journal can be reviewed.
>   - It is for referee to decide which paper to be published.
>   - It is for reviewer to decide which paper they like to review.
>   - Review is not a referee report.

That's OK

> 
> I never published anything in Tbilisi. Don't know Tuyen and Hung
personally.
> Only my opinion and the practice in some expert community in the US. 
> Ethically, I don't agree with such a review. It is like you admit some
Ph.D.
> student and fail him or even worse if you accept to write a 
> recommendation letter for somebody ( to his request) and say bad things.

I don't think so. Mr. Tuyen never asked Mr. Hung to be a reviewer of his
paper,
it is the AMS who did that, right?

>The same thing, dirty maneuver.

Trong chi'nh tri. la\m gi\ co' kha'i nie^.m xa^'u/dde.p ma\ chi? co'
tha('ng thua tho^i ?!