Prof ABC vs Academic XZY

[peterpiper]

Prof ABC has written a book in which he claims to have discovered a lost 16th century Morina painting
Academic XYZ retorts that such claims and evidence in said book are invalid
Are there any grounds here for XYZ being sued by ABC or can ABC sue in any way.
Are there any legal implications ?

I recall there were big changes to the law on these issues in January 2014 (big corporates v penniless
academics). Is such a a question beyond the scope of this site and if so could someone, perhaps provide a
link

[Amethyst]

Re: Prof ABC vs Academic XZY

section 6 Peer Review defamation act applies to art as well as science, any academia really. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...fences/enacted

Here

6Peer-reviewed statement in scientific or academic journal etc

(1)The publication of a statement in a scientific or academic journal (whether published in electronic form or otherwise) is privileged if the following conditions are met.

(2)The first condition is that the statement relates to a scientific or academic matter.

(3)The second condition is that before the statement was published in the journal an independent review of the statement’s scientific or academic merit was carried out by—

(a)the editor of the journal, and

(b)one or more persons with expertise in the scientific or academic matter concerned.

(4)Where the publication of a statement in a scientific or academic journal is privileged by virtue of subsection (1), the publication in the same journal of any assessment of the statement’s scientific or academic merit is also privileged if—

(a)the assessment was written by one or more of the persons who carried out the independent review of the statement; and

(b)the assessment was written in the course of that review.

(5)Where the publication of a statement or assessment is privileged by virtue of this section, the publication of a fair and accurate copy of, extract from or summary of the statement or assessment is also privileged.

(6)A publication is not privileged by virtue of this section if it is shown to be made with malice.

(7)Nothing in this section is to be construed—

(a)as protecting the publication of matter the publication of which is prohibited by law;

(b)as limiting any privilege subsisting apart from this section.

(8)The reference in subsection (3)(a) to “the editor of the journal” is to be read, in the case of a journal with more than one editor, as a reference to the editor or editors who were responsible for deciding to publish the statement concerned.

[Amethyst]

Re: Prof ABC vs Academic XZY

Quite a lot of info and campaigning ( mostly in favour of peer reviews) on senseaboutscience http://www.senseaboutscience.org/cgi...i?q=defamation

[peterpiper]

Re: Prof ABC vs Academic XZY

Thanks for your reply.
However, in the scenario I put forward, it is essentially two academics fighting it out in public.
The only difference as I see it is that one is bigger, more famous and richer than the other.
Doesn't your linked answer refer more to defamation ?

[Amethyst]

Re: Prof ABC vs Academic XZY

It does. And that is the relevant law, prof ABC has made claims in a book? and Academic XYC has said the claims are poppycock in a publication? website? - the only grounds to sue would be defamation - and it sounds as though it might come under peer review rules. Obvs I haven't seen either article and only know what you have told be.

[peterpiper]

Re: Prof ABC vs Academic XZY

A peer review has already taken place with the counter claims (XZY) published in a
professional journal which outlines in details why ABC's findings are wrong.
Nothwithstanding that, an academic should still not make a counter claim for fear of
being sued ?

There was also a big one in the Sunday Times two days ago where Prof Kemp's claim
to attribute a work to Leonardo was denounced and countered by a forger who said he
did it himself in the 1970's and that the work is a forgery.
So all of Kemp's years of professional analysis simply tossed aside by a known forger
in one simple sentence