Tuesday, 27 December 2022

The RECEPTIO-Rossi Affair III: My "Vendetta"

Prof. Rossi has published another document on her Academia.edu page, in which she refers to my "unjustified vendetta" against her. I therefore take an opportunity to respond to her main points, using her own headings. If any readers think I have failed to respond adequately to any of the claims in her document, please let me know.

1. Swiss National Science Foundation

She states that I claim that she has "received or perhaps continue to receive astronomical amounts of money from the Swiss National Science Foundation".

I have merely added up the amounts as published on the Swiss National Science Foundation's website. If I have made a mathematical error, it was not deliberate; I invite readers to check for themselves. I will willingly make a correction to my blogpost and apologise if I have made a mistake.

She writes: "Your statements are frankly ridiculous, or better, they are fake news. You have not yet realised that no member of RECEPTIO receives any salary from the SNSF."

I have never suggested that any member of RECEPTIO receives a salary from the SNSF.

She writes: "you claimed that I even earned 20,ooo Swiss Francs with the De Roucy Book of Hours. The truth is that this money covered part of the Open Access publication, which cost the publishing house much more"

I stated that she received a grant for this amount, because that is what is says on the website of the Swiss National Science Foundation. I do not know how the money was spent, but I stand by my opinion that the publication is a shoddy piece of work.

2. Your attempt to discredit me in the newspapers and at the University of Zurich

I have not attempted to contact any journalists, but several have contacted me. I have not given any of them an interview.

I have contacted a few email addresses at the University of Zurich, simply inviting them to read my original blogpost.

3. The picture of Andrea Murchio

She writes: "I find it sleazy that it was noticed by you or an associate or alter ego of yours that the name of Andrea Murchio, who died on Friday of a heart attack before a tennis match, was still listed on our site."

I have made no mention of Murchio on Twitter, in my blogs, or anywhere else, although I did re-tweet a thread written by someone else, whom I do not know. They (I do not even know their gender) are not "an associate or alter ego" of mine.

She ends: "I think that after all the falsehoods you have published, you should bring the discussion back to the level of adult and educated people."

If she can give me an example of a single falsehood I have published, I would be very willing to address it.

I will respond to the second part of Prof. Rossi's document, headed "Response to Mr Kidd's accusations on his blog", separately.


  1. Genuine question - if you own the publishing house that publishes the (e?)book in question. Who do you have to pay for « open access » and why?

    1. In normal cases, the payment goes to the publishing house to make up for the income lost by publishing open access: employees (copy editors, typesetters, etc.) of the publishing house still have to be paid, there're overhead and operating costs, and the costs of printing the book need to be covered. These fees can be quite large (a journal wanted 4000 euros from me for a 3 page note), but they are real and serve a purpose, at least in principle.

  2. The grant was for the book to be open access, but they have now said downloads are not allowed. Isn’t that in contravention of the grant?

    1. Yes it is. As far as I remember, the SNSF requires you also to upload your OA work to a trustworthy repository. The policy was not enforced in my case, but I still sent it to a uni library.

      The whole OA publishing policy of the SNSF apparently needs to be much more rigurous when it comes to publishing costs and publishing houses.



I may ignore and delete anonymous comments