The name of the God the most Gracious, The Most Merciful

Defense of Dr. M. M. Imam (Assistant Professor of Paleontology), on the lies that published by Dr. Aguirre, Department of Paleontology, Granada university, Spain

Dear all colleagues in field of paleontology

Firstly, all praise to Allah, Sustainer of the worlds, and the blessings and peace be upon the Master of Prophets, on his progeny and all of his companions. Dear colleagues ,the Quran says “O You who believe, avoid suspension. Some suspicious is sin. Do not spy. Do not back – bite one another. Would you like to eat the Flesh of his dead brother” Your Excellency of course has realized that how bad it is to speak ill of others. Words are like the arrows. Once they are discharged, they never return. The Prophet said that” Truth is good. Goods deeds lead to paradise. Falsehood is wickedness. Wickedness lead to the hell” and the Muslim should guard his tongue against speaking ill of the others. But unfournately the man who wrote this manuscript is fraud and I hope all the members of the colleagues of Paleontology realize that carefully because no one is forbidden from mistakes or sins. And I asked them not to hurt peoples feeling when they are absent.

Concerning the manuscript that published in the Revista Espanola de Microplaeontologia that published in 2004 and what has been written about me and commented by Dr. Aguirre who accused me with great lies and mistakes and accused me that I am fraud (I do not know who is the fraud me or him). And talked about the honesty and Scientific ethic and accused me also that I plagiarized some photos from his papers and other papers. I have carefully read it, lets me so sorrow and I want to show your Excellency and the stuff members of the department, the whole truth, verity and the dirty hands that played beyond this accusation and this unreliable report.

The story begins since the end of 2001. I have written a paper on the Miocene deposits of Al Khums area, NW Libya ,entitled “ Contribution to the stratigrapgy and paleocology of the Miocene deposits of Al Khums area…….) when I have finished it , I sent it to the Revista Espaniola de Micropaleontologia as it is specialized in this topic. In spit of I have published in it before. And the paper was sent through e – mail and as attached files and this was in the middle of 2002. Later on , the editor in chief reported me that the paper in the process of reviewing and this will take some times. In the ending of 2002 some e – mails have been handled between me and the editor in chief of the journal that told me that one of the reviewer accepted the paper and the other completely rejected it and sent that in letter (enclosed a letter from editor emphasize that) and he (the editor in Chief, Rabano) told me that the paper unfortunately not accepted for publication in the journal.

Of course I said to myself that is easy and I are realized that and I must respect the view of the reviewers. But later on I found e- mail from Dr. Aguirre (who is one of the reviewers as the editor told me) telling me that the paper can be accepted for publication but I must open my mind, how? I do not know. As this the first time to such thing to happen or take place and some times he called me in his e- mails “Sheikh Imam” and some time refers that we are rich country. So I understood from his speech that he falsely think me Saudi Arabian researcher. Some times show me that he can help the others especially in their early scientific life. But when the discussion entered the details, He begun to be another person.Sometime threaten me and said “I will stand as barrier in publishing any papers related to you” , till I thought that he was dishonest man. From the strange things he sent me the report that already sent by the editor, offering to correct the paper and offered his help again and I thought again that my viewpoint was unright and he could be honest man. ,But I found that he wants me to write “ Al Khums Formation” as “Al the Khums” and determined to me some paragraphs from his earlier papers to be included in my text as well as consulting me to reproduce some images in the lab. of his university . I said to him through an e – mail, how, it is rock unit and derived from name of locality and more strange he want to correct the paper as he want. And about the reproduction of images, how much do they cost? But finally I refused that and I decided to send the paper to another journal.

After that, I have received a letter from the editor in chief telling me that the paper has been accepted for publication and he himself did the corrections( a photocopy of this letter is attached with this report) and I said to myself ,How this could be happen in spite of the specialization of the editor is the petrography and mineralogy??? . Therefore, I asked him to send me a copy of the paper before its publication to see what has happen with it. But no one tells me any thing until nowadays. Later on during the browsing in the internet, I saw the title of manuscript in the Internet after what has happen. Of course all what happen now is what I guessed and realized it.

Concerning what has been written on me in the manuscript of Aguirre 2004 and my defense, I want firstly emphasize that all the photos and images that Dr. Aguirre was talking about, have been replaced and obliterated by another ones and even the captions of the photos are re-wrote again to be fitted with the new false plates , why?, he only can answer this question and of course he will not do that because he want to disturb me in the field of the algal community all over the world and he may realized that for a time.

1- Before we go in deep with the manuscript, we will see that the liar accused me that I resented a paper entitled “ Coralline red algae from the lower Miocene deposits of Cairo – Suez road, Egypt” and that is true and this manuscript has been submitted to the journal shortly after sending the first one that entitled “ Contribution to the stratigraphy and paleocology of the Miocene deposits of Al Khums area…” but the liar said that I four plates with eight figures each, but this untrue as I included only two plates, unless he can make another plates and another paper and put Osama bin Ladin with me and finally asked the Spanish authority to arrest me.

2- He stated that figure 6 of the first plate of my manuscript entitled “ Coralline red algae from the lower Miocene deposits of Cairo – Suez road, Egypt” (this manuscript sent to the journal after sending of the first one, and their plates are also enclosed with the letter) that identified by me as Lithophyllum sp. of lower Miocene, Sadat Member of Gharra Formation and this image actually the same photo of Lithophyllum incrustans Phillipi from upper Pliocene deposits of Cabo Roche, Conil, Southwestern (Aguirre et al., 1993) and also from Neogene basin of southern Spain (Braga & Aguirre, 1995) that show the contradictions in his speech, i.e. they used the same specimen (same image) in two different localities and two different papers.

I presented here the photocopy of the original plate of this paper in spite of it is not published yet till now but its abstract was published in another conference and of course my image completely different and shows great difference as it represents crustose form of peripheral filaments embedded in slightly crysatlline micritic matrix.and his false or replaced image that I did not see it till now, what is the features inside it , I do not know.

3- He stated again “ this is not image plagiarized in this manuscript…….”and he mentioned that in plate 2, the figures.2, 5 are the same images and mentioned also that I referred to them as different samples???. To reply that , at first I think his sight very poor, because if he see carefully them carefully he will find that they are really different. Fig.2. represents Lithophyllum sp. of crustose to warty protuberance of peripheral filaments encrusting other bioclastic nodules, sample 101, Sadat Mb., Gharra Fm., Gabal Gharra, x40 and the other fig. 5. represents Lithophyllum ghorabi Souaya, fragmented crust of coaxial core filaments embedded in micrite matrix, sample 100, Sadat Mb., Gharra Fm., Gabal Gharra, x60.


- The liar said that I have plagiarized some photos form other papers. For example:

4- He mentioned in his alleged report that Figs, 2, 7 in plate 3 that represent of the manuscript entitled “Contribution to the stratigraphy and paleocology of the Miocene deposits of Al Khums area” and that he focused his lies on it, stated that : Lithothamnion macrosporangicum Mastrorilli and Lithothamnion libanum Jonhson respectively were duplicated from his paper (1996) (Plate 2, figs., 2, 5) as Lithothamnion ramossisimum (Ruess) and said that my photos representing the conceptacles. I we make a comparison with the plates that are between your hands now and constitute photocopy of the original plate, that fig. 2, pl.3 showing curved peripheral thalli with irregular cell and has not any conceptacles whereas the figure 7 of plate 3 shows minute conceptacles indicating that the two figures are completely different from what has been replaced.

5- Also he mentioned that in his alleged report that Figure. 3 of plate 3 of my paper represents Sporolithon sp. From the Lower Miocene of NW Libya and said that this image has been duplicated form the figure of Archeolithomnium nummuliticum (Gumbel) from the paper of Johnson , 1964) (Plate 2, fig., 2) And if we look to the images of course we will find great differences, in the original plate my sample do not show the sori of sporangia that are very charcaterized to Archeolithomnium nummuliticum , but my sample (image) presenting rounded coralline red algal rhodolith with slightly elliptical sporangia and large cavity in the center. This indicate that the two images are completely.
6- Also he said that the figures illustrated by me (2003) that of course constitutes his replaced figures, Figs. 6, 7, 8 of plate 4, fig, 5 of plate 5 are reproduced from a paper by Martini et al, (1993) and if we look to the original plates we will see that they differently bears another anatomical features than that they replaced by him.

7- Also he mentioned that in plate 4, fig. 9 (Lithothanium disaronicum Conti) is really pictures of Johnson & Stweart, 1953) and of course this replaced photo is completely different from that presented in the original plate where the replaced one showing numerous conceptacles but our one is long crustose form with thick hypothallus and thin peripheral filaments.

8- He also mentioned that Figs. 2 & 4 of plate 5 of my replaced manuscript represents Lithophyllum bonyense Johnson and Lithophyllum kuglieri Jonhnson respectively , but if we see carefully , we will find that fig. 2 of my original paper represents Lithophyllum prelichenoides Lemoine, not Lithophyllum bonyense as he said. Moreover the two replaced images are completely different from our material, returning to the original plate we will find great difference between the two images.

9- He also mentioned that Fig. 6 of plate 5 shows thallus with two conceptacles Lithophyllum duplex plagiarized from the picture of Piller and Rasser (1996) as recent specimen of Lithophyllum kotchyanm Unger. And if look carefuuly we will see that they are completely different, whereas my specimen represents Lithoporella cf. melabesioides (Foslie) of crustose form and lamianr thalli.

10- He also mentioned that Fig. 7 of plate 5 shows superimposed thalli of thallus Lithoporella melabesioides (Foslie) encrusting serpulid worm tubes and this images plagiarized from fig.6 of Aguirre (1993) which shows laminar thalli of Titanoderma of Upper Pliocene of Cabo Roche, Spain. If we look carefully we will see that they are completely different, whereas my specimen represents complete peripheral thalli of undulating form. And what can I say, he also changed the caption to be most appropriated to the replaced image.

11- He also mentioned that Fig. 8 of plate 5 of my manuscript represents Halimeda sp. and originally belonged to the figure of Martini et al. (1997) from the Upper Miocene of Sorbas Basin that represented by fig,7a and if we return to the original plate of Imam we will find Halimeda segment of slightly thick thalli. And acutally reoresents Miocene deposits of Libya.

12- He also mentioned that Fig. 9 of plate 5 of replaced manuscript represents Spongite albanense Jonhnson that belonged to Johnson (1963) as Archaelithothamnium penicillum Pfender. And if we carefully see we will find that the original image of my real manuscript represents species of typically Spongite tissue.

13- He also said that fig. 4 of plate 4 of Imam, 2003 and fig. 6, plate 6 of Imam and Reefat (2000) are also duplicated pictures, and I want to say the pictures of algae sometimes resembles each other but differ in the dimensions of the cells.

I will not interfere with the other photos as all his accusation and allegations based on replaced photos and do not show any similarities to the original ones that presented in my defense. But I want to say , why all these libels, muddles, is it easy to him to replace the whole paper by another one and attributed it to me??? These are some examples that of the ingenuity of Dr. Aguirre and dishonest behavior in disturbing the original photos of the paper to arise it in different form. Irrespective the photos and what he said about them and his replacement, I want to ask him about his opinion on the text, is the text also plagiarized?. In his report he completely rejected the paper and did not gave any appropriate sight dealing with it , but after time interval, he changed his mind with the help of the editor (as they are of same university) and begun to establish their trap carefully. What are the great, true reasons to accept the paper after its rejection? This is the true question that they should reply it instead reporting and telling the lies in the internet which became a court for any one to pollute and disturb the others ?

The liar said that he discovered these things during his reviewing an article related to me on the coralline red algae of Miocene deposits in Cairo – Suez road and also mentioned that he found plagiarized photos (and I present the original plates with this letter). This sottish always accused me that I have duplicated and plagiarized photos of him or the others and I want said him “ is it difficult to photograph such material instead of plagiarizing them, the whole matter needs only microscope and that is easy of course” . Also I want to say that this liar and his companions in the department that accusing the Arab scientists with such shameful and dishonesty behavior and what they will get from that?. Suppose someone found similarities between his materials and the others, Is he quickly accusing him with such bad phrases and great lies. Or must be patient and make discussion between them? As this is the scientific language between the learned people. The question also that arise itself, who permitted him and gave him the authority to publish that in the journal? The more strange thing that I have realized is an a allied group of doctors work in the department with Aguirre, were attacking me.

Unfortunately this liar with his colleagues, if we return to his papers we will find great fabrication , great mistakes especially in the writing of the text and sometime their paper full of tremendous scientific mistakes and I wrote to him before about some species and from the dialogue between us, I realized that he was so angry if any one try to modify his interpretations in some places and if we return to his paper entitled “Description of Lemoine ‘s (1939)types of coralline algal species from Algeria “ published in Plaeontology , 41, 489 – 507. With 3 plates and if go deep inside the paper especially plate 2, figs. 5-7( Mesophyllum curtum Lemoine) as he identified him, is really Mesophyllum sancti – dionysii Lemoine and the photo as well as the dimensions bearing the same features but he incorrectly identified it as two diffrrent species. And also he has shown in the paper that Mesophyllum sancti – dionysii Lemoine (Plate 3, fig. 1) had multiporate conceptcles with roof slightly concave upward, but really from the figures it clearly appears as cavity filling with calcite crystals and not real conceptacles . As I commented on that he became so angry and accused me that I am ignorant in the field of algae and called all the Arab scientists as frauds . I do not want to interfere with his behavior because every one has his own mode but must be patient with the others.

This is the whole story concerning the manuscript that published in Revista Espanola de Microplaeontologia with such bad manner to disturb the Arab scientists. Finally I will publish my defense, emending with the plates and figures and the documents that between my hands in the internet, I want to notice you that I have sent many e- mailed the editors many times but no replies till now, perhaps, they prepare suitable reply, I do not know, but I expected more from them. Finally I will say” Our sustainer, we have come to believe in You, Forgive, then our sins and bestow Your mercy on us, for you are the trust bestower of Mercy”
Dr. M. M. Imam