loading page

Comment on “Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. 2023;1–3.”
  • Mostafa M. A. Khater
Mostafa M. A. Khater
Xuzhou Medical University

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile

Abstract

In this scholarly analysis, we aim to address the inaccuracies and unsupported claims presented in the paper “Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. 2023;1–3,”’authored by Elsayed M. E. Zayed and Shoukry El-Ganaini. Their paper [1] asserts that the authors of “Math Meth Appl Sci. 2021;44:2682–2691”employed the Khater method to solve the nonlinear fractional Cahn–Allen equation. It is imperative to emphasize that this claim lacks validity. Contrarily, upon a meticulous examination of our own work [2], we find that Mostafa M. A. Khater, Ahmet Bekir, Dianchen Lu, and Raghda A. M. Attia employed the modified Khater method, a robust computational technique recently introduced by Prof. Mostafa M. A. Khater. This assertion is substantiated by a substantial body of Prof. Mostafa M. A. Khater’s work (as cited in references [3–6]). These findings unmistakably contradict the assertions made in “Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. 2023, ”which erroneously claim the utilization of the Khater method. It is also of utmost importance to address the implications of these inaccuracies. The claims put forth by Zayed and El-Ganaini not only misrepresent the actual methodology used but also erroneously question the authorship of the modified Khater method, implying that it does not originate from Prof. Mostafa M. A. Khater. To counter this assertion, we emphasize Prof. Khater’s extensive publication history, which indisputably demonstrates his scholarly contributions employing the modified Khater method in the years 2018 and 2019 (as thoroughly documented in references [3–6]). In summary, our analysis underscores the discrepancies and ethical concerns within the aforementioned paper, asserting that it not only misrepresents the methodology employed but also inaccurately questions the ownership of the modified Khater method. This casts doubt on the integrity of the authors’ claims, suggesting an unwarranted attempt to appropriate the contributions of another researcher.