Finding faults in a victim and attacking the victim with their past history is the most common method used by powerful authorities/organisations for the purpose of cover-up. What has irritated Monash University the most is that they could not find any dirt records in my clean history. So Monash University adopted a criminal strategy: If no dirt, then make it for her.
Abstract: The MSEC-D editor-in-chief Roger Naryan rejected all of Chen’s submissions but held one for 6 months (4 months longer than usually), and then invited Chen to revise that paper WHEN the same work submitted by Chen’s colleague was accepted by another journal for publication subject to revision, and WHEN this Monash colleague had no intention to inform Chen of this. Had she not sensed the trap, the incident would have resulted in double-submission –A type of professional misconducts that Monash University was desperately digging for the purpose of destroying Chen’s reputation.
1. During the trial of VID 857/2013, Chen demonstrated decent honesty with high consistency in her accounts of events. Monash University tried hard to find faults in Chen, but ended up with finding themselves make mistakes (T248-249).
2. Since the trial started in March 2014, Chen frequently received review invitations from journal Mat Sci Eng-C-D (MSEC-D), which always (amazingly with no exception) coincided with her intensive legal tasks, as shown in the table below. The chief-editor somehow knew Chen’s court schedule exactly, and his invitations caught Chen in her legal activities accurately with no exception.
| Date / review invitation | VID857/2013 proceedings |
| 3 March 2014 / MSEC-D-14-00197 | On 3 March 2014, the trial commenced andChen did not respond to the review invitation |
| 16 Match 2014 / MSEC-D-14-00197 | On 16 March 2014, Chen was back to work, with intensive research work, the editor waited exactly for two week and re-assigned the review to Chen exactly on 16 March 2014. |
| 10 April 2014 / MSEC-D-14-00119 | On 10 April 2014 Chen was suspended by Monash University under the ground of serious misconducts and began her intensive two-weeks defending writing |
| 10 June 2014 / MSEC-D-14-00529 | On 9 June 2014 Chen began her three-weeks intensive closing submission writing, which was scheduled to be delivered on 15-16 July 2014 |
| No any invitation between the middle of July and the Middle of September 2014 | No legal tasks between the middle of July and the Middle of September 2014 |
| 21-September 2014 / MSCC-D-14-0122127-September 2014 / Repeated invitation of MSCC-D-14-01221 | On 16-30 September 2014, Australian Human Right Commission ordered Chen to reply the University submitted written response dated 16 and 18 September 2014. |
MSEC-D = Materials Science & Engineering C-D
3. The above unusual coincidences alerted Chen, and it was highly suspected that the editor-in-chief of MSEC-D was colluding with Monash University, as the Editor of MSEC-D is an Indian, and the key perpetrator of VID857/2013 Tam Sridhar is an Indian. Monash University had the motive to do so, and had the capacity (their network) to do so.
4, Since Monash suspended her, Chen began to write-up papers on the available results at her hand and submitted a number of papers to MSEC-D, for the benefit of her students who would suffer from her absence due to lack of supervision. These papers were all rejected (Chen’s submissions had a good success rate, with Biomaterials her submissions being about 70% accepted). In May 2014, Chen submitted three manuscripts to MSEC-D, two of which received a rejection decision within two Months, which is the usual time length that most Elsevier Journals make a decision for a submitted manuscript.
5. However, the third manuscript unusually received no decision after it was submitted for nearly six months. On 27 October 2014, however, Chen’s colleague, who took over Chen’s research team at Monash University after she was fired, submitted a manuscript of the same work to another Journal (European Journal of Polymer, EJP). This double-dig submission alerted Chen that it could be another plot from Monash University, who has been trying hard to find dirt in her history (Chen has a clean and perfect history with no bad records in her whole life). Hence she decided to wait and see, and anticipated that it could highly likely be that the two manuscripts (MSEC-D and EJM) could both be accepted around the same time, and that the Monash University would expect Chen to commit a professional misconduct by accepting the two double-dig publications. This could be the last chance for her to publish a scientific paper.
6. Just as Chen anticipated, on 06 December 2014 Chen received a revision invitation from MSEC-D -the first ever revision invitation for accepting her publication from MSEC-D, since she began her formal human right complaint. Meanwhile, the manuscript submitted by Chen’s colleague was accepted for publication on 7 December 2014 by European Journal of Polymer. However, this colleague (under the control of Monash, Chen had no hard-feeling toward him because of this issue) had no intention to inform Chen until Chen made the enquiry with him. Chen subsequently declined the revision invitation from MSEC-D.
7. (1) The unusually 6 months long review process,
(2) the only revision invitation from MSEC-D since she commenced her complaint,
(3) the double-dig submissions which were accepted at the same time,
(4) the sneaky behaviour of Chen’s colleague who had no intention to inform her the acceptance of his submission by EJP
(5) the temporal conjunction of the incident with Monash University’s intense desire of finding Chen’s fault,
(6) the no-exception temporal conjunction of MSEC-D’s review invitation with Chen’s court schedule
Collectively indicated that the whole event on the MSEC-D side was a plot instructed by Monash University, for the purpose of setting up Chen to commit a professional misconduct so that Monash University could use the misconduct in the litigation of VID857/2013 and the future litigation on the unlawful termination of her employment.
However, much to their chagrin, Monash University’s malicious plot failed, again.
8. Later, the editor-in-chief, Roger Narayan, a Professor from University of North Carolina, he crazily sent to Qizhi Chen 157 review emails in less than 3 months, every single working day, even at weekends. On average, 3 emails per working day. Behind the emails were madly and ugly irritated faces of Tam Sridhar, Andrew Picouleau, Geogre Simon, Karen Heywood, Nick Birbilis, Edwina Cornish, Murry Rudman, Chris Davies, etc., and lunatic characters who lost their sanity.
Screenshot of part of emails
9. After Chen reported above issues to Elsevier publisher, Roger Narayan stepdown from the position of Editer-in-Chief of the Journal.
10. It is amusing to find a bad record of Nick Birbilis: He was demanded by the editor of Progress in Organic Coating to withdraw his published paper:
The reasons that the editor make such request include: double-submion, serious scientic errors, etc.
11. To Roge Narayan from University of North Carolia, Tam Sridhar, Andrew Picouleau, Geogre Simon, Karen Heywood, Nick Birbilis, Edwina Cornish, Murry Rudman, Chris Davies, you deserve this:
Read More:
Monash University massive coverup of sexual harassment using extreme measures: fraud, frame, murder
1. Fraud (欺诈)
Monash University masking sexual harassment by forging evidence, Federal Court of Australia covering up the fraud, the victim suing the court to the UN 中文版
2. Frame (陷害)
Monash University making a misconduct via Elsevier editor-in-chief, Roger Narayan 中文版
3. Sabotaging Qizhi Chen’s Textbook (暗中破坏)
Nick Birbilis advised CRC press to abandon/cease the publication process of my textbook
4. Murder (杀人灭口)
Murder-without-a-trace (I) 中文版
Murder-without-a-trace (II) 中文版
Murderous Scheme: Letter to Attorney General of Australia’s Accuser and All Victims
More:
An Australian ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’
Lady, it’s your fault to take your career seriously
Key events of the scandal in 3 seasons, 17 episodes
Full contents of Qizhi Chen’s blogs in 6 seasons, 82 episodes
qizhichen04 
Monash University actively rewards corrupt and criminal conduct by senior staff. In 2014 senior Monash staff made and used false documents to make 5 staff redundant, all of whom were immigrants. The making and use of false documents is a very serious criminal offence carrying up 10 years in gaol on each count. Some staff should be doing very lengthy gaol time, but no, Monash uses high flying lawyers to defend the indefensible, even well before it goes to court. They racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees trying to argue that ‘monodisciplinary’ means not only one discipline but a few, mono is thus a relative term, and dragged the whole process out over 6 months. Staff gave up the fight and opted no to go to the Fair Work Coommission even though they would have won. Corrupt and criminal conduct is endorsed all the way to the VC who was actively involved in the coverup, and was well aware the documents she relied on were false. It’s not the first time Margaret Gardner has been caught out. So who were these corrupt and criminal staff? In the Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture (MADA)- Professor Shane Murray, Professor Callum Morton, Ruth Bain, Martin Taylor; in HR – Andrew Picouleau, Greg Crundall, Steve Smith: University senior management – Professor Pauline Nestor, Professor Edwina Cornish, Professor Margaret Gardner (VC), and external ‘consultants’ Christine Kotur (Leadership Victoria) and Graham Smith (Clayton Utz). Crime and corruption leaks out of the University into the community, and is actively practiced by those that espouse integrity as a key principle!
LikeLike