The website in February noted a retraction in a paper Biss wrote in 2002. “Topology and its Applications” wrote that the article was retracted “after receiving a complaint about anomalies.” The editors asked for further reviews “which indicated that the definitions in the paper are ambiguous and most results were false.” The website followed up and said the journal noted the findings were “inaccurate” but “not fraudulent.”

Editors of “Topology and its Applications” said Biss was contacted with “twelve specific, documented errors” and asked to review the findings.

“We offered him the opportunity, if Biss felt it to be appropriate, to publish an addendum in Topology and its Applications. Biss responded with ‘Thank you for writing. I am no longer in mathematics and so don’t feel equipped to fully evaluate these claims. I certainly do not dispute them. If you would like to publish a retraction to that effect, that would seem to me to be an appropriate course of action,'” editors told Retraction Watch.

The problem with that, Retraction Watch noted, is that the paper was cited 27 times since it was first published. The site also notes two other “errata” for papers Biss published — with a Russian mathematician named Nikolai Mnev pointing out the errors.

[...]

Biss’ campaign noted that “in a few cases” some of his papers “didn’t stand up.” But they said “revisions” are part of a normal part of the academic process. A CBS News story from 2015 noted that just 0.02 percent of some three million mathematical papers were retracted, but retractions are not necessarily seen as a bad thing. Instead, many view them as a better option than scientists and mathematicians choosing to let their errors live on in the academic realm.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/are-gov-hopeful-bisss-claims-of-math-prowess-pi-in-the-sky/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3924081&forum_id=2#35649975)

check out the comments too

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3924081&forum_id=2#35650073)