What next? As suggested at the very beginning, different participants in the boycott have different goals,
both in the short and long term. Some people would like to see the journal system eliminated completely
and replaced by something else more adapted to the internet and the possibilities of electronic distribution.
Others see journals as continuing to play a role, but with commercial publishing being replaced by open
access models. Still others imagine a more modest change, in which commercial publishers are replaced
by non-profit entities such as professional societies (e.g., the American Mathematical Society, the London
Mathematical Society, and the Soci´t´ Math´matique de France, all of which already publish a number of
journals) or university presses; in this way the value generated by the work of authors, referees, and editors
would be returned to the academic and scientific community.

...

What all the signatories do agree on is that Elsevier is an exemplar of everything that is wrong with
the current system of commercial publication of mathematics journals, and we will no longer acquiesce to
Elsevier’s harvesting of the value of our and our colleagues’ work.

What future do we envisage for all the papers that would otherwise be published in Elsevier journals?
There are many other journals being published; perhaps they can pick up at least some of the slack. Many
successful new journals have been founded in recent years, too, including several that are electronic (thus
completely eliminating printing and physical distribution costs), and no doubt more will follow. Finally, we
hope that the mathematical community will be able to reclaim for itself some of the value that it has given
to Elsevier’s journals by moving some of these journals (in name, if possible, and otherwise in spirit9 ) from
Elsevier to other publishers.

In July 2012 the case was dismissed, with the judge ruling that the article was "substantially true", contained "honest comment" and was "the product of responsible journalism". The judgement noted that El Naschie, who represented himself in court, had failed to provide any documentary evidence that his papers had been peer-reviewed. Judge Victoria Sharp also found "reasonable and serious grounds" for suspecting that El Naschie used a range of false names to defend his editorial practice in communications with Nature, and described this behavior as "curious" and "bizarre".