Are you still with us, Doctor Wu?

Is the editor of a dubious journal a real living person?

Keith S. Taber

---

---

I've become a bit worried about Dr. Wu.

That is Kuang-Ming Wu, Ph.D., who is (at least, according to a number of internet sites) Professor Emeritus at University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, USA.

To be honest, I had not heard of Dr Wu before I received an invitation to review an article for a Philosophy journal. But having been introduced to him, so to speak, in this way, and having done some 'digging' around the web, I became, initially, suspicious (did he really exist?), and, then, actually quite concerned about his well-being. Prof. Wu certainly was at one time considered a serious academic, but what I could easily find through the internet led me to ponder:

• Are you crazy Dr Wu?
• Or, perhaps, under the influence of some intoxicating substance?
• Indeed, are you actually still with us, Dr Wu?
• Or, is the persona on the internet just some kind of digital shadow of a previously respected academic?

That is, is Kuang-Ming Wu's name being used unscrupulously by various predatory organisations, perhaps without his knowledge?

But, I am getting ahead of myself.

A questionable invitation

I received an invitation to act as a peer reviewer for a research paper. Peer review is a key feature of how academic publishing works, and research journals reply upon academics being prepared to give up time to carefully read a submission, and prepare a report for the journal editor on the merits, and weaknesses, of a submitted manuscript.

Read about peer review

This task usually takes several hours (and sometimes considerably longer) and is normally completed gratis. During my career as university teaching officer I undertook hundreds of such reviews – all without payment. ¹

An academic who is writing for publication and submitting their work to journals relies on other scholars being willing to undertake this task so their own work can be evaluated for possible publication. So, the system only works because authors are prepared to also act as reviewers. It is expected as part of the job of a university academic, and does get credit in the sense that it is one of the aspects (inter alia) of making a contribution to the field that are usually included on a c.v./résumé when applying for academic posts or promotion. (That said, having reviewed thousands of papers would count for little unless the academic is getting their own work published, and probably also doing a major course management role, and 'volunteering' for a few institutional committees, and showing involvement with learned societies or other aspects of their field, and involved in some way with public engagement…)

Since I have retired I have continued to undertake some reviewing, but limit this and have got more fussy about what I take on. In particular, if a journal publisher is charging authors hundreds (sometimes thousands) of pounds for publication, then why should I review for the journal for free when I am no longer receiving a stipend that I can consider makes this work 'part of the job'?

A deluge of mythical garbage

The invitation came from 'The Open Journal of Philosophy'. That was not a journal I had any association with, or indeed was familiar with. I have done some work which, if you are being very (very) generous, could be considered to have some philosophical content, but I am not recognised as a philosopher, so this was not a journal I would expect to review for. But, then again, some journals have wide scope, and some work is cross-disciplinary or inter-disciplinary, and so might involve, say, philosophy and science education, so one needs to consider specific request on their merits.

The title of the submission was long and complex and referred to the ideas of two specific scholars in relation to a topic totally unrelated to my own research. I was not familiar with the work of either of the named thinkers, neither of whom, to be best of my knowledge have contributed work to my areas of scholarship. ²

I read the abstract. It referenced "dominant interpellative historiographies…the deluge of mythical garbage…so-called facilitators of our process of humanization…alternative respiratory orifices to our survival…the aegis of commoditized auction blocks…the soft-ware of catacombic memory…" and so on. (Yes, this was just the abstract.) I was pretty sure it was not about teaching and learning in science. As a general rule, if you do not understand the abstract you probably should not volunteer to evaluate the paper.

---

---

Perhaps this is a very worthy contribution to knowledge, but it was very clear to me that I was not qualified to evaluate it. What was not very clear to me was why anyone thought I would be so qualified. An academic invited to review has a responsibility to decline the invitation if that academic does not feel qualified to review the work: but a journal also has a responsibility to only invite referees to review where there is a prima facie case that they have the right expertise, and not to invite people arbitrarily and then rely on the person invited to make that call. (Especially as completing reviews is disproportionately useful in building the c.v. for novice and junior academics, so one can imagine the pressures for inexperienced scholars yet to develop expertise in a field but seeking an academic career to take on such work if invited.) Peer review invitations sent out without a reasonable rationale are simply a form of email spam.

It seemed that someone at the Journal had examined the manuscript and then, when considering suitable reviewers, had decided that I had the right expertise to advise on whether this manuscript was suitable for publication as a novel and substantive contribution to public knowledge.

How could they have reached that conclusion? Perhaps there was a phrase which seemed to match?

"A deluge of mythical garbage, huh.

For some reason I'm thinking Taber, in the Education Faculty at Cambridge, would be just the person to comment."

The Open Journal of Philosophy

I looked up the journal on line. I saw it was an Open Access journal that charged authors for publication. Its standard rate was $599 (but with discounts for authors from less-well resourced countries). It was not published by a scholarly society, or a university press, or even by one of the long-established commercial publishers. That cannot be considered to be sufficient reason to judge a journal will necessarily be of poor quality, but – given the profile of many dodgy predatory journals – is enough to make one suspicious.

The website claimed that

"All manuscripts must be prepared in English and are subject to a rigorous and fair peer-review process. Generally, accepted papers will appear online within 3 weeks followed by printed hard copy."

My own experience as an author and an editor suggest this was dubious – a rigorous peer review process is likely to mean most published manuscripts will pass though at least one round of revision, and that journals will need to give reviewers sufficient time to evaluate the original submissions and then later the revisions. Of course, some submissions may be excellent and need minimal revision, and some reviewers may be able to give the work their immediate attention. So, there is no reason why a good paper might not be published in a good journal three weeks after submission – and I have known this to happen – but these tend to be exceptions. A journal that generally publishes work after three weeks is unlikely to have rigourous review.

Unless, of course, the clock does not start on submission. "Generally, accepted papers will appear online within 3 weeks" seems to suggest

• Generally, accepted papers will appear online within 3 weeks [of submission]

but could mean

• Generally, accepted papers will appear online within 3 weeks [of acceptance]

which is not only not exceptional, but by today's standards seems a little tardy.

The website also claimed

"Submitted manuscripts adhering to journal guidelines are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an Editor, who will assign them to reviewers".

So, assuming the claimed procedures were being followed, I was selected to review this particular manuscript by either the Editor-in-Chief or one of its Editors. Now the website included the details of the Editor-in-Chief, who it appeared was the only editor (there was also an Editorial Board – consisting of people who supposedly advise on editorial policy). So, presumably, I must have been assigned to this manuscript by the Editor-in-Chief.

And the Editor-in-Chief (according to the website) is – as you may have anticipated

Prof. Kuang-Ming Wu,

Professor Emeritus at University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, USA

The editor-in-chief seems to have a hands-off approach

I sent a polite response to the invitation, copying in Prof. Kuang-Ming Wu.

"Thank you for your email.

This does not immediately seem to be in my area of expertise. I wonder if you would be kind enough to explain the Editor-in-Chief/Editor's rationale in nominating me to review this particular submission. Perhaps I am missing an obvious link, but does the journal really think my expertise is strongly enough matched that I am sufficiently qualified to review this particular manuscript?"

(I resisted a mischievous temptation to ask how much of the £599 publication fee I might be paid for reviewing.)

The next day I received a very polite and apologetic reply from the journal office explaining "I read your article on the Internet before and thought I might invite you to review the manuscript". This was from the journal's Editorial Assistant. It would seem that the task of identifying referees with appropriate expertise had been delegated to the Editorial Assistant and was not, as claimed, being carried out by an Editor. ³

Is Dr Wu incommunicado?

I failed, however, in communicating my message directly to Dr Wu.

According to the publisher's website his affiliation is:

Prof. Kuang-Ming Wu
Philosophy Department
University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, USA
Professor Emeritus, Rosebush University Professor

The website gave an email address, and some biographical details. Kuang-Ming Wu was awarded his first degree in 1960, and obtained his Ph.D. from Yale (impressive) in 1965. Unfortunately my message sent to the email address given on the publisher's website was 'undeliverable' due to a 'policy violation or system error' at the recipient's end as the "mailbox is disabled". This email address was not at any academic institution or scholarly society, but then some universities seem to forget the potential value of emeritus faculty as an extremely cost-effective potential source of academic prestige due to their continuing (unpaid) scholarly activities.

As Prof. Wu was apparently affiliated with the Philosophy Department at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh I checked the departmental website to see if I could find an institutional email contact. A page detailing 'faculty & staff' listed current faculty and also emeritus faculty, but there was no mention of a Prof. Kuang-Ming Wu.

So, this was looking a little suspicious:

• someone else was carrying out the editor's work
• the email address given for the editor was unserviceable
• the claimed academic affiliation did not seem to be corroborated

Was Dr Wu a real person?

What has happened to Wu?

I soon found that some of Dr Wu's books could be purchased from well-known internet sellers. I also found evidence that Kuang-Ming Wu had indeed taught in the philosophy department at University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, USA. A university house magazine from 1991 reports that Kuang-ming Wu 'professor, philosophy' had that year given a lecture series at a University in Taiwan.

---

---

I also found that the "The John McNaughton Rosebush University Professorships were named for John McNaughton Rosebush" and the title is "one of the University's most coveted awards, the professorships are granted for excellence in teaching, professional achievement and public service". One of three awards made in 1992 was to Prof. Kuang-Ming Wu.

So, according to information on the worldwide web, Dr Wu was a respected academic and certainly had been in the faculty of the philosophy department at University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh – even if that was decades ago, and no such affiliation is now acknowledged on the website.

Emeritus professors are retired from academic positions in universities, but it is not automatic that such a title is granted. If Dr Wu was entitled to use the title Emeritus Professor at Wisconsin-Oshkosh one would expect this should be acknowledged on the University website, but if he was long retired and no longer in contact it is feasible his department had inadvertently failed to include him as Emeritus Faculty. ⁴

Beyond Philosophy?

However, the internet also gave access to more recent information on Dr Wu. This includes affiliation to journals and conferences related to philosophy and other subject areas. Some of these subjects would not usually be considered cognate with philosophy.

For example, a journal called 'Account and Financial Management Journal' included amongst its list of Board members:

Kuang-ming Wu
Ph.d. [sic]
John McN. [sic] Rosebush University Professorship, University of  Wisconsin-Oshkosh

Even further from philosophy, a member of the 'technical committees' [sic] of The 2nd International Conference on Electrical, Control and Automation (ICECA 2018) was

Prof. Kuang-ming Wu, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, USA

and similarly, a member of the 'Technological Committees' [sic] of The 4th International Conference on Electrical, Control and Automation (ICECA 2020) was

Prof. Kuang-ming Wu, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, USA

Unless another Prof. Kuang-ming Wu from an area such as electrical engineering or similar was also associated with University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, this seemed an odd association.

The 'Technological Committees' [sic] of the 3rd World Conference on Management Science and Human Social Development (MSHS 2020), which will be held during December 26 to 27, 2020 in Tianjin, China, includes

Prof. Kuang-ming Wu, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, USA

and the 'Technical Committees' of The 5th International Symposium on Application of Materials Science and Energy Materials (SAMSE 2022) to be hosted by Thailand Institute of Science and Engineering Technology during October 2022 includes:

Prof. Kuang-ming Wu, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, USA

It is by no means unlikely that an academic philosopher will be invited to be on such committees as sadly such invitations are often offered regardless of subject expertise – but it less clear why an academic philosopher would agree to be part of a committee responsible for the academic programme in a discipline or subject area they did not work in.

I have seen an example in the past of such a committee listing being posted with names, photos and c.v.s of academics who were not even aware their names were being used in this way – so inevitably I am suspicious of whether Prof. Kuang-ming Wu (if he is still even with us, as he must be in his eighties) has agreed to give his name to some of these committees – or whether his name is just being used without his active involvement (just as I was invited to review for the journal he is supposed to edit without his involvement).

Are you crazy, Dr Wu?

Unless I can find a live email address for Dr Wu, I am unlikely to ever know for sure.

I found some of his more recent published work on line.

A 2014 article (described as 'a research/review paper') in 'Global Journal of Management and Business Research: g Interdisciplinary' is entitled 'Praise, Flattery: Common Cosmopolitan'. This two page article has no academic references, and begins

"Surprisingly, things common can have cosmopolitan import, such the praise-flattery pair in a common commercial deal and beyond. Flattery is for us, praise is to others, and both appreciate to move the world. It is a common oiling of our business deal all over the globe, in "sale" in "free" in every store, to promote our win-win deal, as buyers satisfy their need to profit sellers.

Doctors also do healthcare in "bedside manners," and as scholars do so to inter-enrich. As flattery praises much, so praise prizes a person; as babies cannot be spoiled, so no one can be praised too much. Thus "flattery gets anyone anywhere," even by "I know you'd never accept flattery!" Such joy goes around coming around; we are all in smile, cosmopolitan. "

Is this the writing of an academic philosopher lauded for his excellence? Perhaps it is, but it seems to have the feel of something generated by a 'bot'. Certainly if I was a judge in the Turing test I would fail this entry. ⁵

Are you high?

The 2018 article 'On Tender Pain' in the International Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Journal is described as a Book review. It begins:

"Human life is constantly surrounded with pain, both as justified one and as unjustified one. Unjustified pain is violent and bestial even below innocent animals, and it is caused by offending justified pain. Justified pain is tender pain in acts of love. Love means to cherish and serve heartfelt. We are human because we love, cherish, and serve three sorts of beings precious to us.
These precious beings are our parental others, our beloved posterity, and our own self. …"

Whether this is good writing or not, there is something very odd about this article. It continues in much the same vein for about six-and-a-half pages,

"Sex is joy because sex shares its pleasures. In contrast, Hitler's mass-murder hatred is his sadistic pleasure staying one-sidedly with him alone, without sharing it with his massive victims. Of course, it took Hitler's enormous talent of demagoguery to keep up such sadistic satisfaction, but still it actually collapsed in just four years. Brutal dynasties in China's ugly history and elsewhere did last a few centuries, but they all ended in disastrous revolutions, all so bloody. Violence on the others has never lasted for ever. World history testifies to this solid fact worldwide, that no violence is everlasting."

Whether this qualifies as a carefully constructed argument or is simply rambling ("This paper roams around...") may be a matter of judgement (and as this is open access, anyone can read the work and make up their own mind) but again the article has no academic references – which seems odd for a scholarly piece.

Even stranger, however, if 'On Tender Pain' is intended as a book review, it is the only book review I recall reading which at no point lets the reader in on the secret of which book is being reviewed.

Have you done all you can do, Dr Wu?

If these works are genuinely by the Kuang-Ming Wu who had worked in the Philosophy Department at University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh and was made a Rosebush University Professor, then this seems a sad decline. Perhaps this is a sign of diminishing capacity, which I can fully appreciate. Perhaps Dr Wu is now just a shadow of the the scholar he was when he was younger?

Perhaps, however, Dr Wu is simply kindly responding to some of those emails academics arbitrarily get asking them to contribute to journals and conferences from diverse fields. Predatory journals will ask for an article, preferably by next week, and point out that it you are busy they are happy to accept a short commentary or opinion piece or a book review or a shopping list. (Well, to be fair, I've never actually had a request from a journal explicitly asking for a shopping list, but one gets the impression that as long as the author is able to pay the publication fee, it would not be ruled out of hand).

The mysterious Dr Wu

So, in conclusion, I am left wondering. Is the Dr Wu who was a respected scholar and professor of philosophy still with us? If so, is he still actively engaged in scholarly activities? Does he (sometimes at least) actively edit the Open Journal of Philosophy? Has he approved of the various uses of his name on scientific committees for fields such as electrical engineering and materials science? So,

• Is Dr Wu a once productive academic who's intellectual powers have declined?
• Or, is Dr Wu a retired academic who has decided to allow the use of his name for various predatory conferences and journals
• Or, is Dr Wu the victim of having his name and affiliation 'borrowed' without his knowledge?

I suggested at the start of this piece that "I had not heard of Dr Wu before I received an invitation to review an article for a Philosophy Journal". But, perhaps, I had, and had just not immediately made the connection. I have in my music collection the track 'Dr Wu' by Steely Dan (perhaps the only successful music act to have named themselves after a fictitious dildo). This includes the lines:

"Are you with me Doctor Wu
Are you really just a shadow
Of the man that I once knew
Are you crazy are you high
Or just an ordinary guy
Have you done all you can do
Are you with me Doctor"

Walter Becker and Donald Fagen (from the lyrics of 'Dr Wu' from the album 'Katy Lied')

---

Are you still with us Dr Wu?

Notes:

---

¹ Book publishers (even when they are also journal publishers) tend to offer something (money or books) for reviewing book proposals or manuscripts. Funding organisations (including charities and national governments and their bodies) vary – some expect the academics to review for free, and some feel it is appropriate to pay a professional fee for their time and expertise. Reviewing is a kind of consultancy, and in most professions an expert would not expect an external organisation (especially a commercial one like most internet publishers) to ask for consultancy yet not offer to pay a fee.

---

² I had intended to include the manuscript title, but think this should be treated as privileged information – even though the journal had not asked for it to be kept confidential, and I had never expressed any interest in reviewing for this journal, so it was sent to me 'on spec.'

That is, there is an ethics of peer review, and most well-respected journals will have policies asking reviewers (or potential reviewers) to treat any communications about submissions as confidential material. The invitation I was sent was not marked as private or confidential which might suggest no obligation to treat it as such exists. In any case, I am not criticising or evaluating the work here, as I do not have the right expertise to do so. However, I think the author has a reasonable expectation to confidentiality, and so I decided not to publish a complex and very specific title that may later appear in print.

---

³ It is possible that a scholar with great knowledge of the field could be working as an editorial assistant – however, such a role is administrative not editorial and it would be (very) unusual for an assistant to have the expertise to deputise for the editor rather than support them.

---

⁴ I emailed the Philosophy department, and have now had a reply – but they do not seem to have any current contact details for Dr Wu in their records.

---

⁵ That is, if I was asked to confirm this was written by a human being, and not an AI system designed to imitate genuine human language, I would assume this was prose put together by a machine using a crude algorithm to mine internet sites and compile a text. (Sorry Dr Wu – perhaps this was your work and this evaluation just confirms I should not be reviewing work in your field?)