Category: honesty in scholarly affairs

Can one blog post bring about "substantial financial detriment" to a global publishing corporation?

Keith S. Taber

Immediate Cease and Desist Demand – Defamatory and Harmful Content

One regular theme of these posts is the questionable behaviour of some publishers of academic journals, especially when I consider they have been behaving in dishonest ways in order to mislead scholars.

Last month I received an email with the subject heading "Immediate Cease and Desist Demand – Defamatory and Harmful Content". The email came from the address <legals@globaljournals.org> and was signed by someone claiming to be the Chief Legal Officer of "Global Journals Incorporated, a conglomerate with operational bases in the United States, United Kingdom, and India".

"Ah, a 'Cease and Desist' notice…do you want us to fight it?" (Actor John Stride as solicitor David Maine in Yorkshire Television's 'The Maine Chance')

The email complained about a post on this website, "specifically at the URL: https://science-education-research.com/earning-a-higher-doctorate-without-doing-any-research/". According to the email from <legals@globaljournals.org>, this page:

• "contains unfounded, derogatory statements that malign our business and overall reputation"

The email explained

• what they objected to in my post
• why they considered it mattered to them
• what they wanted me to do about it
• and what the consequences would be for me if I did not do as they asked

The complaint

Global Journals complained that

"Your publication unjustly criticizes our marketing strategies, particularly the use of alternate identities by our editors and reviewers to engage potential authors…Specifically, your blog post criticizing our editors' and reviewers' marketing strategies casts malicious aspersions on their integrity and wrongly implies unethical conduct." 

email from legals@globaljournals.org, 13th February, 2024

My post "Earning a higher doctorate without doing any research?" asked the question: Is it possible that a publisher might be using fictitious academics to attract submissions to its journals?

It then discussed some emails I had received from the address <chiefauthor@socialscienceresearch.org> claiming to be written by a Dr Nicoleta Auffahrt, Managing Editor of the 'Department of Humanities and Social Science' 'at Global Journals'. 'Dr Auffahrt' wrote to me, so the email claimed, because she had been impressed by my work, and had discussed it with colleagues who were also impressed, and she wanted to network with me. The email claimed that 'Dr Auffahrt' had a D.Litt in Teaching Education (and the publisher's website suggested she also held a Ph.D. from University of Pennsylvania and a Master of Arts from Ottawa University, USA [sic]).

However, when I did some checking-up (details are given in the original post), as far as I could tell, there was no such person as Dr Nicoleta Auffahrt.

Now, in the email from <legals@globaljournals.org>, Global Journals Incorporated were not denying that they were sending out letters from non-existent academics, they readily acknowledged that, but they still seemed to think it was bad form of me to highlight this as if it was in some sense questionable. According to Global Journals,

"…the use of alternate identities by our editors and reviewers to engage potential authors. This practice is not only commonplace for privacy preservation on the internet but is also legally sanctioned in jurisdictions such as Delaware and [sic] the United States, where our corporation is duly registered. The allegations you posit, suggesting unethical conduct on the part of our representatives, are devoid of factual basis and amount to a direct assault on our distinguished reputation, painstakingly cultivated over two decades.

Specifically, your blog post criticizing our editors' and reviewers' marketing strategies casts malicious aspersions on their integrity and wrongly implies unethical conduct.  Thus, the use of virtual identities for initial outreach efforts is lawful in Delaware, United States, where our company is incorporated and is commonly employed worldwide for privacy and safety."

email from legals@globaljournals.org, 13th February, 2024

The 'dispute', then, was not over whether Global Journals sent emails signed by non-existent editors – they freely agreed they did so (and suggested they also sent marketing emails from non-existent reviewers!) – but whether, or not, it was unfair of me to suggest that such deception amounted to something dishonest, inappropriate or unethical.

The damage done

Now anyone who writes a blog (or anything else for public consumption) is likely to hope some people will read it and that it might in some small way influence them. I was aware of people commenting on my post to the extent that they had already been sceptical about approaches from 'Dr Auffahrt' and other imaginary Global Journals editors, and had found it useful that I had looked into the (non)existence of Auffahrt.

So, I can readily believe that perhaps Global Journals have lost a few 'customers' who might share my view that it is not desirable to do business with a publisher that seeks to deceive potential authors by pretending imaginary editors have a particular interest in their work. Even if Global Journals thinks that sending such invitation emails is "commonplace", "legally sanctioned" and "lawful"(and even if editors who work for Global Journals for some reason feel a need to hide their identities 'for privacy and safety' when academic editors of most academic journals do their best to advertise their appointments to such positions), I can well believe there are other scholars out there who might share my view that misrepresenting yourself to someone is not a promising way to initiate a meaningful, productive relationship.

However, according to Global Journals,

"Your allegations are baseless and directly harm our company's reputation, resulting in substantial financial losses.

The implications of your actions have been far-reaching, causing substantial financial detriment to our corporation, quantified in significant revenue losses."

email from legals@globaljournals.org, 13th February, 2024

So, supposedly, enough people

• (i) seeking outlets for their manuscripts and
• (ii) receiving the emails from fictitious editors had
• (iii) read my blog, and
• (iv) accordingly decided to give Global Journals' publications a miss,

for them to claim that I had caused:

• substantial financial losses
• substantial financial detriment
• significant revenue losses

And this was supposedly due to one post on a retired teacher's personal blog?

Somehow, I felt it was, let me suggest, unlikely that this claim was correct, and I felt that it was even more unlikely that Global Journals would be able to produce any convincing evidence to substantiate it (for example in a Court of Law – see below).

'Demands'

The email claimed I had defamed Global Journals by calling-out their (in my view, dubious) practices:

"Given your role as the editor of several journals that are in direct competition with our publications, your statements could be construed as defamatory, motivated by competitive bias, and, thus, carry severe legal consequences….

This behavior not only contravenes professional ethics but also breaches UK defamation law.

email from legals@globaljournals.org, 13th February, 2024

Their letter specified a number of journals they considered me to be an editor of. I have not been a journal editor for some years. It seems that, despite representing an international publisher of academic journals, the author of the email did not appreciate the difference between formally contracted editors (who could be therefore considered to have a financial interest in a journal they edit) and those who serve unpaid on journal boards in a purely advisory capacity.

A section of the email headed 'Demands' told me:

• Cease & Desist: You must immediately stop publishing defamatory content about Global Journals, our editors, and our practices
• Content Removal: The offending blog post must be entirely deleted from your website within 48 hours.
• Formal Retraction: We strongly recommend issuing a retraction on your website to mitigate damages.

Of course, if Global Journal's email had persuaded me that my post had been unfair to them (and certainly if it had persuaded me that it was defamatory) I would have been very keen to quickly take action to put matters right.

But, to my mind, the most relevant part of their email was the confirmation that the reason that I had not been able to find any evidence of an academic record for 'Dr Nicoleta Auffahrt' was that she had never existed. She was a fiction, or as Global Journals prefer to phrase the matter, one of the 'alternate identities' they employ to disguise (in order to 'protect') the actual identifies of their editors (and reviewers).

The threat

This would all have been mildly amusing, had it not been for the threat of legal action. The email from <legals@globaljournals> warned me that

"Failure to comply will immediately initiate legal action in the United Kingdom. We will seek substantial damages for losses incurred and decisively pursue all legal costs.

This letter constitutes a formal legal notice, and non-compliance will necessitate legal action in the UK, USA, and India, with all associated costs, including but not limited to legal fees, being recovered from you.

We strongly advise you to take this notice with the utmost seriousness and to seek legal counsel to fully comprehend the ramifications of your published content and the potential legal proceedings that may ensue.

We anticipate your prompt action to rectify this situation, and we expect your full compliance."

email from legals@globaljournals.org, 13th February, 2024

Now I will happily admit that was quite scary. I am lucky that, even though I had to retire early on health grounds, I had built up sufficient pension to be able to live comfortably enough. But here was a global corporation claiming that I had caused it significant and substantial financial losses which it intended to recover by suing me. I imagine that substantial financial losses of a global publisher are some orders of magnitude greater than any funds I may have left in savings for a rainy day.

The sensible, pragmatic part of me thought that it would be very easy to take down one web-page, apologise, and hopefully all would be forgotten. Surely that is the obvious thing to do, even if one thinks that any such legal action has a small chance of succeeding? What is, say, a 1% chance of being financially ruined against deleting one post from a blog?

Global Journals' email suggested that I take legal advice – which might imply that they were confident in having a case against me (why send me to a lawyer who would tell me otherwise?) but of course legal advice costs money, and 'unpublishing' a blog post does not. I suspected that was a bluff.

Moreover, there is another part of me which is the self-righteous, campaigning, principled me that really hates such ploys as lying and bullying and is naive enough to beleive the world would be a better place without 'those two impostors'. As 'alternate' identities are in play; if taken to court, I might want the fictitious lawyer David Maine from Castelton & Maine handling my case: someone who could be just as arrogantly pompous and self-righteous as myself!

A defence?

I have already suggested that I did not think it was at all likely that any damages I had caused to Global Journals could really be large enough to substantially damage their business (certainly, unless it was really very, very flaky to start with, such that a proverbial final straw might be enough the break the poor camel's back); and that it seemed incredible that they might be able to produce evidence to persuade a Court that enough people reading my blog had been sufficiently influenced to bring about any such significant losses.

However, the critical factor in my thinking was what is meant by defamation. Global Journals helpfully informed me that:

"Under the Defamation Act 2013, a statement is considered defamatory if it:

• Causes or is likely to cause serious harm to an individual or company's reputation.
• Refers to even an unidentifiable [*] person connecting with an entity.
• Is published (communicated) to a third party."

email from legals@globaljournals.org, 13th February, 2024

(* And of course a person would be 'unidentifiable' if they disguised their identify behind a fake name and qualifications.)

My post certainly referred to a person pretending to be one highly qualified Dr Nicoleta Auffahrt who claimed an association with Global Journals, and it was a form of publication. So, would a court consider my post "causes or is likely to cause serious harm to an individual or company's reputation"?

It might be reasonable to suggest it led to some very small harm (loss of a few submissions, perhaps), certainly. But serious harm? To an established global corporation?

The best defence to a defamation claim

Of course, Global Journals failed to mention one key criterion for any published statement to be considered defamatory: it has to be untrue. No matter how bad the things you accuse someone of, that is not defamation unless you are wrong. You cannot defame Adolf Hitler by claiming he was the leader of an evil regime which carried out genocide, and arranged the murder of a great many men, women and children simply because of a hateful and unscientific belief in human 'races' and racial 'purity'.

Global Journals could only successfully sue me, and potentially ruin me, if they could show I had made claims about their corporation that were both damaging and untrue. Yet, Global Journals confirmed my exposé was correct: editors who sign (at least some of) their emails do not exist.

Any case Global Jounrals brought would therefore presumably rest, not on that agreed fact, but on what I suggested about this being unethical, improper, and misleading. These were my interpretations and I think anyone reading the blog could either agree with them or not. The factual basis of the post was that Global Journals were sending out emails from a Dr Nicoleta Auffahr who claimed to have a personal interest in my works, and to have discussed them with her colleagues, when such a person did not seem to exist; and Global Journals were not disputing that fact – rather they were confirming in writing that this was indeed how they proceeded. This was part of Global Journals' "marketing strategies…our editors' and reviewers' [sic] marketing strategies".

Surely, anyone reading the blog who, like Global Journals Incorporated, thought it was fine to send out such fictional invitation emails would have no reason to change their attitude to Global Journals, and only those, who agreed with me, that this was inappropriate for an academic publisher would be likely to behave accordingly and avoid sending them submissions.

A revised approach

So, I decided not to take down my post (at least, not yet) but to spend time writing a robust response to the Global Journals' legal officer – that is, to 'call their bluff' as it were. (I've reproduced my message below, in 'Annexe 1'.) This took up time and energy, but if Global Journals' legal team thought an 'Immediate Cease and Desist Demand' was well-motivated, then it deserved a considered response.

My reply led to a response within hours, which had a rather different tone. So, the next morning I faced a new communication from <legals@globaljournals.org>, again signed by the Chief Legal Officer of Global Journals Incorporated. This reiterated a key point from the original 'cease and desist' notice,

"The practice of using alternate identities, as mentioned in our initial letter, is a measure taken strictly for privacy and security reasons on the internet. We ensure that all communications, including those from alternate identities, are truthful and transparent about the nature and purpose of the outreach. Contrary to the allegation, we do not endorse or engage in the dissemination of false or misleading information."

email from legals@globaljournals.org, 14th February, 2024

Now I could see myself getting into an involved argument here. The original approach sent from <chiefauthor@socialscienceresearch.org> and supposedly from a Dr. Nicoleta Auffahrt, did invite me to submit work to a journal, but this was presented almost as a "oh, and by the way…" clause:

"I am writing this email with regard to your research paper, 'Secondary Studentso [sic] Values and Perceptions of Science-Related Careers Responses to Vignette-Based Scenarios' I read it and felt that your work is worthy of admiration. I have shared the finding of the paper with my colleagues. Other scholars of our research community have also commended them. It shows your potential to influence and inspire fellow researchers and scholars.

Your quest to explore dimensions in your field that matches our journal's scope compels me to know more about your current research work. I can also connect you with our network of eminent researchers of your stream, along with recognizing your university.

Additionally, as I am also Managing Editor at Global Journals, I cordially invite you to send your future research articles/papers for publication in Global Journal of Human-Social Science, CrossRef DOI: 10.34257/GJHSS."

email from chiefauthor@socialscienceresearch.org, 20th January 2023

Now I accept that I was not fooled by this (which is why I investigated the supposed author), and in any case I suspect that my university (i.e., the University of Cambridge) probably does not need recognition from Global Journals.

Perhaps, this was never intended to mislead the recipient. Perhaps, now that we all live in a post-truth world, any recipient should have simply smiled at the conceit, realising that even if Auffret existed, we were not meant to take the claims about her reading and admiring the recipient's work seriously.

How spamming works

But I suspect that the whole point of seemingly personalised approaches like this (apart from disguising an email mail shot which is in breach of UK regulations on mass marketing) is that if one in ten, or one in twenty, or even one in a hundred, of the recipients are fooled (in the sense of thinking someone really has read their work, and really does think is it of sufficient merit to seek out that scholar, and really wants to network with them), then this hooks enough potential customers to justify the effort commercially. The minimal cost of sending thousands of such invitations is easily justified if one recipient submits some work to the publisher and pays the cost of US$ 1126 * for publication. That is how spam emails work – most people know they are not to be taken at face value, but it only needs a few people to be taken-in to generate profit.

At least Global Journals were no longer explicitly threatening court action (perhaps, bluff called?), but,

"Our concern remains that the content published on your blog, which criticizes our marketing strategies and operational practices, could be interpreted as defamatory under this legal standard. While we acknowledge your right to express personal opinions and critiques, we must also protect our corporate reputation against statements that we believe to be unfounded and potentially damaging."

email from legals@globaljournals.org, 14th February, 2024

They were still looking towards a "resolution". But now they wanted to invite me to a meeting to disucss the 'issues' and referred to "Collaborative Efforts" whereby "we can work together to promote ethical practices in academic publishing and contribute positively to the scholarly community".

This was a clever strategy: I was relieved that immediate court proceedings were not being explicitly threatened now, and, as an academic who claims to value dialogue, I was being invited to talk – and it was even being hinted that perhaps the corporation could benefit from my advice on how to ensure their procedures were ethical.

Having replied immediately to the first email from <legals@globaljournals.org>, I decided that now I needed some 'time out' to think. I wrote back to acknowledge receipt of their message, and to tell them I would be replying, but not immediately.

If a publisher acknowledges that it sends out emails from fictitious editors, why accept the authenticity of an email claiming to be from its 'legal department'? (original images by Peggy_Marco and Gordon Johnson, from Pixabay)

The publisher who cried wolf

The story of the boy who cried wolf tells of a young shepherd looking after the sheep who called-out the villagers to defend against the wolf without good cause. Eventually, when the wolf actually came along to feed on the sheep, the boy again cried "wolf!" – but no one came to help, because he had lied before and was no longer considered trustworthy. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf]

Over the next few days I was composing possible responses in my head. An initial feeling that "at least they are looking to be reasonable, I suppose I should give them the benefit" soon hardened.

• Would a global corporation "cultivated over two decades" really need, or want, to engage in authentic dialogue to learn from me why it might not be best to promote their journals with fictitious editors?
• Were they looking for a genuine meeting of minds, or did they want to talk only to try to bamboozle me with lawyerese – looking to get concessions out of me by putting me under pressure?

This brought to mind a short period when I had acted as the National Union of Teachers representative at the Comprehensive School where I taught. On a Friday afternoon, I had a message from the head teacher that he would like to see me before I went home. I went to his office (pretty tired at the end of the working week) to find him there flanked by two deputies. He made some points about why the school management wanted such-and-such. I politely explained why the teaching staff had decided they did not agree to whatever-it-was. He then explained why we were wrong (from his perspective) and repeated his initial points. I politely pointed out that I understood his perspective, but that what he wanted did not look desirable from the teachers' perspective. He then told me, again, why we were wrong and, again, why his position was the one to be adopted.

We went through this cycle several times: my respectfully accepting that what he wanted made sense to management but not to the teaching staff; and his then explaining how I must be wrong because I did not accept his obviously correct opinion. It seemed clear to me that there was no intention to have a meaningful discussion, just an attempt to wear me down by outnumbering me at a point in the week when I was especially vulnerable. So, I made my excuses and went home. Since then I have been wary of mooted meetings with people who do not seem to have any flexibility in the outcome they seek.

A moment of insight

(source: 20th Century Fox)

A 'doh' moment

I decided to leave my reply to the weekend, although I still found myself mentally drafting possible points to include. But then I (rather belatedly!) had a moment of insight:

• My first contact with Global Journals was a marketing email that came from the email address: <chiefauthor@socialscienceresearch.org>
• That email was signed by a Dr Nicoleta Auffahrt who claimed to be a highly qualified managing editor – but who did not exist
• I was now receiving emails from an address <legals@globaljournals.org>…
• …signed by someone who claimed to be the corporation's Chief Legal Officer

But, ('doh!') if Global Journals use misleading email addresses and fictional employee identities, then

• how did I know the recent emails were really from a legal department and not just the marketing people again?
• how did I know the email was written by someone who had the name and title used in the signature?

I thought it was worth doing an email search to see if I could confirm the name of Global Journal's Chief Legal Officer – perhaps someone with such a senior position would be reported somewhere on the web? I was not over-hopeful, as India (where the Chief Legal Officer was supposed to be based) is the most populous country in the world, and I suspected I would find numerous lawyers there with that name.

What I actually found was no record at all of anyone with the name of the supposed Chief Legal Officer. That did not prove my supposed correspondent was not a real person, but it was highly suggestive. Lawyers may not tend to be as obvious on the web as academics, but there cannot be many senior professionals (such as a chief legal officer of an international company) that do not leave some digital trace that can be found in a web-search?

This hardened my resolve. If I suspected that the emails from <legals@globaljournals.org> were also not open about who I was really corresponding with, then I would write back to close the correspondence pending any good evidence that I really was being contacted by the legal department (see 'Annexe 2'!)

I was rather disappointed at myself. I had been contacted by a corporation that was happy to use fictional identifies, and even readily admitted it, but I then took communication at face value for being what it claimed.

I was brought up to be honest and truthful, and believe lying and deceit is only justifiable in extremis. Society can only work harmoniously – indeed, at all – if our default assumption is people we interact with are who they say they are and that they at least believe the claims they make. If, we strictly follow the advice of another fictional character, the investigative agent Fox Mulder, and 'trust no one', we soon come to a complete state of inaction and paranoia.

On the other hand, as the proverb suggests,

• fool me once, shame on you
• fool me twice, shame on me

* as according to the web-page https://globaljournals.org/journals/human-social-science/author-charges, accessed on 2nd March 29024

Annexe 1

Threat of legal action by Global Journals Incorporated

Dear Mr ********

Thank you for your email of 13th instant, entitled "Immediate Cease and Desist Demand – Defamatory and Harmful Content". I note the contents, and that you consider this a "formal legal notice".


Factual inaccuracies

Firstly, may I point that, contrary to your letter, I am not currently an editor of any academic journals [and to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, this includes International Journal of Science Education (Routledge/Taylor & Francis); Foundations of Chemistry (Springer); Teacher Development (Routledge/Taylor & Francis); Centre for Education Policy Studies Journal (Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana); Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research (Springer)] and my only active editorial position is as a book series editor-in-chief. You seem to be confusing journal editors (who have a formal contractual role, for which they normally receive consideration), with other senior academics who in roles such as editorial board members offer free advice to journal editors and publishers. I currently have no financial arrangements with any of the journals that you list.

I do indeed have a bias, though I would not consider this a prejudice. My bias is towards those journals which follow honest and open processes led by named academics with well-established reputations; and against journals which use dubious practices, such as those that send untruthful approaches to potential contributors, and hide their actual editors behind imaginary personas with faked academic qualifications. I would hope most other serious scholars would share this bias.  


Breach of professional ethics

If you truly believe, as you suggest, that my behaviour "contravenes professional ethics" then, as I am a Fellow of two Learned Scientific Societies that also operate as Professional Bodies (namely, the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Institute of Physics) you should refer the matter to these two institutions so they can investigate whether I have indeed broken the professional codes of ethics that I am expected to uphold. I would expect to offer a strong defence of my actions. I actually believe that as a senior academic who has worked as a journal editor and has taught novice researchers about publication ethics on post-graduate courses there is an ethical imperative for me to call-out examples of scholarly malpractice, such as those you acknowledge being part of Global Journals Incorporated's businesses practices, where I come across them.


Damage caused by my publicising Global Journals Incorporated's dishonest communications

I note you suggest I may be subject to court action under the Defamation Act 2013 because my blog posting has been "resulting in substantial financial losses…far-reaching, causing substantial financial detriment to our corporation, quantified in significant revenue losses". I find it very unlikely that a retired academic's personal blog can have caused such a substantive effect (and even more unlikely this could be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a court).

To the extent that my personal blog may have influenced some authors to avoid engaging with your company, this is not due to my claims about your company's dishonest practice in isolation, but is a due to a combination of factors: that is,

a) your company choosing to use dishonest and untrue communications (as you acknowledge in your email); AND
b) my pointing this out in my blog; AND
c) readers agreeing that they consider such practices as unethical and inappropriate in scholarly publishing.

Anyone reading my blog who feels 'that's okay, companies are allowed to use fictitious editors with made-up qualifications who pretend to have liked and recommended my work' is not going to change their submission intentions. Global Journals Incorporated's use of marketing emails containing false claims may indeed, as you suggest, be strictly legal in some jurisdictions such as "Delaware and [sic] the United States", but it is dishonest, and to my mind (if not yours) that makes it unethical. The academic literature will be worth nothing if scholars do not adhere to principles of openness and honesty – as who can trust anything in journals that do not hold truthfulness to be an important value? In any case, I suspect your marketing emails are in breach of UK regulations governing electronic mail marketing which both (i) do not allow you to send such email to "prospective customers or new contacts" unless they have opted in, and (ii) specify that even then "you must not disguise or conceal your identity".


Defamation Act 2013

I am struggling to understand the basis of your complaint as you seem to object to my criticising "the use of alternate [sic., i.e., fictitious] identities by our editors and reviewers to engage potential authors", yet you confirm that Global Journals Incorporated is doing that just that. I am not a lawyer (but I would assume that you, as a company's Chief Legal Officer, are legally qualified), and I do not understand how you expect to make a claim under the law of defamation if you accept that Global Journals Incorporated is indeed sending out invitations to academics from fictitious editors with imaginary doctorates who supposedly have read and been impressed by the work of those they are contacting. These emails contain lies, as you seem to acknowledge. There would seem to no basis there for an action of defamation!

Perhaps I have misunderstood, and you feel that there is/are one or more other statement(s) in my blog post which is/are both:

a) factually inaccurate; and
b) potentially damaging.

If this is so, I WOULD CERTAINLY BE PREPARED TO ADDRESS THIS, AND TO DO SO AS A PRIORITY. But you would need to specify where I have made a false claim, and convince me it is false. So far, you have only objected to (i) statements about Global Journals Incorporated's practices that you seem to acknowledge are true, and to (ii) my opinion (which I am fairly sure I am entitled to) on the ethical status of those practices.

Otherwise, I do not see any validity underpinning your 'Immediate Cease and Desist Demand' request. I would assume that you, as a Chief Legal Officer, would appreciate that true statements are not considered defamatory in English Law (as "It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true"), in which case your communication (confirming, as I imagine any court would recognise, the truth of 'the statement complained of') would seem to be an attempt to tempt me into acting out of fear of malicious and spurious court action ("Failure to comply will immediately initiate legal action in the United Kingdom. We will seek substantial damages for losses incurred and decisively pursue all legal costs"…"We will seek substantial damages for losses incurred and decisively pursue all legal costs"), rather than in accord with the facts of the case at hand.

I strongly suspect that even if you could find an officer of the English courts who would take on a case on the basis you have outlined, the case would, on request to the court, be summarily struck out under rule 3.4 of the procedure rules for civil courts. I therefore think that your threat by a corporation to come after an individual retired teacher for "substantial damages" and "legal costs" for speaking truth about unethical practices paints Global Journals Incorporated in a very poor light, suggesting that its legal team either does not understand English law, or is prepared to make misleading representations of it to try to cover-up the company's dubious publishing practices.

I look forward to your clarification of any public statements of mine regarding Global Journals Incorporated that you feel are factually incorrect, and that I should look to address. I can assure you that I will make all reasonable efforts to ensure apparent factual claims on my website are indeed in accord with the facts. Perhaps Global Journals Incorporated might consider adopting a similar policy in regard with its communications with potential authors?

Best wishes

Keith

Annexe 2

Dear Mr. ********

Thank you again for your follow-up email of 14th instant.

I have now taken time to carefully re-read the blog post that you refer to, i.e., at https://science-education-research.com/earning-a-higher-doctorate-without-doing-any-research/. I am confident that any factual statements made there are accurate to the best of my knowledge. I am not infallible of course, and repeat that I am open to considering evidence that might persuade me that a correction is needed due to an error of fact. I have also checked on the reasonableness of those statements that are clearly intended to be understood as my own opinions and interpretations rather than objective statements of fact.

However, the crux of my blog post is suggesting that communications I received from Global Journals were signed by a fictitious academic. You have in your recent emails (13th, 14th inst.) confirmed that Global Journals Incorporated uses 'alternate identities' in its communications. You suggest that such a policy is both legal and justified ("a measure taken strictly for privacy and security reasons"). In reviewing my published post, I find no suggestion that I was claiming this practice was illegal or unlawful. (As I suggested in my previous reply, I do suspect that Global Journals Incorporated is breaking UK regulations in sending unsolicited email marketing, as I had not signed up for your marketing emails and had no previous business with your organisation. I suspect that is relevant, as this may be why Global Journals Incorporated chooses to seek to disguise these emails as not being the widely broadcast marketing they are {i.e., what most recipients might consider spam} but a personal contact by a fellow academic {from an organisation with the domain "socialscienceresearch.org"} who is impressed by a specific scholar's work and wishes to engage with that individual at a personal level {something I believe may also be breach of UK regulations on email marketing which do not allow you to "disguise or conceal your identity"}.) However, to reiterate and avoid any possible doubt, I do not claim that falsifying the identify of an email author is, in itself, unlawful: I am not qualified to comment on that, and I offer no opinion on the legal status of this dubious practice.


Dialogue

I took some time to reflect on your offer to enter into further dialogue. As you will have suspected, this appeals in principle to a scholar. However, I considered (a) that I wrote twice in response to the initial email from chiefauthor@socialscienceresearch.org (on 20th January and 24th January 2023, that is before composing the blog post) without receiving clarification from Global Journals that I was corresponding with an 'alternate identity'; (b) your own initial contact earlier this was week was not focused on dialogue, but comprised a threat of legal action (albeit one that any lawyer would surely have realised was hollow). Entering into a meaningful dialogue would require trust on behalf of both parties, and Global Journals Incorporated's behaviour to date – misrepresentation and threat – does not encourage me to assume Global Journals Incorporated's good faith.


Collaborative efforts

I retired from my teaching role in 2020 on health grounds and although I still do some pro bono work for journals that I hold in high regard and have an association with, I am not seeking further consultancy opportunities. However, I would recommend that if Global Journals Incorporated is serious about adopting ethical publishing practices, then it should consider the work of COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics (https://publicationethics.org), which is an organisation of publishers and others involved in academic publishing. This organisation offers a forum for sharing practices and seeking guidance on best practice.


Defamation

In your follow-up letter (14th instant.), you once again suggest that my blog post "could be interpreted as defamatory", again ignoring the fundamental legal principle that true statements cannot defame (which is why I am confident that it could NOT be REASONABLY interpreted as defamatory). To reiterate, I believe that factual statements in my public post are accurate, and that opinions and interpretations are reasonable and are not presented as if facts.

Truthful communications

You claim that "all communications [from Global Journals], including those from alternate identities, are truthful and transparent about the nature and purpose of the outreach". To be persuaded of that, you would need to demonstrate to me that the email that I was sent on 20th January 2023, although not written by the person who signed it:

a) was written by a person holding that status (managing editor) in the organisation;
b) was written by someone who held the same (or substantially the same) academic qualifications (M.A., Ph.D., D.Litt in Teaching Education) as claimed for the fictitious 'alternate identify';
c) was written by someone who had actually read the work cited;
d) was written by someone who had actually discussed the merits of the work with her(/his) colleagues, including others who had specifically commended the work;
e) was written by someone who genuinely held the work, and through the work its author, in the esteem suggested.

Unless that is so, then clearly these were misrepresentations that were not truthful and were designed to misdirect the recipient into believing they had been contacted by someone with a strong personal interest in their work, when any personal interest was actually phoney. (That is a very common practice which is indicative of predatory journals.) You will appreciate that the comments from colleagues around the world, who took time to respond to my post to the effect that they have received substantially identical emails, only reinforces my suspicions about the truthfulness of these statements. However, if I was provided with a suitable, properly notarised, affidavit from the true author, affirming all of these points (a-e) I would he prepared to add a statement to acknowledge this clarification at the end of the post. 

Transparency

One of the key quality indicators of a good journal is that its editors are highly qualified and recognised as leading academics in a relevant field. I cannot consider any email from an academic publisher that claims editor qualifications which have never been awarded (clearly no university has awarded anyone called Nicoleta Auffahrt the degrees Global Journals claimed she had earned) to be 'transparent'.


Privacy

You justify the use of false identities for "editors and reviewers" as offering "privacy and protection" to your colleagues. Academic reputations and careers are based on certifiable scholarly contributions such as publications (sic, which by definition are in the public record and open to public interrogation) and publicly verifiable roles in academic journals. There is no logic to a genuine academic not wishing to be publicly associated with a journal where they have an editorial role (unless they believe association with that specific journal would actively harm their academic reputation because they know it is what is commonly called a predatory journal). Academic journal editorship is a PUBLIC role. Global Journals is a PUBLIsher PUBLIshing academic PUBLICations, where disguising the identify of editors should be considered anathema. Privacy, in that regard, would not be desirable for the scholar. Similarly, reviewers get kudos for their work for academic journals, and offer their specific referee reports through a procedure that can be (and usually is) anonymised to anyone outside the editorial office, so there would be no rationale for hiding the identity of those acting as referees unless they were ill-qualified for the role.


Moving forward

Finally, I am aware that when communicating with an organisation that believes it is acceptable to use 'alternate identities' in its communications, I have no assurance of the identity of my correspondent. I have no more reason to trust your emails were written by a 'Mr ******* *******' than that Global Journal's earlier email was written by a 'Dr Nicoleta Auffahrt'; nor do I have any better reason to believe that that your emails were written by someone who is actually the company's Chief Legal Officer, than I had to believe the earlier email was written by someone who really was Managing Editor. Evidence of a real lawyer called Mr ******* ******* seems to be as lacking on the internet as evidence of the fictitious scholar Dr Nicoleta Auffahrt.

Of course, the usual convention is to believe that people who contact us will be honest and open, until we have reason to doubt that. I have good reason to doubt whether communications from Global Journals can be trusted as honest in this sense. After all, if an email from the address "chiefauthor@socialscienceresearch.org" was actually written and sent by someone in Global Journal's marketing department, what reason do I have to trust that an email from "legals@globaljournals.org" does indeed originate from the legal department, rather than being another attempt at misdirection? If you really are Mr *******, and you really are Chief Legal Officer of Global Journals, then please excuse my suspicions – but I believe they must be judged reasonable in the circumstances.


Closing the correspondence

To reiterate, I have not, and do not, claim that Global Journals use of fictitious correspondents is in itself necessary illegal (I offer no view on that) but I maintain that it is a dishonest practice; one that cannot be justified in academic publishing where a concern for openness and the truth is paramount; and one which deliberately seeks to misrepresent a mass marketing email as a personal approach based on a close professional engagement with a scholar's work. In that, it reflects a very common practice of predatory journals. You have offered me no reasons to revise my opinions of this practice. 

I am now considering this correspondence closed, at least unless and until I am offered compelling reasons to trust the identity and role of my correspondent, along with good grounds to consider any remedial action is needed on my part.

I have notified the Legal Services Division of my University (https://www.legal.admin.cam.ac.uk) of the 'Immediate Cease and Desist Demand' sent earlier this week, and will inform them of any further approaches supposedly from Global Journals' legal team.


Best wishes

Keith

Should I pay a magazine to write a feature article about one of my book reviews?

Keith S. Taber

Dear Chris Temple

Thank you or your message with the subject 'Inquiry – Making sense of a pedagogic text', but I am a retired academic, and so do not have a publicity budget to pay you to do a feature on my research.

In any case, the publication you have selected, 'Making sense of a pedagogic text', as suitable for discussion in a feature article, presumably because [you want me to think that] you see particular merit in it, seems an odd choice, as it is an essay review of a text book. So, I immediately ask, how much thought and effort went into your selecting this article? How much of it did you read [i.e., have you read any of it?] before you decided you wanted to take up some of my time so you could "speak with you concerning your work on the Making sense of a pedagogic text paper". When I was teaching, how would I have responded to a student who wanted to have a supervision on a text, but had not themselves spent time reading it first?

However, I see from 'Linked-in'*  that you consider yourself "a Project Manager who strives on increasing new business and profit to companies through new sales and fresh thinking technical marketing strategies", so I suspect there is some 'cunning plan' (some fresh thinking technical marketing strategy) behind your selection of a book review as a target for enticing me me to spend some of my pension to help your company profit. Perhaps you do have some basis for selecting this work as being suitable for the 'feature' treatment in your magazine?

• Perhaps you have recognised the deep insight and carefully honed judgement I apply in the review?
• Perhaps you recognised how I have managed to apply pedagogic principles to the analysis of a book about pedagogy? (Clever, those academics.)
• Perhaps you agree that the textbook concerned offers an approach overly focused on one factor, and that my review is crucial to offer readers of the textbook a more balanced appreciation of the field?

Or perhaps you especially like book reviews, as I quickly found that you had also invited a Prof. Julie Crupples to have one of her book reviews featured in the magazine.

Or perhaps you, or some 'bot' you employ, has simply identified the name of a recent publication that can be associated with a name and email address. That would explain the fresh thinking/bizarre choice.

As you offer no justification for the unlikely selection, I am left to suspect that no more thought went into the choice of this publication as the basis of a feature article in your magazine than all those invitations I get asking me to write or speak on nanotechnology, virology, gynaecology, psychiatry and all the rest – which seem to be based on no more that I am someone who has published something or other, on some topic or other, somewhere on the web.

Incidentally, when I read that your "email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party" this simply reinforces the impression of Research Features as a predatory publication. Perhaps I am wrong, but your email appears to be simply a standard marketing email into which you have dropped a few details into fields (email, name, article title)? It seems this is 'cold calling' by email, in the hope you will be invited to give me your sales talk. I do not find anything confidential here. You are aware of one of my publications (well, it is in the public domain) and you are making sure I am aware of your publication (which…, well you get the point). As your website invites all and sundry to get in touch to "get featured" it is clearly not a matter that the offer is only open to those directly invited.

So, that raises the question of why you would not want me to share the content of your email (and so let others know about your magazine and the PR service you offer). The only obvious reason would be that you would like recipients to feel they have been specially chosen. Like most of the weakly targeted scam emails that come my way, it is clear that the vast majority of recipients will dismiss them as irrelevant, but that does not matter as long as

• (a) a very small proportion find the invitation convincing and
• (b) the company engages in blanket emails so that a, say, 0.01% hit rate brings in enough sales.

You add a little bit of additional spam to the clogged-up Inboxes of the other 99.99%, but presumably (although I read on the web that UK "legislation says that organisations must only send marketing emails to individuals if you have agreed to receive them, except where there is a clearly defined customer relationship") you think you will get away with that?

(* I see that you have posted a link to a video that talks about the need for social value, ethics and responsibility in business. Hm.)

If there are academics tempted to pay you for this service, they should consider:

I would question the judgement of those academics who think this would be a good use of their time and money.

In summary then, this seems a dubious publication, with a very dubious marketing policy, that I would suggest serious scholars should avoid. I hope that clearly responds to your enquiry.

Best wishes

Keith