The publisher who cried 'wolf!'

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


Keith S. Taber


"…our marketing strategies, particularly the use of alternate identities by our editors and reviewers to engage potential authors
our editors' and reviewers' marketing strategies …Thus, the use of virtual identities for initial outreach efforts"

email from legals@globaljournals.org


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".


A solicitor peruses a document

"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.


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.

Defamation Act 2013

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.


Homer Simpson has a moment of insight

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


The best science education journal

Where is the best place to publish science education research?


Keith S. Taber



OutletDescriptionNotes
International Journal of Science EducationTop-tier general international science education journalHistorically associated with the European Science Education Research Association
Science EducationTop-tier general international science education journal
Journal of Research in Science TeachingTop-tier general international science education journalAssociated with NARST
Research in Science EducationTop-tier general international science education journalAssociated with the Australasian Science Education Research Association
Studies in Science EducationLeading journal for publishing in-depth reviews of topics in science education
Research in Science and Technological Education Respected general international science education journal
International Journal of Science and Maths EducationRespected general international science education journalFounded by the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan
Science Education InternationalPublishes papers that focus on the teaching and learning of science in school settings ranging from early childhood to university educationPublished by the International Council of Associations for Science Education
Science & EducationHas foci of historical, philosophical, and sociological perspectives on science educationAssociated with the International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Group
Journal of Science Teacher EducationConcerned with the preparation and development of science teachersAssociated with the Association for Science Teacher Education
International Journal of Science Education, Part B – Communication and Public EngagementConcerned with research into science communication and public engagement / understanding of science
Cultural Studies of Science EducationConcerned with science education as a cultural, cross-age, cross-class, and cross-disciplinary phenomenon
Journal of Science Education and TechnologyConcerns the intersection between science education and technology.
Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education ResearchConcerned with science education within specific disciplines and between disciplines.Affiliated with the Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University
Journal of Biological Education For research specifically within biology educationPublished for the Royal Society of Biology.
Journal of Chemical EducationA long-standing journal of chemistry education, which includes a section for Chemistry Education Research papersPublished by the American Chemical Society.
Chemistry Education Research and Practice The leading research journal for chemistry educationPublished by the Royal Society of Chemistry
Some of the places to publish research in science education

I was recently asked which was the best journal in which to seek publication of science education research. This was a fair question, given that I had been been warning of the large number of low quality journals now diluting the academic literature.

I had been invited to give a seminar talk to the Physics Education and Scholarship Section in the Department of Physics at Durham University. I had been asked to talk on the theme of 'Publishing research in science education'.

The talk considered the usual processes involved in submitting a paper to a research journal and the particular responsibilities involved for authors, editors and reviewers. In the short time available I said a little about ethical issues, including difficulties that can arise when scholars are not fully aware of, or decide to ignore, the proper understanding of academic authorship 1 . I also discussed some of the specific issues that can arise when those with research training in the natural sciences undertake educational research without any further preparation (for example, see: Why do natural scientists tend to make poor social scientists?), such as underestimating the challenge of undertaking valid experiments in educational contexts.

I had not intended to offer advice on specific journals for the very good reasons that

  • there are a lot of journals
  • my experience of them is very uneven
  • I have biases!
  • knowledge of journals can quickly become out of date when publishers change policies, or editorial teams change

However, it was pointed out that there does not seem to be anywhere where such advice is readily available, so I made some comments based on my own experience. I later reflected that some such guidance could be useful, especially to those new to research in the area.

I do, in the 'Research methodology' section of the site, offer some advice to the new researcher on 'Publishing research', that includes some general advice on things to consider when thinking about where to send your work:

Read about 'Selecting a research journal: Selecting an outlet for your research articles'

Although I name check some journals there, I did not think I should offer strong guidance for the reasons I give above. However, taking on board the comment about the lack of guidance readily available, I thought I would make some suggestions here, with the full acknowledgement that this is a personal perspective, and that the comments facility below will allow other views and potential correctives to my biases! If I have missed an important journal, or seem to have made a misjudgement, then please tell me and (more importantly) other readers who may be looking for guidance.

Publishing in English?

My focus here is on English language journals. There are many important journals that publish in other languages such as Spanish. However, English is often seen as the international language for reporting academic research, and most of the journals with the greatest international reach work in the English language.

These journals publish work from all around the world, which therefore includes research into contexts where the language of instruction is NOT English, and where data is collected, and often analysed, in the local language. In these cases, reporting research in English requires translating material (curriculum materials, questions posed to participants, quotations from learners etc.) into English. That is perfectly acceptable, but translation is a skilled and nuanced activity, and needs to be acknowledged and reported, and some assurance of the quality of translation offered (Taber, 2018).

Read about guidelines for good practice regarding translation in reporting research

Science research journal or science education journal?

Sometime science research journals will publish work on science education. However, not all science journals will consider this, and even for those that do, this tends to be an occasional event.

With the advent of open-access, internet accessible publishing, some academic publishers are offering journals with very wide scope (presumably as it is considered that in the digital age it is easier to find research without it needing to be in a specialist journal), however, authors should be wary of journals that have titles implying a specialist scientific focus but which seem to accept material from a wide range of fields, as this is one common indicator of predatory journals – that is, journals which do not use robust peer review (despite what they may claim) and have low quality standards.

Read about predatory journals

There are some scientific journals with an interdisciplinary flavour which are not education journals per se, but are open to suitable submissions on educational topics. I am most familiar (disclosure of interest, being on the Editorial Board) is Foundations of Chemistry (published by Springer).



Science Education Journal or Education Journal?

Then, there is the question of whether to publish work in specialist science education journals or one of the many more general education journals. (There are too many to discuss them here.) General education journals will sometimes publish work from within science education, as long as they feel it is of high enough general interest to their readership. This may in part be a matter of presentation – if the paper is written so it is only understandable to subject specialists, and only makes recommendations for specialists in science education, it is unlikely to seem suitable for a more general journal.

On the other hand, just because research has been undertaken in science teaching and learning context, this may not make it of particular interest to science educators if the research aims, conceptualisation, conclusions and recommendations concern general educational issues, and anything that may be specific to science teaching and learning is ignored in the research – that is, if a science classroom was chosen just as a matter of convenience, but the work could have been just as well undertaken in a different curriculum context (Taber, 2013).

Research Journal or Professional Journal?

Another general question is whether it is best to send one's work to an academic research journal (offering more kudos for the author{s} if published) or a journal widely read by practitioners (but usually considered less prestigious when a scholar's academic record is examined for appointment and promotion). These different types of output usually have different expectations about the tone and balance of articles:

Read about Research journals and practitioner journals

Some work is highly theoretical, or is focussed on moving forward a research field – and is unlikely to be seen as suitable for a teacher's journal. Other useful work may have developed and evaluated new educational resources, but without critically exploring any educational questions in any depth. Information about this project would likely be of great interest to teachers, but is unlikely to meet the criteria to be accepted for publication in a research journal.

But what about a genuine piece of research that would be of interest to other researchers in the field, but also leads to strong recommendations for policy and practice? Here you do not have to choose one or other option. Although you cannot publish the same article in different journals, a research report sent to an academic journal and an article for teachers would be sufficiently different, with different emphases and weightings. For example, a professional journal does not usually want a critical literature review and discussion of details of data analysis, or long lists of references. But it may value vignettes that teachers can directly relate to, as well as exemplification of how recommendation might be followed through – information that would not fit in the research report.

Ideally, the research report would be completed and published first, and the article for the professional audience would refer to (and cite) this, so that anyone who does want to know more about the theoretical background and technical details can follow up.

Some examples of periodicals aimed at teachers (and welcoming work written by classroom teachers) include the School Science Review, (published by the Association for Science Education), Physics Education (published by the Institute of Physics) and the Royal Society of Chemistry's magazine Education in Chemistry. Globally, there are many publications of this kind, often with a national focus serving teachers working in a particular curriculum context by offering articles directly relevant to the specifics of the local education contexts.

The top science education research journals

Having established our work does fit in science education as a field, and would be considered academic research, we might consider sending it to one of these journals

  • International Journal of Science Education (IJSE)
  • Science Education (SE)
  • Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST)
  • Research in Science Education (RiSE)


To my mind these are the top general research journals in the field.

IJSE is the journal I have most worked with, having published quite a few papers in the journal, and have reviewed a great many. I have been on the Editorial Board for about 20 years, so I may be biased here.2 IJSE started as the European Journal of Science Education and has long had an association with the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA – not to be confused with ASERA).

Strictly this journal is now known as IJSE Part A, as there is also a Part B which has a particular focus on 'Communication and Public Engagement' (see below). IJSE is published by Taylor and Francis / Routledge.

SE is published by Wiley.

JRST is also published by Wiley, and is associated with NARST.

RISE is published by Springer, and is associated with the Australasian Science Education Research Association (ASERA – not to be confused with ESERA)

N.A.R.S.T. originally stood for the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, where the Nation referred to was the USA. However, having re-branded itself as "a global organization for improving science teaching and learning through research" it is now simply known as NARST. In a similar way ESERA describes itself as "an European organisation focusing on research in science education with worldwide membership" and ASERA clams it "draws together researchers in science education from Australia, New Zealand and more broadly".


The top science education reviews journal

Another 'global' journal I hold in high esteem in Studies in Science Education (published by Taylor & Francis / Routledge) 3 .

This journal, originally established at the University of Leeds and associated with the world famous Centre for Studies in Science Education 4, is the main reviews journal in science education. It publishes substantive, critical reviews of areas of science education, and some of the most influential articles in the field have been published here.

Studies in Science Education also has a tradition of publishing detailed scholarly book reviews.


In my view, getting your work published in any of these five journals is something to be proud of. I think people in many parts of the world tend to know IJSE best, but I believe that in the USA it is often considered to be less prestigious than JRST and SE. At one time RISE seemed to have a somewhat parochial focus, and (my impression is) attracted less work from outside Australasia and its region – but that has changed now. 'Studies' seems to be better known in some contexts than other, but it is the only high status general science education journal that publishes full-length reviews (both systematic, and thematic perspectives), with many of its contributions exceeding the normal word-length limits of other top science education journals. This is the place to send an article based on that literature review chapter that thesis examiners praised for its originality and insight!



There are other well-established general journals of merit, for example Research in Science and Technological Education (published by Taylor & Francis / Routledge, and originally based at the University of Hull) and the International Journal of Science and Maths Education (published by Springer, and founded by the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan). The International Council of Associations for Science Education publishes Science Education International.

There are also journals with particular foci with the field of science education.

More specialist titles

There are also a number of well-regarded international research journals in science education which particular specialisms or flavours.


Science & Education (published by Springer) is associated with the International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Group 5, which as the name might suggest has a focus on science eduction with a focus on the nature of science, and "publishes research using historical, philosophical, and sociological approaches in order to improve teaching, learning, and curricula in science and mathematics".


The Journal of Science Teacher Education (published by Taylor & Francis / Routledge), as the name suggests is concerned with the preparation and development of science teachers. The journal is associated with the USA based Association for Science Teacher Education.


As suggested above, IJSE has a companion journal (also published by Taylor & Francis / Routledge), International Journal of Science Education, Part B – Communication and Public Engagement


Cultural Studies of Science Education (published by Springer) has a particular focus on  science education "as a cultural, cross-age, cross-class, and cross-disciplinary phenomenon".


The Journal of Science Education and Technology (published by Springer) has a focus on the intersection between science education and technology.


Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research has a particular focus on science taught within and across disciplines. 6 Whereas most of the journals described here are now hybrid (which means articles will usually be behind a subscription/pay-wall, unless the author pays a publication fee), DISER is an open-access journal, with publication costs paid on behalf of authors by the sponsoring organisation: the Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University.

This relatively new journal reflects the increasing awareness of the importance of cross-disciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research in science itself. This is also reflected in notions of whether (or to what extent) science education should be considered part of a broader STEM education, and there are now journals styled as STEM education journals.


Science as part of STEM?

Read about STEM in the curriculum


Research within teaching and learning disciplines

Whilst both the Institute of Physics and the American Institute of Physics publish physics education journals (Physics Education and The Physics Teacher, respectively) neither publishes full length research reports of the kind included in research journals. The American Physical Society does publish Physical Review Physics Education Research as part of its set of Physical Review Journals. This is an on-line journal that is Open Access, so authors have to pay a publication fee.


The Journal of Biological Education (published by Taylor and Francis/Routledge) is the education journal of the Royal Society of Biology.


The Journal of Chemical Education is a long-established journal published by the American Chemical Society. It is not purely a research journal, but it does have a section for educational research and has published many important articles in the field. 7


Chemistry Education Research and Practice (published by the Royal Society of Chemistry, RSC) is purely a research journal, and can be considered the top international journal for research specifically in chemistry education. (Perhaps this is why there is a predatory journal knowingly called the Journal of Chemistry Education Research and Practice)

As CERP is sponsored by the RSC (which as a charity looks to use income to support educational and other valuable work), all articles in CERP are accessible for free on-line, but there are no publication charges for authors.


Not an exhaustive list!

These are the journals I am most familiar with, which focus on science education (or a science discipline education), publish serous peer-reviewed research papers, and can be considered international journals.

I know there are other discipline-based journals (e.g, biochemistry education, geology education) and indeed I expect there are many worthwhile places to publish that have slipped my mind or about which I am ignorant. Many regional or national journals have high standards and publish much good work. However, when it comes to research papers (rather than articles aimed primarily at teachers) academics usually get more credit when they publish in higher status international journals. It is these outlets that can best attract highly qualified editors and reviewers, and so peer review feedback tends to be most helpful 8, and the general standard of published work tends to be of a decent quality – both in terms of technical aspects, and its significance and originality.

There is no reason why work published in English is more important than work published in other languages, but the wide convention of publishing research for an international audience in English means that work published in English language journals probably gets wider attention globally. I have published a small number of pieces in other languages, but am primarily limited by my own restricted competence to only one language. This reflects my personal failings more than the global state of science education publishing!

A personal take – other viewpoints are welcome

So, this is my personal (belated) response to the question about where one should seek to publish research in science education. I have tried to give a fair account, but it is no doubt biased by my own experiences (and recollections), and so inadvertently subject to distortions and omissions.

I welcome any comments (below) to expand upon, or seek to correct, my suggested list, which might indeed make this a more useful listing for readers who are new to publishing their work. If you have had good (or bad) experiences with science education journals included in, or omitted from, my list, please share…


Sources cited:

Notes

1 Academic authorship is understood differently to how the term 'author' is usually used: in most contexts, the author is the person who prepared (wrote, types, dictated) a text. In academic research, the authors of the research paper are those who made a substantial direct intellectual contribution to the work being reported. That is, an author need not contribute to the writing-up phase (though all authors should approve the text) as long as they have made a proper contribution to the substance of the work. Most journals have clear expectations that all deserving authors, and only those people, should be named as authors.

Read about academic authorship


2 For many years the journal was edited by the late Prof. John Gilbert, who I first met sometime in the 1984-5 academic year when I applied to join the University of Surrey/Roehampton Institute part-time teachers' programme in the Practice of Science Education, and he – as one of course directors – interviewed me. I was later privileged to work with John on some projects – so this might be considered as a 'declaration of interest'.


3 Again, I must declare an interest. For some years I acted as the Book Reviews editor for the journal.


4 The centre was the base for the highly influential Children's Learning in Science Project which undertook much research and publication in the field under the Direction of the late Prof. Ros Driver.


5 Another declaration of interest: at the time of writing I am on the IHPST Advisory Board for the journal.


6 Declaration of interest: I am a member of the DISER's Editorial Board


7 I have recently shown some surprise at one research article published in JChemEd where major problems seem to have been missed in peer review. This is perhaps simply an aberration, or may reflect the challenge of including peer-reviewed academic research in a hybrid publication that also publishes a range of other kinds of articles.


8 Peer-review evaluates the quality of submissions, in part to inform publication decisions, but also to provide feedback to authors on areas where they can improve a manuscript prior to publication.

Read about peer review


Download this post


Earning a higher doctorate without doing any research?

Is it possible that a publisher might be using fictitious academics to attract submissions to its journals?


Keith S. Taber


An obvious discrepancy is that the University of Ottawa is not Ottawa University, USA. One is in Ontario, in Canada – the other is in Kansas, in the United States. Someone who has attended one of these universities would be unlikely to be confused about which one they studied at, and graduated from.

I received an email from a journal managing editor claiming to be a highly qualified scholar (two doctorates)- for whom I can find absolutely no evidence on the web of her having ever published anything, or having any association with any university, research group, or learned society. Suspicious?


Wanted!

Information on the academic research of this woman

(Additional image elements by No-longer-here and OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay)


I received one of those dodgy emails from a publisher that are now part of the normal noise one has to navigate through in the Academy. The email was signed by a Dr Nicoleta Auffahrt, as Managing Editor of the 'Department of Humanities and Social Science' 'at Global Journals'. So far, nothing too suspicious.

Dr Auffahrt wrote that she had read my [actually co-authored] research paper "Secondary Students' Values and Perceptions of Science-Related Careers Responses to Vignette-Based Scenarios". She told me:

  • She had read it and felt it was worthy of admiration
  • She had shared 'the finding' with her [unspecified] colleagues
  • She reported that other [unspecified] scholars of our [sic] research community had also commended 'them' [?]
  • She suggested that this paper demonstrated my potential to influence and inspire fellow researchers and scholars.
Two classes of academics

Now, perhaps there was a time when I might have taken some of this at face value, being naïve enough to believe that most people are basically honest, and that at least in the world of scholarship people value truth and honesty and would not casually lie.

One might expect such compliments to often hit home with academics: after all, isn't academia made up of two classes of scholars

  • those who suffer imposter symptom and are waiting to be found out as not belonging;
  • those who know their work is important and ground-breaking, deserving of being more widely known, and a sufficient cause to bring them attention, prestige, admiration, acolytes, and prizes?

The latter group, at least, would not find anything odd in receiving such unsolicited praise.

However, I've had too many emails of this kind that praise my work but which are clearly not truthful: often they either

The reference to 'our research community' was intriguing, as the letter (appended below) was structured so as to

  • (i) first praise me as though Dr Auffahrt was so impressed with my work that she needed to tell me; and then,
  • (ii) by the way, incidentally, as she was writing – she thought she would mention, "also" her role working for a publisher that led her to invite me to submit some work.

So, was it feasible that Dr Auffahrt did consider us part of the same research community? When I checked her email signature I saw she signed herself as Dr. Nicoleta Auffahrt "D.Litt in Teaching Education".



Now I was intrigued. Clearly 'teaching' and 'education' suggest that at least 'Dr' Nicoleta has a background in my general field of teaching and learning which makes a nice change from being invited to contribute on topics such as nanotechnology and various medical specialisms. Yet, this also raised some questions: what exactly is meant by 'teaching education' (cf. e.g., science education) as an academic area – was her work in teaching the subject of education or…?

Moreover, I was surprised that someone with a higher doctorate was acting as a 'managing editor' for a publisher. A D.Litt. was only likely to be awarded to a highly productive and influential scholar, and such a person might well take on editorial roles (as an editor, an associate editor, an editor-in-chief), but probably not as a managing editor.

A managing editor is employed by a publisher to oversee the administration and business side of a journal, unlike an editor who would normally being doing the intellectual work of evaluating the quality of submissions and directing the peer-review process (work which would often be seen as taking a leadership role in a research field) – and then usually only as a subsidiary post undertaken alongside an academic appointment. The prestige of the journal is often in part seen to be reflected in the university affiliations of its editors and associate editors.

There is, of course, no reason why someone who has achieved eminence in their academic field, recognised ultimately by being awarded a higher doctorate such as a D.Litt., might not decide to then make a career change and move into publishing; and, similarly, there is no reason why a publisher should not employ such a person if they were available – but it seemed an unlikely scenario. Unlikely enough for me to dig a little.

So, I did a web-search for Dr Nicoleta Auffahrt. I found her listed on one of the publisher's web-pages as part of an editorial board for social science. Her listing was:

"Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania, Master of Arts in Ottawa University, USA"

So, a Ph.D., but no mention of the much rarer and more prestigious D.Litt. degree. Of course, the web-page may be out of date, whereas perhaps Nicoleta had updated her email signature, so that proves nothing.

What was very odd though, was the limited number of web-pages that a search turned up.


QualificationsM.A., Ph.D., D.Litt
Search term "Dr Nicoleta Auffahrt"/ "Dr. Nicoleta Auffahrt"1 hit on Google (https://globaljournals.org)
Search terms Dr + "Nicoleta Auffahrt"4 hits on Google
(https://www.facebook.com;
https://globaljournals.org;
https://globaljournals.us;
https://beta.globaljournal)
How can a successful scholar who has two doctorates and is (or, perhaps, was until recently) working in a top US university be virtually invisible on the web?

Apart from three pages for the publisher, Google only provided one other 'hit' – a 'Facebook' page. Dropping the reference to 'Dr' still only found "Nicoleta Auffahrt" on Facebook and Global Journals webpages. That seemed very strange.

I also tried using Google Scholar. Google Scholar is a specialist search engine used by academics to find research reported in journal articles, academic books, conference proceedings, on websites, and so forth. Google Scholar did not suggest a single publication (and Google Scholar is pretty liberal in what it counts as a 'publication'!) that had been authored, co-authored or edited by "Nicoleta Auffahrt".

Typically searching for an academic brings up myriad references to their publications, conference talks, involvement in research groups, links with university departments, and so forth. A search for an experienced and successful academic would be expected to turn up, at least, hundreds, indeed – likely – thousands, of hits.

This is unavoidable if you work in academia – even if for some reason a scholar chooses not to have a specific Google Scholar listing (this does not stop your work being included in the database and returned in a search – it just means you do not get a personal profile page); not to have an Academia listing; not to post on ResearchGate; not to be on Linked-In (which is a common place for those working in publishing to seek to make contacts); and does not upload their dissertations/theses to University repositories…they still cannot prevent their books and papers and conference talks being referred to here and there.

Academic prestige is, after all, largely based on publications, and publications are by definition public documents. Assessment for a higher doctorate such as a D.Litt. is usually largely in terms of a scholar's published work being judged to be highly influential in their discipline or field (something that is usually only possible to judge some years after publications first appear). Moreover, one of the principle ways in which any academic is evaluated is in terms of the influence of their publications, as judged by citations – but Nicoleta Auffahrt's work does not seem to be cited anywhere. At least, Google Scholar had not found any. (No publications, and no citations.1)

So, here the only evidence I had of a person called Nicoleta Auffahrt really existing that was independent of the publisher who had contacted me was…Facebook, and that offered limited pickings.

I responded to the email (text appended below), asking Dr. Nicoleta Auffahrt about her area of work and where she had been awarded the prestigious D.Litt.

The next morning, I found I had a reply – but from someone else at the publishers. I say 'someone' else, as the email account was linked to the name Dr. Stacey J. Newman but the email was signed Dr. Nellie K. Neblett. Stacey, or was it Nellie, had ignored my questions to Nicoleta (but sent me an interesting brochure which revealed how the publisher calculated its own impact factor, but using data from the very catholic listings in Google Scholar – so vastly inflating the value compared with properly audited impact factors).


The response to my email reply to Nicoleta Auffahrt

Then a couple of days later, I had another email (appended below) from 'Dr' Auffahrt "following-up" on her earlier email, but written as if I had not replied to her – and repeating the information that she was going to be in Sydney 'next week' (it should have been 'this week' by then, if her earlier email had been correct) and again wishing my (non-existent) Christmas candles would be glorious. Given that she had asked me to confirm my affiliation with the University of Cambridge in Cambridge Uk, United Kingdom [sic, we in the U.K. tend to capitalise both letters, something one might expect an editor to appreciate – but perhaps she thought 'Cambridge Uk' was a place in the United Kingdom?], and I had done so, I was not entirely sure why she thought it useful for me to know she would be in Sydney, unless this was just 'small talk'.

I replied pointing out that,

"If you have checked your emails and seen my reply, you will have found I was asking about your research, as I wondered how it might link with mine. You have me at a disadvantage(!) as you tell me you have read some of my work, but I've not had a chance to read yours – perhaps you could direct me to some of it?"

My reply to 'Dr' Auffahrt 's second email.

So far, no response to that.

Nicoleta Auffahrt's Facebook presence

The Facebook page had not been updated since Christmas day 2021 (when a video from the University of Pennsylvania about the student-run Medical Emergency Response Team was re-posted.) According to this page: 'Dr' Auffahrt

  • Works at University of Pennsylvania
  • Worked at University of Ottawa
  • Studied at University of Ottawa
  • Studied at University of Pennsylvania
  • Went to Emma Hart Willard School
  • Lives in, and is from, Ottawa, Ontario

(I was unable to verify that there is a Emma Hart Willard School in Canada, and it is unlikely any current school would not have a website that could be picked up in a Google search, but, of course, it may have closed down or changed its name since Nicoleta studied there.)

Her Facebook page 'cover' picture (see below) is an image of 'Canada's University'.


A photograph of the Université d'Ottawa (Canada) – and the profile picture on 'Dr' Nicoleta Auffahrt's Facebook page.


The wrong Ottawa?

An obvious discrepancy is that the University of Ottawa is not Ottawa University, USA (where the publisher's site claimed 'Dr' Auffahrt was awarded her M.A. degree). One is in Ontario, in Canada – the other is in Kansas, in the United States. Someone who has attended one of these universities would be unlikely to be confused about which one they studied at, and graduated from.

'Dr' Nicoleta Auffahrt's Facebook cover picture was of the Canadian version (if from before some trees had been cut down – possibly as part of the removal of 50 trees as part of development work in 2015).

Friends and family?

Some people use a Facebook page extensively to connect with friends and family. Not everyone does. Some people start a Facebook page and either abandon it, or seldom update it. So, limited information on someone's Facebook page is not of itself evidence of any wrongdoing.

Nicoleta's account was linked to two 'friends' – the University of Pennsylvania, and a Canadian ice hockey player Brendan Jacome. (His Facebook page was even less informative than Nicoleta's – but unlike her, he has quite a web presence – Google made over 2000 returns for "Brendan Jacome").

Nocolata's Facebook activity was limited to

  • posting a picture of 'her baby' (see below) as her profile picture, updating her cover photo, and posting a message that "Real education is only obtained through self- education" – on the same day just before before Christmas 2016;
  • posting that she had "Started New Job at Global Journals Incorporated" in 2o19;
  • and updating her profile picture and reposting the University of Pennsylvania video on Christmas day 2021.
Nicoleta's baby?

It looked like the only real clues on the Facebook page were the photographs of Nicoleta and the woman she described as her 'baby' – so, perhaps her daughter?

I tried to find any other photos that matched the image supposed to be of Nicoleta Auffahrt. I failed, so that lead did not help.

However, I soon found an image matching the picture of the other woman.




The two images above are taken from Nicoleta Auffahrt's facebook page and a public profile for one Alessandra Manganelli when she was a Ph.D. student in Brussels (this page has no new content beyond a conference attended in the UK in November 2017). A smaller version of the same photograph appears on another page at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel site.



Unlike 'Dr' Auffahrt, a quick Google for "Alessandra Manganelli" gives over 2500 hits. That is much more in line with what one might expect for an academic.

According to the web, Dr Manganelli, having completed her doctorate at the the Universities of KULeuven and Vrije Universiteit Brussel, moved to a post-doctoral position in Hamburg. It seems she undertook her doctoral studies in Engineering Science with input in Architecture from one institution (KULeuven) and in Sciences from the other (VUB). She works on areas such as Urban Governance, Social Innovation, Urban Agriculture, Local Food Policies, Urban Environmental and Climate Governance. Google Scholar lists a range of publications she has written or co-authored. That is, unlike in the case of 'Dr' Auffahrt, there is a lot of publicly available information about Dr Manganelli's research activities to support her claim to be a genuine scholar.

A Canadian connection?

Although Dr Manganelli seems to have done most of her work in Europe, one might imagine that, if she was indeed Nicoleta Auffahrt's baby, then she was perhaps born and brought up in Canada, before moving to Europe to study? However, not so: it appears Dr Manganelli is from Sienna in Italy.

Intriguingly, however, one of her publications is a book for a major academic publisher: "The Hybrid Governance of Urban Food Movements. Learning from Toronto and Brussels". She also co-authored a paper in the journal 'Critical perspectives on food guidance' on "… FoodShare Toronto´s approach to critical food guidance…". So, there is a Canadian connection.

Dr Manganelli's has her own Facebook page. (Dr Manganelli has 840 friends listed on Facebook, but Nicoleta Auffahrt is not one of them.) Her page suggests she did work at Toronto Metropolitan University from January/February to June 2017 (so, at the time when Nicoleta Auffahrt was supposedly in Ottawa before moving to Pennsylvania) – and Toronto is 'only' about 350 km from Ottawa. (Dr Manganelli's Facebook site tells visitors that she visited Toronto again in November 2022.) But Nicoleta Auffahrt seems to have posted Alessandra Manganelli's picture on her Facebook page just before Alessandra Manganelli arrived in Canada.

One would presumably have to have a strong connection with another person to use their photograph as your social media profile picture for five years (Nicoleta Auffahrt used Alessandra Manganelli's image as her profile picture from 22nd December 2016 till 25th December 2021). But, perhaps I was being too literal in my reading of the term 'my baby'.

Perhaps

  • Nicoleta and Alessandra had met somewhere (a conference, a holiday, on line?) and formed a close friendship which may even have influenced Dr Manganelli's decision to spend some time in Canada (fairly) near Nicoleta Auffahrt; then
  • excited with anticipation at Alessandra's imminent arrival in the country, Nicoleta had posted a picture of her friend (her 'baby') as her new profile picture.

This seems a little forced to me, but it is not completely impossible. (I had no substantive interest in 'Dr' Auffahrt's personal life {nor Dr Manganelli's} – I just wanted to find out if there was evidence she was a real person who had genuinely earned those academic qualifications.)

Given the amount of information on the web, I am fairly confident Dr Manganelli is a real person.

(I emailed her to tell her I had found her picture on Nicoleta Auffahrt's Facebook page and asked if she had an email contact for Nicoleta Auffahrt. No reply (as yet) but Dr Manganelli is under no obligation to reply to emails from strangers asking her about her friends.)

I am less sure about 'Dr' Nicoleta Auffahrt.

I also emailed the registry at the University of Pennsylvania to say I had been contacted by someone claiming to hold a Ph.D. from the University, where I had suspicions about this, and asked if there was a public listing of Ph.D. holders that could be checked. So, far no response (beyond an automatic reply with a case number pointing out that a response "may take up to 3-5 business days", sent over two weeks ago). Perhaps the University of Pennsylvania does not concern itself with people who are possibly falsely claiming to hold its doctorates.*

Conclusion?

Perhaps, Nicoleta Auffahrt is a real person who does hold the degrees she claims, including a higher doctorate, despite having no scholarly trace on the web (though this seems incredible to the point of being virtually impossible), and does work for 'Global Journals'; and perhaps she did write the email telling me she was visiting Sydney (why tell me that?) and wishing me glorious Christmas candles (why say that weeks after Christmas?)… and then also writing the second email email ignoring my reply and repeating the information about Sydney and candles? I guess this is not impossible, just extremely unlikely. And if this is the case, and if she is so keen to 'develop an academic relationship' with me, then why does she ignore my replies and my request to learn more about her work?


Alternatively, perhaps Nicoleta Auffahrt is a real person with a genuine, if seldom updated, Facebook page, and a close relationship of some kind (which is genuinely none of my business) with Dr Alessandra Manganelli, but her identify has been 'borrowed' by Global Journals. So, perhaps, there is wrongdoing, but Nicoleta Auffahrt is totally innocent of this.

I suspect this sometimes happens – it would explain why the long-retired philosophy professor, Kuang-Ming Wu, Ph.D., supposed editor of a philosophy journal, thought I was qualified to review a paper on…well, I read the abstract and was still not sure what it was about, but it clearly was not anything related to science education.


It seems more likely to me that the Facebook page is a sham set up to give some kind of minimal web presence to 'Dr' Auffahrt (a fictitious Managing Editor at Global Journals), and that there is no Nicoleta Auffahrt (and that Dr Manganelli's image was simply arbitrarily sourced from the web somewhere without her knowledge).



Of course, I may be wrong, but there is certainly something dodgy about communications from this publisher, as the supposed managing editor seems to share her email account with Dr. Stacey J. Newman / Dr. Nellie K. Neblett – and checking back through old email I found another invitation (appended below) from the same email address supposedly from a Dr. Gisela Steins (there is a real academic with this name who is a psychology professor in Germany and is listed on the editorial board of the Global Journal of Human-Social Science).

Prof. Steins thought my paper "Knowledge, beliefs and pedagogy: how the nature of science should inform the aims of science education (and not just when teaching evolution)" was "remarkable and significant" and could be "vital for fellow researchers and scientists". That was very nice of her – at least, if she did actually write the email!


Invitation from a highly qualified scholar?
My reply to Nicoleta

Dear Dr. Nicoleta Auffahrt

Thank you for your kind message.

It was rewarding to learn that you considered our publication "Secondary Students' Values and Perceptions of Science-Related Careers Responses to Vignette-Based Scenarios" to be worthy of admiration, and that you have shared our work with your colleagues.

Congratulations on your role as Managing Editor, Department of Humanities and Social Science at Global Journals. This sounds a prestigious and challenging position. I hope you enjoy Sydney – I've not been there myself. I was a little confused by your remark about candles, as I had always assumed most Australians celebrated Christmas at the same time as in Western Europe – I am afraid Christmas already seems a memory here.

I wonder what you found of particular interest in the paper – perhaps you would be prepared to share what it is you found especially of value in this work?

In answer to your question, I am now retired from my teaching role. I maintain an affiliation with my Faculty as an Emeritus Officer of the University, and intend to follow my own scholarly interests for as long as I am able.

Perhaps this links to your own research? I hope you would be kind enough, in return, to answer a question for me. I was intrigued to see that you had a higher doctorate, a D. Litt. in Teaching Education, so clearly your background is relevant to my work. I was wondering where you were awarded that? I see from the journal publisher' web-pages that you were awarded your Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania and your Master of Arts from Ottawa University, USA, but it does not mention your D.Litt. Is 'Teaching Education' meant to be an abbreviation for teaching and education or was your degree specifically related to teacher education? In my national context a D. Litt. would usually only be awarded after a highly positive evaluation of a portfolio of post-doctoral publications, but I believe in the U.S. some universities offer this as an outcome of a thesis-based programme. I would be interested to know more about your area of work – in particular the body of work for which the D.Litt. was awarded, and how it links to my own scholarship and research.

Best wishes

Keith


What is this obsession with Christmas candles?


Praise (supposedly) from a psychology professor who found time to read my 'remarkable' work.

Update: Dr. Nicoleta Auffahrt succeeded by her doppelgänger?



My thanks to Dr. Murat Siviloglu for forwarding to me this extract (above) from an invitation he received from the current Managing Editor of the Global Journal of Human-Social Science. It seems perhaps "Dr Nicoleta Auffahrt" has moved on form her role, and now invitations are being sent out by "Dr Carolyn C. Mitchell". According to the invitation, Mitchell, like Aufffahrt holds the higher doctorate of a D.Litt., again in the odd subject of 'Teaching Education'.

The only references to a "Dr [or Dr.] Carolyn C. Mitchell"that showed on a web-search were on the Journal publisher's sites. I could not find anyone called Carolyn Mitchell who seemed to have a D.Litt., so, like her predecessor, Mitchell seems to have achieved high academic status without any visible trace of research and scholarship. 1

Mitchell is also a 'dead ringer' for Auffahrt, as their profile pictures seem, well, identical.



And the similarities do not stop there. According to the Journal website, "Dr Carolyn C. Mitchell" also holds the degrees of

"Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania, Master of Arts in Ottawa University, USA".

It seems that when appointing senior editors, Global Journals certainly 'go for a type' as they say.


Update (21st February, 2024)

On the 13th of February 2024, I received an email ("Immediate Cease and Desist Demand – Defamatory and Harmful Content") from the email address <legals@globaljournals.org> from someone claiming to be the Chief Legal Officer for Global Journals Incorporated, and asking me to remove this page (or face immediate legal action). The email acknowledged that the company engages in "the use of alternate identities by our editors and reviewers to engage potential authors" (something the email suggested they do "for privacy and safety").


Notes

1 It may seen obvious that if someone has not published any work, then no one can be citing them. That is fair enough. However, Google Scholar will find citations in work that is accessible on the web to work that is not itself found on the web – for example, references made to books that were published many years ago and have never been digitised, or to conference papers that were distributed at talks in hard copy, but have never been included in web repositories.


* Update. On 17th March I received a reply, from a Student Service Center Counselor, to my enquiry from eight weeks earlier:

Sorry for the delay as the registrar's office is months behind on email requests. We have been tasked with assisting to clear their portal. Below is what we typically send 3rd party requests for information:

Thank you for contacting Student Registration and Financial Services (SRFS). We have received your education verification request for (INSERT STUDENT NAME) from the University of Pennsylvania. Third-Party education verifications are required to go through the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC). Please use this link: https://secure.studentclearinghouse.org/vs/Index to place your request. Penn's school code is…

email from University of Pennsylvania

When I investigated the National Student Clearinghouse website, I found I needed to first register as either a representative of a 'company' or as a student seeking to verify my own record.

Screenshot of part of a webpage of the National Student Clearinghouse

"The mission of the National Student Clearinghouse is to serve the education and workforce communities and all learners with access to trusted data, related services, and insights."

https://www.studentclearinghouse.org/about/

It seems there is no facility for someone approached by a publisher to check the veracity of an editor's claimed qualifications.


Not actually a government event

"It's just the name of the shop, love"


Keith S. Taber



An invitation

This week I received an invitation to chair an event (well, as most weeks, I received several of those, but this one seemed to be actually on a topic I knew a little about…).

Dear Keith,

"It is my pleasure to invite you to chair at Government Events' upcoming event The Delivering Excellence in Teaching STEM in Schools Conference 2023, taking place online on 29th of March 2023.

Chairing would involve giving a short opening and closing address, chairing the Q&A and panel discussions, and providing insights throughout the day.

Invited Speakers Include:

  • Kiera Newmark, Deputy Director for STEM, Digital and EdTech, Department for Education
  • Maria Rossini, Head of Education, British Science Association
  • Sam Parrett, Chief Executive, London South East Colleges

I feel you would add great value and insight to the day and I would be delighted to confirm your involvement in this event! …"

(Well, I claim to know a bit about teaching science, not so much about teaching technology or mathematics, or engineering {that I was not aware was really part of the National Curriculum}.)

Read about STEM education

So, at face value this would be a government-sponsored event, including a senior representative from the ministry of education – so perhaps another chance for me to lobby to have the embarrassing errors in the English National Curriculum for science corrected – as well as a leading executive from the 'British Ass'. 1

My initial reaction was mixed. This was clearly an important topic, and one where I probably was qualified to act as chair and might be able to make a useful contribution. And it was on-line, so I would not have to travel. Then again, I retired from teaching because I suffer from regular bouts of fatigue, and find I have to limit my high intensity inputs as I tire very easily and quickly these days. Chairing a session might not completely drain me, but a whole conference?

Due diligence

Finding myself tempted, I felt the need to do some due diligence. Was this really what it seemed? What would be involved?

The invitation seemed genuine enough, even if it included one of those dodgy legalese footers sometimes used by scam artists to put people off sharing dubious messages. (The 'you must not tell anyone' trope reminds me of what fictional blackmailers say about not contacting the police.)


A rather silly legal disclaimer.
It seems from the wording, presumably carefully chosen by the legal department, that this disclaimer only applies to "email (which included any attachment)" – whereas mine did not.

This one suggested that if I had received the message in error I should

  • permanently delete it from my computer without making a copy
  • then reply to say I had done so

I will leave the reader to spot the obvious problem there.

However, this lack of clear logic did remind me of the similarly bizarre statement about the conservation of energy in the National Curriculum which perhaps gave some credence to this being a government event.

Luckily, I was the intended recipient, but in any case I take the view that if someone sends me an unsolicited email, then they have no right to tell me what to do with it, and as in this case I discovered they had already announced the invitation on their website (see image above), I could not see how any court would uphold their claim that the message was confidential.

Government events?

I was clearly aware that just because an event was organised by an entity called "Government Events" was not assurance this really was a government event. So I checked out the website. (The lack of any link in the invitation email to the event webpage, or indeed the organisation more generally, might have been an oversight, but seemed odd.)

As you will have likely guessed, this was not a government event.

In situations such as this I am always put in mind of the 'song' 'Shirt' by the dadaist-inspired Bonzo Dog Doo-dah Band which included a joke about a man who takes his shirt to a dry cleaner for 'express cleaning' and was then told it would be ready for collection in three weeks. 1

Three weeks!? But, the sign outside says '59 minute cleaning'

Yes, that's just the name of the shop, love.

On searching out the website I found that "Government events" claims to be "Supporting UK Public Sector Teams to Deliver World Class Public Services" and to be "the UK's No. 1 provider of public sector conferences, training courses and case study focused insights and intelligence". By "public sector conferences" they presumably mean conferences for the public sector, not conferences in the pubic sector.

It transpired that "Government Events" is one brand of an organisation called "Professional Development Group". That organisation has a webpage featuring members of its "Advisory Board [which] is made up of senior executives and academics from both corporate and public-sector background" but its website did not seem to provide any information about its governance or who its executives or owners were. (Professional Development Group does have a listing in the Companies House registry showing two current directors.)


Possibly the senior leadership team at Professional Development Group? But probably not.


A bias against the private sector?

Perhaps I am simply displaying my personal bias towards the public sector? I've worked in state schools, a state college, and a state university. I have worked in the private sector if we include after-school, and holiday, jobs (mainly for Boots the Chemist or Boots the Pharmacist as they should be known), but my career is very much public sector. And I've not liked what I've seen as the inappropriate and misguided attempts to make the health and education service behave like a series of competing units in a free market. (And do not 'get me going' on the state of utilities in England now – the selling off of state assets at discounted rates to profit-making concerns (seemingly to fund temporary tax cuts for electoral advantage), and so replacing unitary authorities (with no need to budget for continuously needing to advertise and to try to poach each others' customers) by dozens of competing and, recently, often failing, profit-making companies that often own each other or are owned overseas.)

So, although I have no problem with the private sector, which no doubts does some things better, I am suspicious of core 'public sector' activities being moved into the commercial sphere.

Perhaps "Government Events" does a good job despite the misleading name. After all they are kite-marked by an organisation called the CPD Certification Service (a trademark of The CPD Certification Service Ltd, so another privately owned company. Again, the website did not give any information about governance or The CPD Certification Service Ltd's executives. But four directors are named in the public listing at Company's House). This all seems alien to someone from the public sector where organisations go out of their way to provide such information, and value transparency in such matters. (Three of the four directors share the same family name, 'Savage', which might raise some questions in a publicly governed organisation.)

A bit pricey for an on-line meeting?

But even if Professional Development Group do a wonderful job, do they offer value for money?

The conference is aimed at "teachers who work in STEM and senior leadership representatives from schools". If they work in state schools the cost per delegate is £399.00 (plus V.A.T., but schools should be able to reclaim that). For that they get a one-day on line conference. The chair (currently listed as" "Keith Taber, Professor of Science Education, University of Cambridge (invited)", but that will need to be changed*) is due to open the event at 09.50, and to wind it up with some closing remarks at 16.20. The £399 will presumably not include accommodation, refreshments, lunch, a notepad, a branded pen, a tote bag for the goodies, or any of the other features of face-to-face events.

It will include a chance to hear a range of speakers. Currently listed (caveat emptor: "programme subject to change without notice") are ten specified presentations as well as two Key Supporter Sessions (!) The advertised topics seem valuable:

  • National Trends and Updates on Boosting the Profile of STEM Subjects in Schools
  • Best Practice for Implementing Flexible Working to Help Recruit and Retain STEM Teachers
  • Providing an Inclusive and Accessible STEM Curriculum for Pupils with SEND
  • Driving Increased Interest and Participation in STEM Among Female Students
  • Encouraging Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds to Study STEM Subjects
  • Taking Action to Boost Extracurricular Engagement with STEM Subjects 
• Primary: Implementing a Whole School Approach to Boost the Profile of STEM Subjects• Secondary: Supporting Students to Succeed and Improve Outcomes in STEM Examinations
• Primary: Partnership Working to Promote STEM Education in Primary Schools• Secondary: Working with Employers and Universities to Encourage Post-Secondary STEM

However, anyone looking to book should notice that at this point only one of the ten mooted speakers has confirmed – the rest are 'invited'.

I was also intrigued by the two slots reserved for 'Key Supporter Session's. You, dear reader, could buy ('sponsor') one of these slots to talk at the conference.

You can sponsor the conference

Professional Development Group offer "sponsorship and exhibition packages" for their events. This would allow a sponsor to meet their "target audience", to "demonstrate your products or services" and even to "speak alongside industry [sic] leading experts".

Someone wishing to invest as a Key Supporter (pricing not disclosed) gets branding on the Website and Event Guide and a "20-minute speaking slot followed by Q&A". (For this specific conference it seems you could buy time to sell your wares in the 10.40 slot or the 13.55 slot.)

  • Perhaps you have invented a new type of perpetual motion kit for use in the classroom and are seeking an opportunity to demonstrate and market your wares? ["demonstrate your products or services"]
  • Perhaps you think that evolution is not really science because it is only a theory, and you want to subject delegates to a diatribe on why impressionable young people should not be indoctrinated with such dangerous speculations? ["speak alongside industry [sic] leading experts"]
  • Perhaps your company mines and refines uranium ore, and is looking to find a market for the vast amounts of fine slag produced, and think it might make an excellent modelling material for use in design and technology classes? [meet "your target audience"]

A Strategic Headline Sponsor at a Professional Development Group event can also purchase other features such as a "pre show marketing email to all registered delegates". I guess the terms and conditions of signing up to a Professional Development Group event mean delegates agree to receive such sponsored advertising.

What's wrong with selling conference slots?

There is nothing inherently immoral about selling slots at a commercial conference – after all, it is a commercial event – so, it is primarily about 'the bottom line' of the balance sheet. But that's my point. This would be unacceptable at an academic conference, where some speakers are invited because they are considered to have something relevant to say, and others wishing to present have to submit their proposals to peer review.

What I find, if not immoral, certainly distasteful here, is that an on-line conference of the kind that would likely be arranged for free or for a nominal fee in an academic context, is being priced at £399 for state school teachers at a time when public services are under immense pressures and budgets need to be very wisely spent. How can this price be justified?

Perhaps the speaker fees are a significant cost. But I doubt that: I was not offered any fee to give up a day of my time to chair the meeting, and so I expect the other speakers are also being expected to speak for free as well. That's how things usually work in academia and the state sector. (But if this is a commercial activity, then the professional speakers SHOULD ask for a fee. If they are taking time out of school, and so already being paid, then perhaps the fee could be used to buy school books or pay for supply teachers?) Indeed, there are two slots for fee-paying speakers who wish to advertise their wares.

So, this is perhaps not actually a scam, but it does not meet the standards of honesty and transparency I would expect in the state sector (because it is only masquerading as state sector), and the event seems to be priced in order to make money for shareholders, not primarily to meet a mission of "Supporting UK Public Sector Teams".

If the COVID pandemic taught us anything, it is that many (probably not all, but surely most) meetings can be held just as well on line, so avoiding all the time, money and carbon footprints of moving people around the country. Oh, and consequently, it showed us that most of these meetings (a) can be offered for free where they are hosted by a public sector organisation that can consider them as meeting part of its core mission; and (b) that even when that does not apply, and so costs have to be covered, they can be arranged for a fraction of the expense of a face-to-face event at a hired venue.

As you may have guessed, I declined.*


* I replied to decline this opportunity on 19th November. Checking on 25th November, I see I am still listed as Chair (invited). See note 1



Notes

1 In the academic world, the term 'invited speaker' is used to designate a conference speaker who was invited by the organisers in contrast to a speaker who applied to speak and proposed a contribution in response to an open call. However, 'invited speaker' here seems to mean someone whom has been invited to speak, in contrast to someone who has agreed to.


2 I have a pretty poor memory, but do recall seeing Bonzo stalwart Neil Innes play at Nottingham University when I was a student. He sang their most successful song, "I'm the urban spaceman" (which reached no. 5 in the UK single charts and led to Innnes getting an Ivor Novello award for his song-writing), then announced, deadpan, "that was a medley of hit".

The Bonzos

Methodological and procedural flaws in published study

A letter to the editor of the Journal of Chemical Education

the authors draw a conclusion which is contrary to the results of their data analysis and so is invalid and misleading

I have copied below the text of a letter I wrote to the editor of the Journal of Chemical Education, to express my concern about the report of a study published in that journal. I was invited to formally submit the letter for consideration for publication. I did. Following peer review it was rejected.

Often when I see apparent problems in published research, I discuss them here. Usually, the journals concerned are predatory, and do not seem to take peer review seriously. That does not apply here. The Journal of Chemical Education is a long-established, well-respected, periodical published by a national learned scientific society: the American Chemical Society. Serious scientific journals often do publish comments from readers about published articles and even exchanges between correspondents and the original authors of the work commented on. I therefore thought it was more appropriate to express my concerns directly to the journal. 𝛂 On this occasion, after peer review, the editor decided my letter was not suitable for publication. 𝛃

I am aware of the irony – I am complaining about an article which passed peer review in a posting which is publishing a letter submitted, but rejected, after peer review. Readers should bear that in mind. The editor will have carefully considered the submission and the referee recommendations and reports, and decided to decline publication based on journal policy and the evaluation of my submission.

However, having read the peer reviewers' comments (which were largely positive about the submission and tended to agree with my critique 𝜸), I saw no reason to change my mind. If such work is allowed to stand in the literature without comment, it provides a questionable example for other researchers, and, as the abstracts and conclusions from research papers are often considered in isolation (so, here, without being aware that the conclusions contradicted the results), it distorts the research literature.

To my reading, the published study sets aside accepted scientific standards and values – though I very much suspect inadvertently. Perhaps the authors' enthusiasm for their teaching innovation affected their judgement and dulled their critical faculties. We are all prone to that: but one would normally expect such a major problem to have been spotted in peer review, allowing the authors the opportunity to put this right before publication.

Read about falsifying research conclusions


Methodological and procedural flaws in published study

Abstract

A recent study reported in the journal is presented as an experimental test of a teaching innovation. Yet the research design does not meet the conditions for an experiment as there is insufficient control of variables and no random assignment to conditions. The study design used does not allow a comparison of student scores in the 'experimental' and 'control' conditions to provide a valid test of the innovation. Moreover, the authors draw a conclusion which is contrary to the results of their data analysis and so is invalid and misleading. While the authors may well feel justified in putting aside the outcome of their statistical analysis, this goes against good scientific norms and practice.

Dear Editor

I am writing regarding a recent article published in J.Chem.Ed. 1, as I feel the reporting of this study, as published, is contrary to good scientific practice. The article, 'Implementation of the Student-Centered Team-Based Learning Teaching Method in a Medicinal Chemistry Curriculum' reports an innovation in pedagogy, and as such is likely to be of wide interest to readers of the journal. I welcome both this kind of work in developing pedagogy and its reporting to inform others; however, I think the report contravenes normal scientific standards.

Although the authors do not specify the type of research methodology they use, they do present their analysis in terms of 'experimental' and 'control' groups (e.g., p.1856), so it is reasonable to consider they see this as a kind of experimental research. There are many serious challenges when applying experimental method to social research, and it is not always feasible to address all such challenges in educational research designs 2 – but perhaps any report of educational experimental research should acknowledge relevant limitations.

A true experiment requires units of analysis (e.g., students) to be assigned to conditions randomly, as this can avoid (or, strictly, reduce the likelihood) of systematic differences between groups. Here the comparison is across different cohorts. These may be largely similar, but that cannot just be assumed. (Strictly, the comparison group should not be labelled as a 'control' group.2 ) There is clearly a risk of conflating variables.

  • Perhaps admission standards are changing over time?
  • Perhaps the teaching team has been acquiring teaching experience and expertise over time regardless of the innovation?

Moreover, if I have correctly interpreted the information on p.1858 about how student course scores after the introduction of the innovation in part derived from the novel activities in the new approach, then there is no reason to assume that the methodology of assigning scores is equivalent with that used in the 'control' (comparison) condition. The authors seem to simply assume the change in scoring methodology will not of itself change the score profile. Without evidence that assessment is equivalent across cohorts, this is an unsupportable assumption.

As it is not possible to 'blind' teachers and students to conditions there is a very real risk of expectancy effects which have been shown to often operate when researchers are positive about an innovation – when introducing the investigated innovation, teachers

  • may have a new burst of enthusiasm,
  • perhaps focus more than usual on this aspect of their work,
  • be more sensitive to students responses to teaching and so forth.

(None of this needs to be deliberate to potentially influence outcomes.) Although (indeed, perhaps because) there is often little that can be done in a teaching situation to address these challenges to experimental designs, it seems appropriate for suitable caveats to be included in a published report. I would have expected to have seen such caveats here.

However, a specific point that I feel must be challenged is in the presentation of results on p.1860. When designing an experiment, it is important to specify before collecting data how one will know what to conclude from the results. The adoption of inferential statistics is surely a commitment to accepting the outcomes of the analysis undertaken. Li and colleagues tell readers that "We used a t test to test whether the SCTBL method can create any significant difference in grades among control groups and the experimental group" and that "there is no significant difference in average score". This is despite the new approach requiring an "increased number of study tasks, and longer preclass preview time" (pp.1860-1).

I would not suggest this is necessarily a good enough reason for Li and colleagues to give up on their innovation, as they have lived experience of how it is working, and that may well offer good grounds for continuing to implement, refine, and evaluate it. As the authors themselves note, evaluation "should not only consider scores" (p.1858).

However, from a scientific point of view, this is a negative result. That certainly should not exclude publication (it is recognised that there is a bias against publishing negative results which distorts the literature in many fields) but it suggests, at the very least, that more work is needed before a positive conclusion can be drawn.

Therefore, I feel it is scientifically invalid for the authors to argue that as "the average score showed a constant [i.e., non-significant] upward trend, and a steady [i.e., non-significant] increase was found" they can claim their teaching "method brought about improvement in the class average, which provides evidence for its effectiveness in medicinal chemistry". Figure 4 reiterates this: a superficially impressive graphic, even if omits the 2018 data, actually shows just how little scores changed when it is noticed that the x-axis has a range only from 79.4-80.4 (%, presumably). The size of the variation across four cohorts (<1%, "an obvious improvement trend"?) is not only found to not be significant but can be compared with how 25% of student scores apparently derived from different types of assessment in the different conditions. 3

To reiterate, this is an interesting study, reporting valuable work. There might be very good reasons to continue the new pedagogic approach even if it does not increase student scores. However, I would argue that it is simply scientifically inadmissible to design an experiment where data will be analysed by statistical tests, and then to offer a conclusion contrary to the results of those tests. A reader who skipped to the end of the paper would find "To conclude, our results suggest that the SCTBL method is an effective way to improve teaching quality and student achievement" (p.1861) but that is to put aside the results of the analysis undertaken.


Keith S. Taber

Emeritus Professor of Science Education, University of Cambridge

References

1 Li, W., Ouyang, Y., Xu, J., & Zhang, P. (2022). Implementation of the Student-Centered Team- Based Learning Teaching Method in a Medicinal Chemistry Curriculum. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(5), 1855-1862. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00978

2 Taber, K. S. (2019). Experimental research into teaching innovations: responding to methodological and ethical challenges. Studies in Science Education, 55(1), 69-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2019.1658058

3 I felt there was some ambiguity regarding what figures 4a and 4b actually represent. The labels suggest they refer to "Assessment levels of pharmaceutical engineering classes [sic] in 2017-2020" and "Average scores of the medicinal chemistry course in the control group and the experimental group" (which might, by inspection, suggest that achievement on the medicinal chemistry course is falling behind shifts across the wider programme), but the references in the main text suggest that both figures refer only to the medicinal chemistry course, not the wider pharmaceutical engineering programme. Similarly, although the label for (b) refers to 'average scores' for the course, the text suggests the statistical tests were only applied to 'exam scores' (p.1858) which would only amount to 60% of the marks comprising the course scores (at least in 2018-2020; the information on how course scores were calculated for the 2017 cohort does not seem to be provided but clearly could not follow the methodology reported for the 2018-2020 cohorts). So, given that (a) and (b) do not seem consistent, it may be that the 'average scores' in (b) refers only to examination scores and not overall course scores. If so, that would at least suggest the general assessment methodology was comparable, as long as the setting and marking of examinations are equivalent across different years. However, even then, a reader would take a lot of persuasion that examination papers and marking are so consistent over time that changes of a third or half a percentage point between cohorts exceeds likely measurement error.


Read: Falsifying research conclusions. You do not need to falsify your results if you are happy to draw conclusions contrary to the outcome of your data analysis.


Notes:

𝛂 This is the approach I have taken previously. For example, a couple of years ago a paper was published in the Royal Society of Chemistry's educational research journal, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, which to my reading had similar issues, including claiming "that an educational innovation was effective despite outcomes not reaching statistical significance" (Taber, 2020).

Taber, K. S. (2020). Comment on "Increasing chemistry students' knowledge, confidence, and conceptual understanding of pH using a collaborative computer pH simulation" by S. W. Watson, A. V. Dubrovskiy and M. L. Peters, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2020, 21, 528. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. doi:10.1039/D0RP00131G


𝛃 I wrote directly to the editor, Prof. Tom Holme on 12th July 2022. I received a reply the next day, inviting me to submit my letter through the journal's manuscript submission system. I did this on the 14th.

I received the decision letter on 15th September. (The "manuscript is not suitable for publication in the Journal of Chemical Education in its present form.") The editor offered to consider a resubmission of "a thoroughly rewritten manuscript, with substantial modification, incorporating the reviewers' points and including any additional data they recommended". I decided that, although I am sure the letter could have been improved in some senses, any new manuscript sufficiently different to be considered "thoroughly rewritten manuscript, with substantial modification" would not so clearly make the important points I felt needed to be made.


𝜸 There were four reviewers. The editor informed me that the initial reviews led to a 'split' perspective, so a fourth referee was invited.

  • Referee 1 recommended that the letter was published as submitted.
  • Referee 2 recommended that the letter was published as submitted.
  • Referee 3 recommended major revisions should be undertaken.
  • Referee 4 recommended rejection.

Read more about peer review and editorial decisions

Delusions of educational impact

A 'peer-reviewed' study claims to improve academic performance by purifying the souls of students suffering from hallucinations


Keith S. Taber


The research design is completely inadequate…the whole paper is confused…the methodology seems incongruous…there is an inconsistency…nowhere is the population of interest actually identified…No explanation of the discrepancy is provided…results of this analysis are not reported…the 'interview' technique used in the study is highly inadequate…There is a conceptual problem here…neither the validity nor reliability can be judged…the statistic could not apply…the result is not reported…approach is completely inappropriate…these tables are not consistent…the evidence is inconclusive…no evidence to demonstrate the assumed mechanism…totally unsupported claims…confusion of recommendations with findings…unwarranted generalisation…the analysis that is provided is useless…the research design is simply inadequate…no control condition…such a conclusion is irresponsible

Some issues missed in peer review for a paper in the European Journal of Education and Pedagogy

An invitation to publish without regard to quality?

I received an email from an open-access journal called the European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, with the subject heading 'Publish Fast and Pay Less' which immediately triggered the thought "another predatory journal?" Predatory journals publish submissions for a fee, but do not offer the editorial and production standards expected of serious research journals. In particular, they publish material which clearly falls short of rigorous research despite usually claiming to engage in peer review.

A peer reviewed journal?

Checking out the website I found the usual assurances that the journal used rigorous peer review as:

"The process of reviewing is considered critical to establishing a reliable body of research and knowledge. The review process aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general.

We use a double-blind system for peer-reviewing; both reviewers and authors' identities remain anonymous to each other. The paper will be peer-reviewed by two or three experts; one is an editorial staff and the other two are external reviewers."

https://www.ej-edu.org/index.php/ejedu/about

Peer review is critical to the scientific process. Work is only published in (serious) research journals when it has been scrutinised by experts in the relevant field, and any issues raised responded to in terms of revisions sufficient to satisfy the editor.

I could not find who the editor(-in-chief) was, but the 'editorial team' of European Journal of Education and Pedagogy were listed as

  • Bea Tomsic Amon, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
  • Chunfang Zhou, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
  • Gabriel Julien, University of Sheffield, UK
  • Intakhab Khan, King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia
  • Mustafa Kayıhan Erbaş, Aksaray University, Turkey
  • Panagiotis J. Stamatis, University of the Aegean, Greece

I decided to look up the editor based in England where I am also based but could not find a web presence for him at the University of Sheffield. Using the ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) provided on the journal website I found his ORCID biography places him at the University of the West Indies and makes no mention of Sheffield.

If the European Journal of Education and Pedagogy is organised like a serious research journal, then each submission is handled by one of this editorial team. However the reference to "editorial staff" might well imply that, like some other predatory journals I have been approached by (e.g., Are you still with us, Doctor Wu?), the editorial work is actually carried out by office staff, not qualified experts in the field.

That would certainly help explain the publication, in this 'peer-reviewed research journal', of the first paper that piqued my interest enough to motivate me to access and read the text.


The Effects of Using the Tazkiyatun Nafs Module on the Academic Achievement of Students with Hallucinations

The abstract of the paper published in what claims to be a peer-reviewed research journal

The paper initially attracted my attention because it seemed to about treatment of a medical condition, so I wondered was doing in an education journal. Yet, the paper seemed to also be about an intervention to improve academic performance. As I read the paper, I found a number of flaws and issues (some very obvious, some quite serious) that should have been spotted by any qualified reviewer or editor, and which should have indicated that possible publication should have been be deferred until these matters were satisfactorily addressed.

This is especially worrying as this paper makes claims relating to the effective treatment of a symptom of potentially serious, even critical, medical conditions through religious education ("a  spiritual  approach", p.50): claims that might encourage sufferers to defer seeking medical diagnosis and treatment. Moreover, these are claims that are not supported by any evidence presented in this paper that the editor of the European Journal of Education and Pedagogy decided was suitable for publication.


An overview of what is demonstrated, and what is claimed, in the study.

Limitations of peer review

Peer review is not a perfect process: it relies on busy human beings spending time on additional (unpaid) work, and it is only effective if suitable experts can be found that fit with, and are prepared to review, a submission. It is also generally more challenging in the social sciences than in the natural sciences. 1

That said, one sometimes finds papers published in predatory journals where one would expect any intelligent person with a basic education to notice problems without needing any specialist knowledge at all. The study I discuss here is a case in point.

Purpose of the study

Under the heading 'research objectives', the reader is told,

"In general, this journal [article?] attempts to review the construction and testing of Tazkiyatun Nafs [a Soul Purification intervention] to overcome the problem of hallucinatory disorders in student learning in secondary schools. The general objective of this study is to identify the symptoms of hallucinations caused by subtle beings such as jinn and devils among students who are the cause of disruption in learning as well as find solutions to these problems.

Meanwhile, the specific objective of this study is to determine the effect of the use of Tazkiyatun Nafs module on the academic achievement of students with hallucinations.

To achieve the aims and objectives of the study, the researcher will get answers to the following research questions [sic]:

Is it possible to determine the effect of the use of the Tazkiyatun Nafs module on the academic achievement of students with hallucinations?"

Awang, 2022, p.42

I think I can save readers a lot of time regarding the research question by suggesting that, in this study, at least, the answer is no – if only because the research design is completely inadequate to answer the research question. (I should point that the author comes to the opposite conclusion: e.g., "the approach taken in this study using the Tazkiyatun Nafs module is very suitable for overcoming the problem of this hallucinatory disorder", p.49.)

Indeed, the whole paper is confused in terms of what it is setting out to do, what it actually reports, and what might be concluded. As one example, the general objective of identifying "the symptoms of hallucinations caused by subtle beings such as jinn and devils" (but surely, the hallucinations are the symptoms here?) seems to have been forgotten, or, at least, does not seem to be addressed in the paper. 2


The study assumes that hallucinations are caused by subtle beings such as jinn and devils possessing the students.
(Image by Tünde from Pixabay)

Methodology

So, this seems to be an intervention study.

  • Some students suffer from hallucinations.
  • This is detrimental to their education.
  • It is hypothesised that the hallucinations are caused by supernatural spirits ("subtle beings that lead to hallucinations"), so, a soul purification module might counter this detriment;
  • if so, sufferers engaging with the soul purification module should improve their academic performance;
  • and so the effect of the module is being tested in the study.

Thus we have a kind of experimental study?

No, not according to the author. Indeed, the study only reports data from a small number of unrepresentative individuals with no controls,

"The study design is a case study design that is a qualitative study in nature. This study uses a case study design that is a study that will apply treatment to the study subject to determine the effectiveness of the use of the planned modules and study variables measured many times to obtain accurate and original study results. This study was conducted on hallucination disorders [students suffering from hallucination disorders?] to determine the effectiveness of the Tazkiyatun Nafs module in terms of aspects of student academic achievement."

Awang, 2022, p.42

Case study?

So, the author sees this as a case study. Research methodologies are better understood as clusters of similar approaches rather than unitary categories – but case study is generally seen as naturalistic, rather than involving an intervention by an external researcher. So, case study seems incongruous here. Case study involves the detailed exploration of an instance (of something of interest – a lesson, a school, a course of tudy, a textbook, …) reported with 'thick description'.

Read about the characteristics of case study research

The case is usually a complex phenomena which is embedded within a context from which is cannot readily be untangled (for example, a lesson always takes place within a wider context of a teacher working over time with a class on a course of study, within a curricular, and institutional, and wider cultural, context, all of which influence the nature of the specific lesson). So, due to the complex and embedded nature of cases, they are all unique.

"a case study is a study that is full of thoroughness and complex to know and understand an issue or case studied…this case study is used to gain a deep understanding of an issue or situation in depth and to understand the situation of the people who experience it"

Awang, 2022, p.42

A case is usually selected either because that case is of special importance to the researcher (an intrinsic case study – e.g., I studied this school because it is the one I was working in) or because we hope this (unique) case can tell us something about similar (but certainly not identical) other (also unique) cases. In the latter case [sic], an instrumental case study, we are always limited by the extent we might expect to be able to generalise beyond the case.

This limited generalisation might suggest we should not work with a single case, but rather look for a suitably representative sample of all cases: but we sometimes choose case study because the complexity of the phenomena suggests we need to use extensive, detailed data collection and analyses to understand the complexity and subtlety of any case. That is (i.e., the compromise we choose is), we decide we will look at one case in depth because that will at least give us insight into the case, whereas a survey of many cases will inevitably be too superficial to offer any useful insights.

So how does Awang select the case for this case study?

"This study is a case study of hallucinatory disorders. Therefore, the technique of purposive sampling (purposive sampling [sic]) is chosen so that the selection of the sample can really give a true picture of the information to be explored ….

Among the important steps in a research study is the identification of populations and samples. The large group in which the sample is selected is termed the population. A sample is a small number of the population identified and made the respondents of the study. A case or sample of n = 1 was once used to define a patient with a disease, an object or concept, a jury decision, a community, or a country, a case study involves the collection of data from only one research participant…

Awang, 2022, p.42

Of course, a case study of "a community, or a country" – or of a school, or a lesson, or a professional development programme, or a school leadership team, or a homework policy, or an enrichnment activity, or … – would almost certainly be inadequate if it was limited to "the collection of data from only one research participant"!

I do not think this study actually is "a case study of hallucinatory disorders [sic]". Leading aside the shift from singular ("a case study") to plural ("disorders"), the research does not investigate a/some hallucinatory disorders, but the effect of a soul purification module on academic performance. (Actually, spoiler alert  😉, it does not actually investigate the effect of a soul purification module on academic performance either, but the author seems to think it does.)

If this is a case study, there should be the selection of a case, not a sample. Sometimes we do sample within a case in case study, but only from those identified as part of the case. (For example, if the case was a year group in a school, we may not have resources to interact in depth with several hundred different students). Perhaps this is pedantry as the reader likely knows what Awang meant by 'sample' in the paper – but semantics is important in research writing: a sample is chosen to represent a population, whereas the choice of case study is an acknowledgement that generalisation back to a population is not being claimed).

However, if "among the important steps in a research study is the identification of populations" then it is odd that nowhere in the paper is the population of interest actually specified!

Things slip our minds. Perhaps Awang intended to define the population, forgot, and then missed this when checking the text – buy, hey, that is just the kind of thing the reviewers and editor are meant to notice! Otherwise this looks very like including material from standard research texts to play lip-service to the idea that research-design needs to be principled, but without really appreciating what the phrases used actually mean. This impression is also given by the descriptions of how data (for example, from interviews) were analysed – but which are not reflected at all in the results section of the paper. (I am not accusing Awang of this, but because of the poor standard of peer review not raising the question, the author is left vulnerable to such an evaluation.)

The only one research participant?

So, what do we know about the "case or sample of n = 1 ", the "only one research participant" in this study?

The actual respondents in this case study related to hallucinatory disorders were five high school students. The supportive respondents in the case study related to hallucination disorders were five counseling teachers and five parents or guardians of students who were the actual respondents."

Awang, 2022, p.42

It is certainly not impossible that a case could comprise a group of five people – as long as those five make up a naturally bounded group – that is a group that a reasonable person would recognise as existing as a coherent entiy as they clearly had something in common (they were in the same school class, for example; they were attending the same group therapy session, perhaps; they were a friendship group; they were members of the same extended family diagnosed with hallucinatory disorders…something!) There is no indication here of how these five make up a case.

The identification of the participants as a case might have made sense had the participants collectively undertaken the module as a group, but the reader is told: "This study is in the form of a case study. Each practice and activity in the module are done individually" (p.50). Another justification could have been if the module had been offered in one school, and these five participants were the students enrolled in the programme at that time but as "analysis of  the  respondents'  academic  performance  was conducted  after  the  academic  data  of  all  respondents  were obtained  from  the  respective  respondent's  school" (p.45) it seems they did not attend a single school.

The results tables and reports in the text refer to "respondent 1" to "respondent 4". In case study, an approach which recognises the individuality and inherent value of the particular case, we would usually assign assumed names to research participants, not numbers. But if we are going to use numbers, should there not be a respondent 5?

The other one research participant?

It seems that these is something odd here.

Both the passage above, and the abstract refer to five respondents. The results report on four. So what is going on? No explanation of the discrepancy is provided. Perhaps:

  • There only ever were four participants, and the author made a mistake in counting.
  • There only ever were four participants, and the author made a typographical mistake (well, strictly, six typographical mistakes) in drafting the paper, and then missed this in checking the manuscript.
  • There were five respondents and the author forgot to include data on respondent 5 purely by accident.
  • There were five respondents, but the author decided not to report on the fifth deliberately for a reason that is not revealed (perhaps the results did not fit with the desired outcome?)

The significant point is not that there is an inconsistency but that this error was missed by peer reviewers and the editor – if there ever was any genuine peer review. This is the kind of mistake that a school child could spot – so, how is it possible that 'expert reviewers' and 'editorial staff' either did not notice it, or did not think it important enough to query?

Research instruments

Another section of the paper reports the instrumentation used in the paper.

"The research instruments for this study were Takziyatun Nafs modules, interview questions, and academic document analysis. All these instruments were prepared by the researcher and tested for validity and reliability before being administered to the selected study sample [sic, case?]."

Awang, 2022, p.42

Of course, it is important to test instruments for validity and reliability (or perhaps authenticity and trustworthiness when collecting qualitative data). But it is also important

  • to tell the reader how you did this
  • to report the outcomes

which seems to be missing (apart from in regard to part of the implemented module – see below). That is, the reader of a research study wants evidence not simply promises. Simply telling readers you did this is a bit like meeting a stranger who tells you that you can trust them because they (i.e., say that they) are honest.

Later the reader is told that

"Semi- structured interview questions will be [sic, not 'were'?] developed and validated for the purpose of identifying the causes and effects of hallucinations among these secondary school students…

…this interview process will be [sic, not 'was'] conducted continuously [sic!] with respondents to get a clear and specific picture of the problem of hallucinations and to find the best solution to overcome this disorder using Islamic medical approaches that have been planned in this study

Awang, 2022, pp.43-44

At the very least, this seems to confuse the plan for the research with a report of what was done. (But again, apparently, the reviewers and editorial staff did not think this needed addressing.) This is also confusing as it is not clear how this aspect of the study relates to the intervention. Were the interviews carried out before the intervention to help inform the design of the modules (presumably not as they had already been "tested for validity and reliability before being administered to the selected study sample"). Perhaps there are clear and simple answers to such questions – but the reader will not know because the reviewers and editor did not seem to feel they needed to be posed.

If "Interviews are the main research instrument in this study" (p.43), then one would expect to see examples of the interview schedules – but these are not presented. The paper reports a complex process for analysing interview data, but this is not reflected in the findings reported. The readers is told that the six stage process leads to the identifications and refinement of main and sub-categories. Yet, these categories are not reported in the paper. (But, again, peer reviewers and the editor did not apparently raise this as something to be corrected.) More generally "data  analysis  used  thematic  analysis  methods" (p.44), so why is there no analysis presented in terms of themes? The results of this analysis are simply not reported.

The reader is told that

"This  interview  method…aims to determine the respondents' perspectives, as well as look  at  the  respondents'  thoughts  on  their  views  on  the issues studied in this study."

Awang, 2022, p.44

But there is no discussion of participants perspectives and views in the findings of the study. 2 Did the peer reviewers and editor not think this needed addressing before publication?

Even more significantly, in a qualitative study where interviews are supposedly the main research instrument, one would expect to see extracts from the interviews presented as part of the findings to support and exemplify claims being made: yet, there are none. (Did this not strike the peer reviewers and editor as odd: presumably they are familiar with the norms of qualitative research?)

The only quotation from the qualitative data (in this 'qualitative' study) I can find appears in the implications section of the paper:

"Are you aware of the importance of education to you? Realize. Is that lesson really important? Important. The success of the student depends on the lessons in school right or not? That's right"

Respondent 3: Awang, 2022, p.49

This seems a little bizarre, if we accept this is, as reported, an utterance from one of the students, Respondent 3. It becomes more sensible if this is actually condensed dialogue:

"Are you aware of the importance of education to you?"

"Realize."

"Is that lesson really important?"

"Important."

"The success of the student depends on the lessons in school right or not?"

"That's right"

It seems the peer review process did not lead to suggesting that the material should be formatted according to the norms for presenting dialogue in scholarly texts by indicating turns. In any case, if that is typical of the 'interview' technique used in the study then it is highly inadequate, as clearly the interviewer is leading the respondent, and this is more an example of indoctrination than open-ended enquiry.

Random sampling of data

Completely incongruous with the description of the purposeful selection of the participants for a case study is the account of how the assessment data was selected for analysis:

"The  process  of  analysis  of  student  achievement documents is carried out randomly by taking the results of current  examinations  that  have  passed  such  as the  initial examination of the current year or the year before which is closest  to  the  time  of  the  study."

Awang, 2022, p.44

Did the peer reviewers or editor not question the use of the term random here? It is unclear what is meant to by 'random' here, but clearly if the analysis was based on randomly selected data that would undermine the results.

Validating the soul purification module

There is also a conceptual problem here. The Takziyatun Nafs modules are the intervention materials (part of what is being studied) – so they cannot also be research instruments (used to study them). Surely, if the Takziyatun Nafs modules had been shown to be valid and reliable before carrying out the reported study, as suggested here, then the study would not be needed to evaluate their effectiveness. But, presumably, expert peer reviewers (if there really were any) did not see an issue here.

The reliability of the intervention module

The Takziyatun Nafs modules had three components, and the author reports the second of the three was subjected to tests of validity and reliability. It seems that Awang thinks that this demonstrates the validity and reliability of the complete intervention,

"The second part of this module will go through [sic] the process of obtaining the validity and reliability of the module. Proses [sic] to obtain this validity, a questionnaire was constructed to test the validity of this module. The appointed specialists are psychologists, modern physicians (psychiatrists), religious specialists, and alternative medicine specialists. The validity of the module is identified from the aspects of content, sessions, and activities of the Tazkiyatun Nafs module. While to obtain the value of the reliability coefficient, Cronbach's alpha coefficient method was used. To obtain this Cronbach's alpha coefficient, a pilot test was conducted on 50 students who were randomly selected to test the reliability of this module to be conducted."

Awang, 2022, pp.43-44

Now to unpack this, it may be helpful to briefly outline what the intervention involved (as as the paper is open access anyone can access and read the full details in the report).


From the MGM film 'A Night at the Opera' (1935): "The introduction of the module will elaborate on the introduction, rationale, and objectives of this module introduced"

The description does not start off very helpfully ("The introduction of the module will elaborate on the introduction, rationale, and objectives of this module introduced" (p.43) put me in mind of the Marx brothers: "The party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part"), but some key points are,

"the Tazkiyatun Nafs module was constructed to purify the heart of each respondent leading to the healing of hallucinatory disorders. This liver purification process is done in stages…

"the process of cleansing the patient's soul will be done …all the subtle beings in the patient will be expelled and cleaned and the remnants of the subtle beings in the patient will be removed and washed…

The second process is the process of strengthening and the process of purification of the soul or heart of the patient …All the mazmumah (evil qualities) that are in the heart must be discarded…

The third process is the process of enrichment and the process of distillation of the heart and the practices performed. In this process, there will be an evaluation of the practices performed by the patient as well as the process to ensure that the patient is always clean from all the disturbances and disturbances [sic] of subtle beings to ensure that students will always be healthy and clean from such disturbances…

Awang, 2022, p.45, p.43

Quite how this process of exorcising and distilling and cleansing will occur is not entirely clear (and if the soul is equated with the heart, how is the liver involved?), but it seems to involve reflection and prayer and contemplation of scripture – certainly a very personal and therapeutic process.

And yet its validity and reliability was tested by giving a questionnaire to 50 students randomly selected (from the unspecified population, presumably)? No information is given on how a random section was made (Taber, 2013) – which allows a reader to be very sceptical that this actually was a random sample from the (un?)identified population, and not just an arbitrary sample of 50 students. (So, that is twice the word 'random' is used in the paper when it seems inappropriate.)

It hardly matters here, as clearly neither the validity nor the reliability of a spiritual therapy can be judged from a questionnaire (especially when administered to people who have never undertaken the therapy). In any case, the "reliability coefficient" obtained from an administration of a questionnaire ONLY applies to that sample on that occasion. So, the statistic could not apply to the four participants in the study. And, in any case, the result is not reported, so the reader has no idea what the value of Cronbach's alpha was (but then, this was described as a qualitative study!)

Moreover, Cronbach's alpha only indicates the internal coherence of the items on a scale (Taber, 2019): so, it only indicates whether the set of questions included in the questionnaire seem to be accessing the same underlying construct in motivating the responses of those surveyed across the set of items. It gives no information about the reliability of the instrument (i.e., whether it would give the same results on another occasion).

This approach to testing validity and reliability is then completely inappropriate and unhelpful. So, even if the outcomes of the testing had been reported (and they are not) they would not offer any relevant evidence. Yet it seems that peer reviewers and editor did not think to question why this section was included in the paper.

Ethical issues

A study of this kind raises ethical issues. It may well be that the research was carried out in an entirely proper and ethical manner, but it is usual in studies with human participants ('human subjects') to make this clear in the published report (Taber, 2014b). A standard issue is whether the participants gave voluntary, informed, consent. This would mean that they were given sufficient information about the study at the outset to be able to decide if they wished to participate, and were under no undue pressure to do so. The 'respondents' were school students: if they were considered minors in the research context (and oddly for a 'case study' such basic details as age and gender are not reported) then parental permission would also be needed, again subject to sufficient briefing and no duress.

However, in this specific research there are also further issues due to the nature of the study. The participants were subject to medical disorders, so how did the researcher obtain information about, and access to, the students without medical confidentiality being broken? Who were the 'gatekeepers' who provided access to the children and their personal data? The researcher also obtained assessment data "from  the  class  teacher  or  from  the  Student Affairs section of the student's school" (p.44), so it is important to know that students (and parents/guardians) consented to this. Again, peer review does not seem to have identified this as an issue to address before publication.

There is also the major underlying question about the ethics of a study when recognising that these students were (or could be, as details are not provided) suffering from serious medical conditions, but employing religious education as a treatment ("This method of treatment is to help respondents who suffer from hallucinations caused by demons or subtle beings", p.44). Part of the theoretical framework underpinning the study is the assumption that what is being addressed is"the problem of hallucinations caused by the presence of ethereal beings…" (p.43) yet it is also acknowledged that,

"Hallucinatory disorders in learning that will be emphasized in this study are due to several problems that have been identified in several schools in Malaysia. Such disorders are psychological, environmental, cultural, and sociological disorders. Psychological disorders such as hallucinatory disorders can lead to a more critical effect of bringing a person prone to Schizophrenia. Psychological disorders such as emotional disorders and psychiatric disorders. …Among the causes of emotional disorders among students are the school environment, events in the family, family influence, peer influence, teacher actions, and others."

Awang, 2022, p.41

There seem to be three ways of understanding this apparent discrepancy, which I might gloss:

  1. there are many causes of conditions that involve hallucinations, including, but not only, possession by evil or mischievousness spirits;
  2. the conditions that lead to young people having hallucinations may be understood at two complementary levels, at a spiritual level in terms of a need for inner cleansing and exorcising of subtle beings, and in terms of organic disease or conditions triggered by, for example, social and psychological factors;
  3. in the introduction the author has relied on various academic sources to discuss the nature of the phenomenon of students having hallucinations, but he actually has a working assumption that is completely different: hallucinations are due to the presence of jinn or other spirits.

I do not think it is clear which of these positions is being taken by the study's author.

  1. In the first case it would be necessary to identify which causes are present in potential respondents and only recruit those suffering possession for this study (which does not seem to have been done);
  2. In the second case, spiritual treatment would need to complement medical intervention (which would completely undermine the validity of the study as medical treatments for the underlying causes of hallucinations are likely to be the cause of hallucinations ceasing, not the tested intervention);
  3. The third position is clearly problematic in terms of academic scholarship as it is either completely incompetent or deliberately disregards academic norms that require the design of a study to reflect the conceptual framework set out to motivate it.

So, was this tested intervention implemented instead of or alongside formal medical intervention?

  • If it was alongside medical treatment, then that raises a major confound for the study.
  • Yet it would clearly be unacceptable to deny sufferers indicated medical treatment in order to test an educational intervention that is in effect a form of exorcism.

Again, it may be there are simple and adequate responses to these questions (although here I really cannot see what they might be), but unfortunately it seems the journal referees and editor did not think to ask for them.  

Findings


Results tables presented in Awang, 2022 (p.45) [Published with a creative commons licence allowing reproduction]: "Based on the findings stated in Table I show that serial respondents experienced a decline in academic achievement while they face the problem of hallucinations. In contrast to Table II which shows an improvement in students' academic achievement  after  hallucinatory  disorders  can  be  resolved." If we assume that columns in the second table have been mislabelled, then it seems the school performance of these four students suffered while they were suffering hallucinations, but improved once they recovered. From this, we can infer…?

The key findings presented concern academic performance at school. Core results are presented in tables I and II. Unfortunately these tables are not consistent as they report contradictory results for the academic performance of students before and during periods when they had hallucinations.

They can be made consistent if the reader assumes that two of the columns in table II are mislabelled. If the reader assumes that the column labelled 'before disruption' actually reports the performance 'during disruption' and that the column actually labelled 'during disruption' is something else, then they become consistent. For the results to tell a coherent story and agree with the author's interpretation this 'something else' presumably should be 'after disruption'.

This is a very unfortunate error – and moreover one that is obvious to any careful reader. (So, why was it not obvious to the referees and editor?)

As well as looking at these overall scores, other assessment data is presented separately for each of respondent 1 – respondent 4. Theses sections comprise presentations of information about grades and class positions, mixed with claims about the effects of the intervention. These claims are not based on any evidence and in many cases are conclusions about 'respondents' in general although they are placed in sections considering the academic assessment data of individual respondents. So,there are a number of problems with these claims:

  • they are of the nature of conclusions, but appear in the section presenting the findings;
  • they are about the specific effects of the intervention that the author assumes has influenced academic performance, not the data analysed in these sections;
  • they are completely unsubstantiated as no data or analysis is offered to support them;
  • often they make claims about 'respondents' in general, although as part of the consideration of data from individual learners.

Despite this, the paper passed peer-review and editorial scrutiny.

Rhetorical research?

This paper seems to be an example of a kind of 'rhetorical research' where a researcher is so convinced about their pre-existant theoretical commitments that they simply assume they have demonstrated them. Here the assumption seem to be:

  1. Recovering from suffering hallucinations will increase student performance
  2. Hallucinations are caused by jinn and devils
  3. A spiritual intervention will expel jinn and devils
  4. So, a spiritual intervention will cure hallucinations
  5. So, a spiritual intervention will increase student performance

The researcher provided a spiritual intervention, and the student performance increased, so it is assumed that the scheme is demonstrated. The data presented is certainly consistent with the assumption, but does not in itself support this scheme without evidence. Awang provides evidence that student performance improved in four individuals after they had received the intervention – but there is no evidence offered to demonstrate the assumed mechanism.

A gardener might think that complimenting seedlings will cause them to grow. Perhaps she praises her seedlings every day, and they do indeed grow. Are we persuaded about the efficacy of her method, or might we suspect another cause at work? Would the peer-reveiewers and editor of the European Journal of Education and Pedagogy be persuaded this demonstrated that compliments cause plant growth? On the evidence of this paper, perhaps they would.

This is what Awang tells readers about the analysis undertaken:

Each student  respondent  involved  in  this  study  [sic, presumably not, rather the researcher] will  use  the analysis  of  the  respondent's  performance  to  determine the effect of hallucination disorders on student achievement in secondary school is accurate.

The elements compared in this analysis are as follows: a) difference in mean percentage of achievement by subject, b) difference in grade achievement by subject and c) difference in the grade of overall student achievement. All academic results of the respondents will be analyzed as well as get the mean of the difference between the  performance  before, during, and after the  respondents experience  hallucinations. 

These  results  will  be  used  as research material to determine the accuracy of the use of the Tazkiyatun  Nafs  Module  in  solving  the  problem  of hallucinations   in   school   and   can   improve   student achievement in academic school."

Awang, 2022, p.45

There is clearly a large jump between the analysis outlined in the second paragraph here, and testing the study hypotheses as set out in the final paragraph. But the author does not seem to notice this (and more worryingly, nor do the journal's reviewers and editor).

So interleaved into the account of findings discussing "mean percentage of achievement by subject…difference in grade achievement by subject…difference in the grade of overall student achievement" are totally unsupported claims. Here is an example for Respondent 1:

"Based on the findings of the respondent's achievement in the  grade  for  Respondent  1  while  facing  the  problem  of hallucinations  shows  that  there  is  not  much  decrease  or deterioration  of  the  respondent's  grade.  There  were  only  4 subjects who experienced a decline in grade between before and  during  hallucination  disorder.  The  subjects  that experienced  decline  were  English,  Geography,  CBC, and Civics.  Yet  there  is  one  subject  that  shows  a  very  critical grade change the Civics subject. The decline occurred from grade A to grade E. This shows that Civics education needs to be given serious attention in overcoming this problem of decline. Subjects experiencing this grade drop were subjects involving  emotion,  language,  as  well  as  psychomotor fitness.  In  the  context  of  psychology,  unstable  emotional development  leads  to  a  decline  in the psychomotor  and emotional development of respondents.

After  the  use  of  the  Tazkiyatun  Nafs  module  in overcoming  this  problem,  hallucinatory  disorders  can  be overcome.  This  situation  indicates  the  development  of  the respondents  during  and  after  experiencing  hallucinations after  practicing  the  Tazkiyatun  Nafs  module.  The  process that takes place in the Tzkiyatun Nafs module can help the respondent  to  stabilize  his  emotions  and  psyche  for  the better. From the above findings there were 5 subjects who experienced excellent improvement in grades. The increase occurred in English, Malay, Geography, and Civics subjects. The best improvement is in the subject of Civic education from grade E to grade B. The improvement in this language subject  shows  that  the  respondents'  emotions  have stabilized.  This  situation  is  very  positive  and  needs  to  be continued for other subjects so that respondents continue to excel in academic achievement in school.""

Awang, 2022, p.45 (emphasis added)

The material which I show here as underlined is interjected completely gratuitously. It does not logically fit in the sequence. It is not part of the analysis of school performance. It is not based on any evidence presented in this section. Indeed, nor is it based on any evidence presented anywhere else in the paper!

This pattern is repeated in discussing other aspects of respondents' school performance. Although there is mention of other factors which seem especially pertinent to the dip in school grades ("this was due to the absence of the  respondents  to  school  during  the  day  the  test  was conducted", p.46; "it was an increase from before with no marks due to non-attendance at school", p.46) the discussion of grades is interspersed with (repetitive) claims about the effects of the intervention for which no evidence is offered.


Respondent 1Respondent 2Respondent 3Respondent 4
§: Differences in Respondents' Grade Achievement by Subject"After the use of the Tazkiyatun Nafs module in overcoming this problem, hallucinatory disorders can be overcome. This situation indicates the development of the respondents during and after experiencing hallucinations after practicing the Tazkiyatun Nafs module. The process that takes place in the Tzkiyatun Nafs module can help the respondent to stabilize his emotions and psyche for the better." (p.45)"After the use of the Tazkiyatun Nafs module as a soul purification module, showing the development of the respondents during and after experiencing hallucination disorders is very good. The process that takes place in the Tzkiyatun Nafs module can help the respondent to stabilize his emotions and psyche for the better." (p.46)"The process that takes place in the Tazkiyatun Nafs module can help the respondent to stabilize his emotions and psyche for the better" (p.46)"The process that takes place in the Tazkiyatun Nafs module can help the respondent to stabilize his emotions and psyche for the better." (p.46)
§:Differences in Respondent Grades according to Overall Academic Achievement"Based on the findings of the study after the hallucination
disorder was overcome showed that the development of the respondents was very positive after going through the treatment process using the Tazkiyatun Nafs module…In general, the use of Tazkiyatun Nafs module successfully changed the learning lifestyle and achievement of the respondents from poor condition to good and excellent achievement.
" (pp.46-7)
"Based on the findings of the study after the hallucination disorder was overcome showed that the development of the respondents was very positive after going through the treatment process using the Tazkiyatun Nafs module. … This excellence also shows that the respondents have recovered from hallucinations after practicing the methods found in the Tazkiayatun Nafs module that has been introduced.
In general, the use of the Tazkiyatun Nafs module successfully changed the learning lifestyle and achievement of the respondents from poor condition to good and excellent achievement
." (p.47)
"Based on the findings of the study after the hallucination disorder was overcome showed that the development of the respondents was very positive after going through the treatment process using the Tazkiyatun Nafs module…In general, the use of the Tazkiyatun Nafs module successfully changed the learning lifestyle and achievement of the respondents from poor condition to good and excellent achievement." (p.47)"Based on the findings of the study after the hallucination disorder was overcome showed that the development of the respondents was very positive after going through the treatment process using the Tazkiyatun Nafs module…In general, the use of the Tazkiyatun Nafs module has successfully changed the learning lifestyle and achievement of the respondents from poor condition to good and excellent achievement." (p.47)
Unsupported claims made within findings sections reporting analyses of individual student academic grades: note (a) how these statements included in the analysis of individual school performance data from four separate participants (in a case study – a methodology that recognises and values diversity and individuality) are very similar across the participants; (b) claims about 'respondents' (plural) are included in the reports of findings from individual students.

Awang summarises what he claims the analysis of 'differences in respondents' grade achievement by subject' shows:

"The use of the Tazkiyatun Nafs module in this study helped the students improve their respective achievement grades. Therefore, this soul purification module should be practiced by every student to help them in stabilizing their soul and emotions and stay away from all the disturbances of the subtle beings that lead to hallucinations"

Awang, 2022, p.46

And, on the next page, Awang summarises what he claims the analysis of 'differences in respondent grades according to overall academic achievement' shows:

"The use of the Tazkiyatun Nafs module in this study helped the students improve their respective overall academic achievement. Therefore, this soul purification module should be practiced by every student to help them in stabilizing the soul and emotions as well as to stay away from all the disturbances of the subtle beings that lead to hallucination disorder."

Awang, 2022, p.47

So, the analysis of grades is said to demonstrate the value of the intervention, and indeed Awang considers this is reason to extend the intervention beyond the four participants, not just to others suffering hallucinations, but to "every student". The peer review process seems not to have raised queries about

  • the unsupported claims,
  • the confusion of recommendations with findings (it is normal to keep to results in a findings section), nor
  • the unwarranted generalisation from four hallucination suffers to all students whether healthy or not.

Interpreting the results

There seem to be two stories that can be told about the results:

When the four students suffered hallucinations, this led to a deterioration in their school performance. Later, once they had recovered from the episodes of hallucinations, their school performance improved.  

Narrative 1

Now narrative 1 relies on a very substantial implied assumption – which is that the numbers presented as school performance are comparable over time. So, a control would be useful: such as what happened to the performance scores of other students in the same classes over the same time period. It seems likely they would not have shown the same dip – unless the dip was related to something other than hallucinations – such as the well-recognised dip after long school holidays, or some cultural distraction (a major sports tournament; fasting during Ramadan; political unrest; a pandemic…). Without such a control the evidence is suggestive (after all, being ill, and missing school as a result, is likely to lead to a dip in school performance, so the findings are not surprising), but inconclusive.

Intriguingly, the author tells readers that "student  achievement  statistics  from  the  beginning  of  the year to the middle of the current [sic, published in 2022] year in secondary schools in Northern Peninsular Malaysia that have been surveyed by researchers show a decline (Sabri, 2015 [sic])" (p.42), but this is not considered in relation to the findings of the study.

When the four students suffered hallucinations, this led to a deterioration in their school performance. Later, as a result of undergoing the soul purification module, their school performance improved.  

Narrative 2

Clearly narrative 2 suffers from the same limitation as narrative 1. However, it also demands an extra step in making an inference. I could re-write this narrative:

When the four students suffered hallucinations, this led to a deterioration in their school performance. Later, once they had recovered from the episodes of hallucinations, their school performance improved. 
AND
the recovery was due to engagement with the soul purification module.

Narrative 2'.

That is, even if we accept narrative 1 as likely, to accept narrative 2 we would also need to be convinced that:

  • a) sufferers from medical conditions leading to hallucinations do not suffer periodic attacks with periods of remission in between; or
  • b) episodes of hallucinations cannot be due to one-off events (emotional trauma, T.I.A. {transient ischaemic attack or mini-strokes},…) that resolve naturally in time; or
  • c) sufferers from medical conditions leading to hallucinations do not find they resolve due to maturation; or
  • d) the four participants in this study did not undertaken any change in life-style (getting more sleep, ceasing eating strange fungi found in the woods) unrelated to the intervention that might have influenced the onset of hallucinations; or
  • e) the four participants in this study did not receive any medical treatment independent of the intervention (e.g., prescribed medication to treat migraine episodes) that might have influenced the onset of hallucinations

Despite this study being supposedly a case study (where the expectation is there should be 'thick description' of the case and its context), there is no information to help us exclude such options. We do not know the medical diagnoses of the conditions causing the participants' hallucinations, or anything about their lives or any medical treatment that may have been administered. Without such information, the analysis that is provided is useless for answering the research question.

In effect, regardless of all the other issues raised, the key problem is that the research design is simply inadequate to test the research question. But it seems the referees and editor did not notice this shortcoming.

Alleged implications of the research

After presenting his results Awang draws various implications, and makes a number of claims about what had been found in the study:

  • "After the students went through the treatment session by using the Tazkiayatun Nafsmodule to treat hallucinations, it showed a positive effect on the student respondents. All this was certified by the expert, the student's parents as well as the  counselor's  teacher." (p.48)
  • "Based on these findings, shows that hallucinations are very disturbing to humans and the appropriate method for now to solve this problem is to use the Tazkiyatun Nafs Module." (p.48)
  • "…the use of the Tazkiyatun Nafs module while the  respondent  is  suffering  from  hallucination  disorder  is very  appropriate…is very helpful to the respondents in restoring their minds and psyche to be calmer and healthier. These changes allow  students  to  focus  on  their  studies  as  well  as  allow them to improve their academic performance better." (p.48)
  • "The use of the Tazkiyatun Nafs Module in this study has led to very positive changes there are attitudes and traits of students  who  face  hallucinations  before.  All  the  negative traits  like  irritability, loneliness,  depression,etc.  can  be overcome  completely." (p.49)
  • "The personality development of students is getting better and perfect with the implementation of the Tazkiaytun Nafs module in their lives." (p.49)
  • "Results  indicate that  students  who  suffer  from  this hallucination  disorder are in  a  state  of  high  depression, inactivity, fatigue, weakness and pain,and insufficient sleep." (p.49)
  • "According  to  the  findings  of  this study,  the  history  of  this  hallucination  disorder  started in primary  school  and  when  a  person  is  in  adolescence,  then this  disorder  becomes  stronger  and  can  cause  various diseases  and  have  various  effects  on  a  person who  is disturbed." (p.50)

Given the range of interview data that Awang claims to have collected and analysed, at least some of the claims here are possibly supported by the data. However, none of this data and analysis is available to the reader. 2 These claims are not supported by any evidence presented in the paper. Yet peer reviewers and the editor who read the manuscript seem to feel it is entirely acceptable to publish such claims in a research paper, and not present any evidence whatsoever.

Summing up

In summary: as far as these four students were concerned (but not perhaps the fifth participant?), there did seem to be a relationship between periods of experiencing hallucinations and lower school performance (perhaps explained by such factors as "absenteeism to school during the day the test was conducted" p.46) ,

"the performance shown by students who face chronic hallucinations is also declining and  declining.  This  is  all  due  to  the  actions  of  students leaving the teacher's learning and teaching sessions as well as  not  attending  school  when  this  hallucinatory  disorder strikes.  This  illness or  disorder  comes  to  the  student suddenly  and  periodically.  Each  time  this  hallucination  disease strikes the student causes the student to have to take school  holidays  for  a  few  days  due  to  pain  or  depression"

Awang, 2022, p.42

However,

  • these four students do not represent any wider population;
  • there is no information about the specific nature, frequency, intensity, etcetera, of the hallucinations or diagnoses in these individuals;
  • there was no statistical test of significance of changes; and
  • there was no control condition to see if performance dips were experienced by others not experiencing hallucinations at the same time.

Once they had recovered from the hallucinations (and it is not clear on what basis that judgement was made) their scores improved.

The author would like us to believe that the relief from the hallucinations was due to the intervention, but this seems to be (quite literally) an act of faith 3 as no actual research evidence is offered to show that the soul purification module actually had any effect. It is of course possible the module did have an effect (whether for the conjectured or other reasons – such as simply offering troubled children some extra study time in a calm and safe environment and special attention – or because of an expectancy effect if the students were told by trusted authority figures that the intervention would lead to the purification of their hearts and the healing of their hallucinatory disorder) but the study, as reported, offers no strong grounds to assume it did have such an effect.

An irresponsible journal

As hallucinations are often symptoms of organic disease affecting blood supply to the brain, there is a major question of whether treating the condition by religious instruction is ethically sound. For example, hallucinations may indicate a tumour growing in the brain. Yet, if the module was only a complement to proper medical attention, a reader may prefer to suspect that any improvement in the condition (and consequent increased engagement in academic work) may have been entirely unrelated to the module being evaluated.

Indeed, a published research study that claims that soul purification is a suitable treatment for medical conditions presenting with hallucinations is potentially dangerous as it could lead to serious organic disease going untreated. If Awang's recommendations were widely taken up in Malaysia such that students with serious organic conditions were only treated for their hallucinations by soul purification rather than with medication or by surgery it would likely lead to preventable deaths. For a research journal to publish a paper with such a conclusion, where any qualified reviewer or editor could easily see the conclusion is not warranted, is irresponsible.

As the journal website points out,

"The process of reviewing is considered critical to establishing a reliable body of research and knowledge. The review process aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general."

https://www.ej-edu.org/index.php/ejedu/about

So, why did the European Journal of Education and Pedagogy not subject this submission to meaningful review to help the author of this study meet the standards of the discipline, and of science in general?


Work cited:

Notes:

1 In mature fields in the natural sciences there are recognised traditions ('paradigms', 'disciplinary matrices') in any active field at any time. In general (and of course, there will be exceptions):

  • at any historical time, there is a common theoretical perspective underpinning work in a research programme, aligned with specific ontological and epistemological commitments;
  • at any historical time, there is a strong alignment between the active theories in a research programme and the acceptable instrumentation, methodology and analytical conventions.

Put more succinctly, in a mature research field, there is generally broad agreement on how a phenomenon is to be understood; and how to go about investigating it, and how to interpret data as research evidence.

This is generally not the case in educational research – which is in part at least due to the complexity and, so, multi-layered nature, of the phenomena studied (Taber, 2014a): phenomena such as classroom teaching. So, in reviewing educational papers, it is sometimes necessary to find different experts to look at the theoretical and the methodological aspects of the same submission.


2 The paper is very strange in that the introductory sections and the conclusions and implications sections have a very broad scope, but the actual research results are restricted to a very limited focus: analysis of school test scores and grades.

It is as if as (and could well be that) a dissertation with a number of evidential strands has been reduced to a paper drawing upon only one aspect of the research evidence, but with material from other sections of the dissertation being unchanged from the original broader study.


3 Readers are told that

"All  these  acts depend on the sincerity of the medical researcher or fortune-teller seeking the help of Allah S.W.T to ensure that these methods and means are successful. All success is obtained by the permission of Allah alone"

Awang, 2022, p.43


Diabolical diabetes journal awards non-specialist guest editorship (for a price)

"By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes"


Keith S. Taber


Diabetes is a life-threatening condition – so one might hope that a research journal called 'Journal of Diabetes Research Reviews & Reports' would have serious academic standards
(Image by Tesa Robbins from Pixabay)

An open access journal that charges USD $ 1519 for publication (and "will not issue refunds of any kind"), that is available for subscription"Euro € 3600.00 for Single Volume, € 600.00 for Single Issue (+postage charge €100)", but which wants me to send it "$2519" because I have been awarded membership.

Dear Henderson

Thank you for your email 'Membership for Your Publications' notifying me that the Journal of Diabetes Research Reviews & Reports has awarded me 'membership' based on my research profile. That is rather incredible as my research is in science education. The most relevant publication that comes to mind is "Is 6% kidney function just as good as 8% kidney function? A case of justifying dubious medical ethics by treating epistemology as ontology" which is not peer-reviewed, but a post on my personal blog.

This does rather suggest that either

  • the Journal of Diabetes Research Reviews & Reports has a rather bizarre notion of its scope given the journal title, or
  • it has extremely low standards in terms of what it feels it might be happy to publish.
  • Or, perhaps both?

I am a little confused by your final paragraph which seems to suggest that although I have been 'awarded' various benefits (well they might have been benefits had I been a diabetes researcher) you would like me to send you $2519 (in some unspecified currency). I only ever recall being honoured with one academic award before, and that came with a sum of money. That is, when you make an academic award, you give money to the recipient, not the other way around.

So, let's be honest.

You do not know, or indeed care, if I know anything about diabetes research. (Either you have not examined my research profile to find out; or whoever was tasked with this has such limited scholarly background that they have no notion of how to identify publications about diabetes research – such, perhaps, as looking to see if the words 'diabetes' or 'diabetic' appear in any paper titles or keywords: not exactly a challenging higher level task.)

You are not making me an award.

You are trying to sell me some kind of a package of 'benefits' in relation to publishing my work in your dodgy journal. That is, the Journal of Diabetes Research Reviews & Reports is one of the many predatory journals seeking to take money from scholars without being in a position to offer a service consistent with normal standards of academic quality in return. (This has already been demonstrated by the journal identifying someone with no publications in the field as 'a potential author' for the journal based on scrutinising my 'research profile in [sic] online'. If that is the level of competence to be expected of the editorial and production side of the journal, why would any serious scholar let their work be published in it?)

That apparent lack of competence in itself does not justify spending my time responding to your invitation.

I write because I find these tactics dishonest. You deliberately set out to deceive by pretending you are offering an award based on the excellence of a scholar's research. I really do not like lying, which is antithetical to the whole academic enterprise. So, I reply to call out the lie.

If you feel that I have misrepresented the situation, and that my research profile justifies an award in the field of diabetes research, then I would be very happy to receive your explanation. Otherwise, perhaps you might wish to consider if you really are comfortable working in an unethical organisation and being complicit in lying to strangers in this way?

Best wishes

Keith


Notification of an 'award'. Benefits (once I have paid a fee) include being appointed a guest editor.

Update (5th August 2022)

I have just received a response from the journal…


"Anticipating for [my] positive response" -despite my reply to the Journal!

Swipe left, swipe right, publish

A dating service for academics?


Keith S. Taber


A new service offers to match authors and journals without all that messy business of scholars having to spend time identifying and evaluating the journals in their field (Image by Kevin Phillips from Pixabay )

I was today invited to join a new platform that would allow an author "the opportunity to get the best Publishing Offers from different Journals"; and would also allow journal editors to "learn about new scientific results and make Publishing Offers to Authors". Having been an author and an editor my immediate response was, "well how could that work?"



Publishing offers?

I was a little intrigued by the notion of publishing 'offers'. In my experience what matters are 'publication decisions'.

You see, in the world of academic journals I am familiar with,

  • authors choose a journal to submit their manuscript to (they have to choose as journals will only consider work not already published, under consideration or submitted, elsewhere)
  • the editor decides if the manuscript seems relevant to the journal and to be, prima facie, a serious piece of scholarship. If not, it is rejected. If so, it is sent to expert reviewers for careful scrutiny and recommendations.
  • then it is accepted as is (rare in my field); accepted subject to specified changes; returned for revisions that must then be further evaluated; rejected but with a suggestion that a revised manuscript addressing specified issues might be reconsidered; or rejected.1
  • if the editor is eventually satisfied with the manuscript (perhaps after a number of rounds of revision and peer review) it is accepted for publication – this might be considered a publishing offer, but usually by this point the author is not going to decline!
  • if the process does not lead to an accepted manuscript, the author can decide her work is not worth publishing; use the feedback to strengthen the manuscript before submitting elsewhere, or simply move on to another journal and start again with the same manuscript.

Read about the process of submitting work to a research journal

Read about selecting a journal to submit your work to

Read about the peer review process used by serious research journals

Similarly, in the world of academic journals I am familiar with,

  • an editor becomes aware of a paper available for publication because the author submits it for consideration;
  • editors may sometimes offer informal feedback to authors who are not sure if their work fits the scope of the journal – but the editor certainly does not actively seek to check out manuscripts that are not being considered for that journal.

Though editors may engage in general promotion of their journal, this does not usually amount to trawling the web looking for material to make offers on.

So how does the platform work?

So, I looked at the inexsy site to see how the service managed to help authors get published without having to submit their work to journals, and how journals could fill their pages (and, these days, attract those juicy publication fees) even if authors did not fancy submitting their work to their journal.

This is what I learned.


Step 1. Put yourself out there.

(Image by Dean Moriarty from Pixabay)


Make a show of your wares

The process starts with the author uploading their abstract as a kind of intellectual tease. They do not upload the whole paper – indeed at this stage they do not even have to have written it.

"Researchers submit Abstracts of their manuscripts to the INEXSY platform and set their Publishing Statuses:

#1 – "Manuscript in progress" or

#2 – "Manuscript ready, looking for publisher".

https://inexsy.com

(Indeed, it seems an author could think up a number of article ideas; write the abstracts; post them; and wait t0 see which one attracts the most interest. No more of all that laborious writing of papers that no one wants to publish!)


Step 2. Wait to be approached by a potential admirer.

(Image by iqbal nuril anwar from Pixabay)


Wait to be approached

Now the author just has to wait. Journal editors with nothing better to do (i.e., editors of journals that no one seems to be sending any work to) will be going through the abstracts posted to see if they are interested in any of the work.

"All journals from the corresponding science area view the Abstract of the manuscript and determine the relevance of the future article (quick editorial decision)."

https://inexsy.com

The term 'quick editorial decision' is intriguing. This term most commonly refers to a quick decision on whether or not to publish a manuscript, but presumably all it means here is a quick editorial decision on "the relevance of the future article" to the journal.

Editors of traditional journals are used to making quick decisions on whether a manuscript falls within the scope of the journal. I have less confidence in the editors of many of the glut of open-access pay-to-publish journals that have sprung up in recent years. Many of these are predatory journals, mainly concerned with generating income and having little regard for academic standards.

In some cases supposed editors leave the editorial work to administrators who do not have a strong background in the field. Sometimes journals are happy to publish material which clearly has no relevance to the supposed topic of their journal. 2

Read about predatory journals


Step 3. Start dating

(Image by Sasin Tipchai from Pixabay) 


Enter into a dialogue with the editor

inexst acknowledge that even the journals they attract to their platform might not immediately offer to publish an article on the basis of an author's abstract for a paper they may not have written yet.

So, the platform allows the two potential suitors to enter into a dialogue about developing a possible relationship.

 "If the text of the Abstract and supplementary materials (video, figures) are not enough for journals to make Publishing Offers to authors, then the INEXSY platform provides the [sic] Private Chat to discuss the full text of a future article."

https://inexsy.com

Step 4. Get propositioned by the suitor

(Image by bronzedigitals from Pixabay)


4. Consider moving the relationship to the next level

If after some back and forth in the virtual world, the editor likes the author's images and videos they may want to take the relationship to a new level,

 "If the potential article is interesting to journals, these journals make Publishing Offers to authors in 1 click."

https://inexsy.com

Step 5. Choose a keeper

(Image by StockSnap from Pixabay) 


5. Decide between suitors

Now the idea of a 'publishing offer' is clarified. Having had an idea for a paper, and written an abstract and perhaps posted some pics and a video talking about what you want to write, and having been approached by a range of editors not too busy to engage in some social intercourse, the author now find herself subject to a range of propositions.

  • But which suitor does she really have a connection with?
  • Which one is the best prospect for a happy future?

But this is not about good looks, tinderness, pension prospects, or reliably remembering birthdays, but which journal is more prestigious (good luck with expecting prestigious journals to register on such sites), and how quickly the competing journals promise to publish the paper, and, of course, how much will they charge you for this publication escort service.

"Authors choose the optimal offer (best publication time, IF [impact factor], OA [open access] price) and submit their manuscripts to the website of the selected journal."

https://inexsy.com

Do dating services check the details provided by member? Impact factors are useful (if not perfect) indicators of a journal's prestige. But some predatory journals shamelessly advertise inaccurate impact factors. (See, for example, 'The best way to generate an impressive impact factor is – to invent it'). Does inexsy do due diligence on behalf of authors here, or is a matter of caveat emptor?


Step 6. And ride off into the sunset together

(Image by mohamed Hassan from Pixabay)


Live happily ever after with a well-matched journal

So, there it is, the journal dating nightmare solved. Do not worry about reading and evaluating a range of journals to decide where to submit, just put up your work's profile and wait for those journal editors who like what they see to court you.

You do not have to be exclusive. Put the goods on public show. Play the field. See which suitors you like, and what they will offer you for exclusive rights to what you want to put out there. Only when you feel you are ready to settle down do you need to make a choice.

Publish your work where you know it will really be appreciated, based on having entered into a meaningful relationship with the editor and found your article and the journal have much in common. Demonstrate your mutual commitment by publicly exchanging vows (i.e., signing a publishing agreement or license) that means your article will find an exclusive home in that place for ever after.

(Well, actually, if you publish open access, it might seem more like an open marriage as legally you are free to republish as often as your like. However, you will likely find other potential partners will consider an already published work as 'damaged goods' and shun any approaches.)

So, now it is just the little matter of getting down to grindring out the paper.


Back to earth

(Image by Pexels from Pixabay )


Meanwhile, back in the real world

This seems too good to be true. It surely is.

No editor of a responsible journal is going to offer publication until the full manuscript has been (written! and) submitted, and has been positively evaluated by peer review. Even dodgy predatory journals usually claim to do rigorous peer review (so authors can in turn claim {and perhaps sometimes believe} that their publications are in peer reviewed journals).

This leads me to moot a typology of three types of journal editor in relation to a platform such as inexsy:

1.
Absent partners
Editors of well-established and well-regarded journals.


These are busy with the surfeit of submissions they already receive, and are not interested in these kinds of platforms.
2.
Desperate romantics
Principled editors of journals struggling to attract sufficient decent papers to publish, but who are committed to maintain academic standards.


They may well be interested in using this platform in order to attract submissions – but the offers they will make will be limited to 'yes, this topic interests us, and, if you submit this manuscript, we will send the submission to peer review'.

They will happily wait till after a proper legal ceremony before consummating the relationship.
3.
Promiscuous predators
Editors of predatory journals that are only interested in maximising the number of published papers and so the income generated.


They will make offers to publish before seeing the paper, because, to be honest there is not much (if anything) they would reject anyway as long as the author could pay the publication fees. Once they have your money they are off on the prowl again.

So, this may well bring some authors together with some editors who can offer advice on whether a proposed paper would be seriously considered by their journals (category 2) – but this achieves little more than would emailing the editor and asking if the proposed paper is within the scope of that journal.

If any authors find they are inundated by genuine offers to publish in any journals that are worth publishing in, I will be amazed.

Watch this space (well, the space below)

Still, as a scientist, I have to be open to changing my mind. So,

  • if you are a representative of inexsy
  • if you are an author or editor who has had positive experiences using the service

please feel free to share your experiences (and perhaps tell me I am wrong) in the comments below.

I wait with interest for the flood of responses putting me right.


Notes

1 The precise number of categories of decision, and how they are worded, vary a little between journals.


2 Consider some examples of what gets published where in the world of the dubious research journal:

"the editors of 'Journal of Gastrointestinal Disorders and Liver function' had no reservations about publishing a paper supposedly about 'over sexuality' which was actually an extended argument about the terrible threat to our freedoms of…IQ scores, and which seems to have been plagiarised from a source already in the public domain…. That this make no sense at all, is just as obvious as that it has absolutely nothing to do with gastrointestinal disorders and liver function!"

Can academic misconduct be justified for the greater good?

Sadly, some journal editors do not seem to care whether what they publish has any relevance to the supposed field of their journal: 'Writing for the Journal of Petroleum, Chemical Industry, Chemistry Education, Medicine, Drug Abuse, and Archaeology'

Not special enough

Special issues of journals are not what they used to be


Keith S. Taber


If I just consider those where the deadline is TODAY, [what] I find…covers much of the field of education just in the scope of special issues closing today!


Dear Andrei

Thank you for your message.

I did receive your mail. Unlike most of the invitations I get these days I was pleasantly surprised that it did actually relate to an area where I had some expertise. As I have plenty of ongoing projects I was not seeking another one, and I have some reservations in editing for a journal which would charge authors to publish. I appreciate that publishing is not a charity, but academic publishing is in a strange place as Open-Access slowly becomes the norm, but many scholars are not automatically supported in paying publication fees. Whilst there are still many high quality, well-established, journals in Education that do not charge authors publication fees, I would not wish to be allowing my name to be used to encourage authors to submit to a journal that charges authors about £1200 to publish their work.

However, I was intrigued enough to do some due diligence by checking out your website.

I found that 'education sciences' has a rather different take on special issues than I was used to.

When I was a journal editor (incidentally for a journal sponsored by a learned society, so it does not charge authors or readers), we used to have one themed issue per year, and made a big thing of it. We also chose topics very carefully so as not to repeat or strongly overlap with previous themes.

On your website I find that special issues are not so special.

You have a vast number of calls for papers for special issues. If I just consider those where the deadline is TODAY, I find

  • Languages and Literacies in Science Education
  • Building Resilience of Children and Youth with Disabilities: New Perspectives
  • Advances in Learning and Teaching in Medical Education
  • Opportunities and Limitations of Using E-learning in School and Academic Education
  • Education Technology and Literacies: State of the Art
  • Active Methodologies and Educative Resources Mediated by Technology
  • Educational Effectiveness and Improvement – Research, Policy and Practice from the UK, the USA, China and across the World
  • Groundings for Knowledge That Informs Education, Schooling and Teacher Preparation
  • Educational Technology's Influence in Higher Education Teaching and Learning
  • Inclusion and Disability: Perspectives on Theory, Research, and Practice
  • Educational Research and Innovation in the First Global Catastrophe of the 21st Century: Committed to Education
  • Learning Space and Environment of Early Childhood Education
  • Philosophy of Education Today: Diagnostics, Prognostics, Therapeutics and Pandemics
  • Migrant Integration in Schools: Policies and Practices
  • Health Professions Education & Integrated Learning
  • Transition to Higher Education: Challenges and Opportunities

That covers much of the field of education just in the scope of special issues closing today!

And then there is another large tranche with deadlines in July.

And another with deadlines in August.

And so on.

I am not suggesting there is anything inappropriate here, but these are hardly 'special' issues. They are themes that are used to encourage submissions, with individual articles published when ready (as open calls already have published papers) and then linked. But they do not comprise discrete issues of the journal. I see that quite a few of the closed special issues only included 5 papers, which surely reflects the sheer range of themes being pushed at once. (I did not immediately see any closed special issues with less than 5 articles, so I wonder if deadlines are extended to you have that minimum number of papers accepted?)

So, even if I had been tempted at this time to edit a special issue of a journal, it would have to be a special issue that was considerably more special than this.

Best wishes

Keith



Study reports that non-representative sample of students has average knowledge of earthquakes

When is a cross-sectional study not a cross-sectional study?


Keith S. Taber


A biomedical paper?

I only came to this paper because I was criticising the Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research's claimed Impact Factor which seems to be a fabrication. I saw this particular paper being featured in a recent tweet from the journal and wondered how it fitted in a biomedical journal. The paper is on an important topic – what young people know about how to respond to an earthquake, but I was not sure why it fitted in this particular journal.

Respectable journals normally have a clear scope (i.e., the range of topics within which they consider submissions for publication) – whereas predatory journals are often primarily interested in publishing as many papers as possible (and so attracting publication fees from as many authors as possible) and so may have no qualms about publishing material that would seem to be out of scope.

This paper reports a questionnaire about secondary age students' knowledge of earthquakes. It would seem to be an education study, possibly even a science education study, rather than a 'biomedical' study. (The journal invites papers from a wide range of fields 1, some of which – geology, chemical engineering – are not obviously 'biomedical' in nature; but not education.)

The paper reports research (so I assume is classed as 'research' in terms of the scale of charges) and comes from Bangladesh (which I assume the journal publishers consider a low income country) and so it would seem that the author's would have been charged $799 to be published in this journal. Part of what authors are supposed to get for that fee is for editors to arrange peer review to provide evaluation of, feedback on, and recommendations for improving, their work.

Peer review

Respectable journals employ rigorous peer review to ensure that only work of quality is published.

Read about peer review

According to the Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research website:

Peer review process is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published online. Independent professionals/experts/researchers in the relevant research area are subjected to assess the submitted manuscripts for originality, validity and significance to help editors determine whether a manuscript should be published in their journal. 

This Peer review process helps in validating the research works, establish a method by which it can be evaluated and increase networking possibilities within research communities. Despite criticisms, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for research validation

Only the articles that meet good scientific standards, explanations, records and proofs of their work presented with Bibliographic reasoning (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence etc.) are accepted for publication in the Journal.

https://biomedres.us/peer-review-process.php

Which seems reassuring. It seems 'Preventive Practice on Earthquake Preparedness Among Higher Level Students of Dhaka City' should then only have been published after evaluation in rigorous peer review. Presumably any weaknesses in the submission would have been highlighted in the review process helping the authors to improve their work before publication. Presumably, the (unamed) editor did not approve publication until peer reviewers were satisfied the paper made a valid new contribution to knowledge and, accordingly, recommended publication. 2


The paper was, apparently, submitted; screened by editors; sent to selected expert peer reviewers; evaluated by reviewers, so reports could be returned to the editor who collated them, and passed them to the authors with her/his decision; revised as indicated; checked by editors and reviewers, leading to a decision to publish; copy edited, allowing proofs to be sent to authors for checking; and published, all in less than three weeks.

Although supposedly published in July 2021, the paper seems to be assigned to an issue published a year before it was submitted

Although one might wonder if a journal which seems to advertise with an inflated Impact Factor can be trusted to follow the procedures it claims. So, I had a quick look at the paper.

The abstract begins:

The present study was descriptive Cross-sectional study conducted in Higher Secondary Level Students of Dhaka, Bangladesh, during 2017. The knowledge of respondent seems to be average regarding earthquake. There is a found to have a gap between knowledge and practice of the respondents.

Gurung & Khanum, 2021, p.29274

Sampling a population (or not)

So, this seems to be a survey, and the population sampled was Higher Secondary Level Students of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Dhaka has a population of about 22.5 million people. I could not readily find out how many of these might be considered 'Higher Secondary Level', but clearly it will be many, many thousands – I would imagine about half a million as a 'ball-park' figure.


Dhaka has a large population of 'higher secondary level students'
(Image by Mohammad Rahmatullah from Pixabay)

For a survey of a population to be valid it needs to be based on a sample which is large enough to minimise errors in extrapolating to the full population, and (even more importantly) the sample needs to be representative of the population.

Read about sampling

Here:

"Due to time constrain the sample of 115."

Gurung & Khanum, 2021, p.29276

So, the sample size was limited to 115 because of time constraints. This would likely lead to large errors in inferring population statistics from the sample, but could at least give some indication of the population as long as the 115 were known to be reasonable representative of the wider population being surveyed.

The reader is told

"the study sample was from Mirpur Cantonment Public School and College , (11 and 12 class)."

Gurung & Khanum, 2021, p.29275

It seems very unlikely that a sample taken from any one school among hundreds could be considered representative of the age cohort across such a large City.

Is the school 'typical' of Dhaka?

The school website has the following evaluation by the school's 'sponsor':

"…one the finest academic institutions of Bangladesh in terms of aesthetic beauty, uncompromised quality of education and, most importantly, the sheer appeal among its learners to enrich themselves in humanity and realism."

Major General Md Zahirul Islam

The school Principal notes:

"Our visionary and inspiring teachers are committed to provide learners with all-rounded educational experiences by means of modern teaching techniques and incorporation of diverse state-of-the-art technological aids so that our students can prepare themselves to face the future challenges."

Lieutenant Colonel G M Asaduzzaman

While both of these officers would be expected to be advocates for the school, this does not give a strong impression that the researchers have sought a school that is typical of Dhakar schools.

It also seems unlikely that this sample of 115 reflects all of the students in these grades. According to the school website, there are 7 classes in each of these two grades so the 115 students were drawn from 14 classes. Interestingly, in each year 5 of the 7 classes are following a science programme 3 – alongside with one business studies and one humanities class. The paper does not report which programme(s) were being followed by the students in the sample. Indeed no information is given regarding how the 115 were selected. (Did the researchers just administer the research instrument to the first students they came across in the school? Were all the students in these grades asked to contribute, and only 115 returned responses?)

Yet, if the paper was seen and evaluated by "independent professionals/experts/researchers in the relevant research area" they seem to have not questioned whether such a small and unrepresentative sample invalidated the study as being a survey of the population specified.

Cross-sectional studies

A cross-sectional study examines and compares different slices of a population – so here, different grades. Yet only two grades were sampled, and these were adjacent grades – 11 and 12 – which is not usually ideal to make comparisons across ages.

There could be a good reason to select two grades that are adjacent in this way. However, the authors do not present separate data for year 11 and year 12, but rather pool it. So they make no comparisons between these two year groups. This "Cross-sectional study" was then NOT actually a cross-sectional study.

If the paper did get sent to "independent professionals/experts/researchers in the relevant research area" for review, it seems these experts missed that error.

Theory and practice?

The abstract of the paper claims

"There is a found to have a gap between knowledge and practice of the respondents. The association of the knowledge and the practice of the students were done in which after the cross-tabulation P value was 0.810 i.e., there is not any [statistically significant?] association between knowledge and the practice in this study."

Gurung & Khanum, 2021, p.29274

This seems to suggest that student knowledge (what they knew about earthquakes) was compared in some way with practice (how they acted during an earthquake or earthquake warning). But the authors seem to have only collected data with (what they label) a questionnaire. They do not have any data on practice. The distinction they seem to really be making is between

  • knowledge about earthquakes, and
  • knowledge about what to do in the event of an earthquake.

That might be a useful thing to examine, but any "independent professionals/experts/researchers in the relevant research area"asked to look at the submission do not seem to have noted that the authors do not investigate practice and so needed to change the descriptions they use an claims they make.

Average levels of knowledge

Another point that any expert reviewer 'worth their salt' would have queried is the use of descriptors like 'average' in evaluating students responses. The study concluded that

"The knowledge of earthquake and its preparedness among Higher Secondary Student were average."

Gurung & Khanum, 2021, p.29280

But how do the authors know what counts as 'average'?

This might mean that there is some agreed standard here described in extant literature – but, if so, this is not revealed. It might mean that the same instrument had previously been used to survey nationally or internationally to offer a baseline – but this is not reported. Some studies on similar themes carried out elsewhere are referred to, but it is not clear they used the same instrumentation or analytical scheme. Indeed, the reader is explicitly told very little about the instrument used:

"Semi-structured both open ended and close ended questionnaire was used for this study."

Gurung & Khanum, 2021, p.29276

The authors seem to have forgotten to discuss the development, validation and contents of the questionnaire – and any experts asked to evaluate the submission seem to have forgotten to look for this. I would actually suggest that the authors did not really use a questionnaire, but rather an assessment instrument.

Read about questionnaires

A questionnaire is used to survey opinions, views and so forth – and there are no right or wrong answers. (What type of music do you like? Oh jazz, sorry that's not the right answer.) As the authors evaluated and scored the student responses this was really an assessment.

The authors suggest:

"In this study the poor knowledge score was 15 (13%), average 80 (69.6%) and good knowledge score 20 (17.4%) among the 115 respondents. Out of the 115 respondents most of the respondent has average knowledge and very few 20 (17.4%) has good knowledge about earthquake and the preparedness of it."

Gurung & Khanum, 2021, p.29280

Perhaps this means that the authors had used some principled (but not revealed) technique to decide what counted as poor, average and good.

ScoreDescription
15poor knowledge
80average knowledge
20good knowledge
Descriptors applied to student scores on the 'questionnaire'

Alternatively, perhaps "poor knowledge score was 15 (13%), average 80 (69.6%) and good knowledge score 20 (17.4%)" is reporting what was found in terms of the distribution in this sample – that is, they empirically found these outcomes in this distribution.

Well, not actually these outcomes, of course, as that would suggest that a score of 20 is better than a score of 80, but presumably that is just a typographic error that was somehow missed by the authors when they made their submission, then missed by the editor who screened the paper for suitability (if there is actually an editor involved in the 'editorial' process for this journal), then missed by expert reviewers asked to scrutinise the manuscript (if there really were any), then missed by production staff when preparing proofs (i.e., one would expect this to have been raised as an 'author query' on proofs 4), and then missed again by authors when checking the proofs for publication.

If so, the authors found that most respondents got fairly typical scores, and fewer scored at the tails of the distribution – as one would expect. On any particular assessment, the average performance is (as the authors report here)…average.


Work cited:
  • Gurung, N. and Khanum, H. (2021) Preventive Practice on Earthquake Preparedness Among Higher Level Students of Dhaka City. Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, July, 2020, Volume 37, 2, pp 29274-29281

Note:

1 The Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research defines its scope as including:

  • Agri and Aquaculture 
  • Biochemistry
  • Bioinformatics & Systems Biology 
  • Biomedical Sciences
  • Clinical Sciences
  • Chemical Engineering
  • Chemistry
  • Computer Science 
  • Economics & Accounting 
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Food & Nutrition
  • General Science
  • Genetics & Molecular Biology
  • Geology & Earth Science
  • Immunology & Microbiology
  • Informatics
  • Materials Science
  • Orthopaedics
  • Mathematics
  • Medical Sciences
  • Nanotechnology
  • Neuroscience & Psychology
  • Nursing & Health Care
  • Pharmaceutical Sciences
  • Physics
  • Plant Sciences
  • Social & Political Sciences 
  • Veterinary Sciences 
  • Clinical & Medical 
  • Anesthesiology
  • Cardiology
  • Clinical Research 
  • Dentistry
  • Dermatology
  • Diabetes & Endocrinology
  • Gastroenterology
  • Genetics
  • Haematology
  • Healthcare
  • Immunology
  • Infectious Diseases
  • Medicine
  • Microbiology
  • Molecular Biology
  • Nephrology
  • Neurology
  • Nursing
  • Nutrition
  • Oncology
  • Ophthalmology
  • Pathology
  • Pediatrics
  • Physicaltherapy & Rehabilitation 
  • Psychiatry
  • Pulmonology
  • Radiology
  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Surgery
  • Toxicology

Such broad scope is a common characteristic of predatory journals.


2 The editor(s) of a research journal is normally a highly regarded academic in the field of the journal. I could not find the name of the editor of this journal although it has seven associate editors and dozens of people named as being on an 'editorial committee'. Whether any of these people actually carry out the functions of an academic editor or whether this work is delegated to non-academic office staff is a moot point.


3 The classes are given names. So, nursery classes include Lotus and Tulip and so forth. In the senior grades, the science classes are called:

  • Flora
  • Neon
  • Meson
  • Sigma
  • Platinam [sic]
  • Argon
  • Electron
  • Neutron
  • Proton
  • Redon [sic]

4 Production staff are not expected to be experts in the topic of the paper, but they do note any obvious omissions (such as missing references) or likely errors and list these as 'author queries' for authors to respond to when checking 'proofs', i.e., the article set in the journal format as it will be published.

The best way to generate an impressive impact factor is – to invent it

Is the Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research falsifying its impact factor?


Keith S. Taber


A journal claiming a seemingly falsified Impact Factor

Impact factors give an indication of journal quality. However, some predatory journals will make false claims (i.e., lie) about their impact factors to attract submissions.

Read about Journal impact factors

I was therefore suspicious when a biomedical journal approached me to submit my work for a 'reputed journal' that had a decent Impact Factor, despite wanting me to publish on a field I do not do research in.

I did a quick informal calculation of what would seem a feasible impact factor, and came up with a figure that suggested the journal's claimed impact factor was completely implausible. It seemed the journal was lying. (I even found an impact factor published by a less selective organisation than that used by most prestigious journals which was much closer to my own estimate.)

Of course, I could be mistaken. So, I sent the following response to clinical@scientificpublisher.net (the source of the invitation to submit) the same day I received their invitation (19th May). I did not immediately get a reply, so I sent the message again to clinical@biomedres.us (an email address given in the footer of the invitation) two days later (21st May).

As of yet (30th May), I have had no reply – probably because the Journal staff know their claimed impact factor is fabricated. They suggested in their invitation that 'The best way to predict the future is to invent it'. I assume they took their own advice, but doubt this will help them get a genuine impact factor.


Oddly, a journal that started publishing is already inviting papers for Volume 43 (and on its website is up to Volume 44, Issue 2)1


Dear Angela
Thank you for your invitation to contribute to the 'Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research'.

I understand this journal was only established about 5 years ago, so I was very impressed to see that it already has an Impact factor of 1.229 – that seems a real achievement in such a short time. Your website suggests the journal has already published over 5000 articles, so having an impact factor of over 1.2 implies the journal's articles have already been cited over 6000 times in citation ranking outputs! I was so surprised to read this, that I went to check on Google Scholar, which is a very liberal listing of citations (it includes all kinds of things like student dissertations and webpages which are not included in the formal calculation of impact factors).

Yet, as far as I can see, Google scholar seems to list less than 200 citations of articles in 'Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research'. If that is not just my incompetence in using the search engine, that would likely suggest that the number of citations appearing in outputs included in the indices for calculating Impact Factors is many fewer than 100 – which would mean an Impact Factor over the life of the journal of certainly no more than about 0.02?

I would be grateful for your clarification. Have there really been 6000+ citations of articles in 'Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research' in journals which qualify for indexing when calculating citation indices? If not, is the journal's impact factor just one of these 'dodgy' numbers that some predatory journals quote but which have been generated by some dubious algorithm or act of necromancy, and which has no real connection with the authentic Impact Factors quoted by reputable journals?

The academic community has an accepted understanding of what genuine Impact Factors are claiming, and I cannot see any details on your site (perhaps I have missed this?) to suggest that your journal uses a different methodology to the academic norm, so it would be dishonest if the journal looked to deceive those you invite to be authors (such as myself) by pretending to have an Impact Factor that could not be substantiated and which has been heavily inflated. I am sure you would appreciate that authors are unlikely to be enticed to submit to a journal if they feel from initial contact that they are being misled by a journal that cannot be trusted to adhere to academic norms.

Perhaps I am not using Google Scholar correctly, and you can point me to the evidence for your impressive Impact Factor. I look forward to your response.

It may well be that 'The best way to predict the future is to invent it' but I hope this does not include the Impact Factor you cite.

Best wishes
Keith




On 19/05/2022 12:42, Clinical Trials & Results wrote:

Dear Dr. Keith S Taber,

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. So, lets make this year as a year of finding and fulfillment.

On behalf of Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research (ISSN: 2574-1241) with an Impact factor: 1.229, we take the great opportunity in inviting you to submit your manuscript for new issue release i.e., Volume 43 Issue 5 by 03rd of June.

We would be delighted if you would take part in this issue with your significant article being published in our reputed journal.

We look forward to hearing a positive response from your end.

Angela Roy
Biomedical Journal (BJSTR)
clinical@biomedres.us
Address: One Westbrook Corporate Center, Suite 300, Westchester, IL 60154, USA
Ph. No: +1 (502) 904-2126


Note:

By far the most common practice in journal publishing is to have one volume per year – so typically all issues published in 2021 would comprise one volume. In 2021 Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research published volumes 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and part of volume 40.

Are you still with us, Doctor Wu?

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

Keith S. Taber


A katydid on a flower (Image by Zw Ma from Pixabay)

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 humanizationalternative respiratory orifices to our survival…the aegis of commoditized auction blocksthe 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.


An 'alternative respiratory orifice'? (Image by bluebudgie from Pixabay)

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.


One of Kuang-Ming Wu's books – this was published by State University of New York Press in 1990 as part of its 'Religion and Philosophy' series


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')
Steely Dan's 'Katy Lied'. (What Katydid next?)

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?)