Research features…but only if you can afford it

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

Keith S. Taber

Dear Chris Temple

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

will this count for my publications list for appointments/tenure/promotions?	clearly, no
is this the kind of publication I myself would go to to read about research?	if they know what they are doing, clearly no
is this a publication which would point me (and therefore others) to the most significant new research in my field or other fields of interest?	only when the authors of that research happen to have paid to be featured, so at best it is pot luck there, and arguably the most significant work is already getting attention because it is recognised as such in its field, and so is less likely to have authors prepared to pay out for publicity – {I hope this does not mean you have selected my article because you think it is so insignificant that no one is going to pay it any attention otherwise!}
will this increase my research impact?	only if the general public, relevant professions, and policy makers, think this is something they should spent time reading to find out about the most important research – so, very unlikely that those in these groups who would be motivated to read about research would also be ignorant enough to think a 'pay to be featured' magazine is likely to be a good place to get a balanced view of the most significant new studies.

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

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

Best wishes

Keith