Article Acceptance Letter Reveals a Bogus Peer Review

 Journal of International Management Studies

Don’t trust their peer review.

Sometimes, we are able to gather direct evidence of how predatory publishers operate. In this case we received primary information about the operation of the Journal of International Management Studies.

This journal markets itself as a standalone journal, but we think it is really one of three published by the same, unnamed firm. The other two journals the firm publishes are:

The three journals are also co-marketed with a conference called Global Business & International Management Conference. I blogged about this firm a year ago.

We got a copy of one of this journal’s acceptance letters:

Dear Dr. [Redacted]/Dr. [Redacted],

Thank you very much for your submission to JIMS. We are pleased to inform you that your paper has been reviewed by two reviewers, and accepted for publication. Enclosed is the registration form of your paper, “[Redacted]” from JIMS. Please follow the payment guideline to ensure your publication. Please inform us after the check is delivered.

After the payment is received, we will e-mail you an official acceptance letter and the receipt of payment immediately.

In addition, your paid paper will be published in The Journal of International Management Studies (JIMS) Vol. 8, Num.1, April 2013.

Thank you for making The Journal of International Management Studies a vehicle for your research interests.

Best wishes,

Gloria Wang
Secretary of Journal of International Management Studies (JIMS)

The significant thing about this letter is the reference to the peer review. Note that there are no comments from the “reviewers”.  It really looks like no review occurred at all. Also, the letter is written in poor and confused English, and it’s all about the money.

Also included with this email to the authors was this document [PDF]. It lists the location where the $776 check is to be sent: 16085 NW Ridgetop Lane, Beaverton, OR 97006-7718, USA. We assume that is the home of Gloria Wang, the person who signed the email reprinted above. Here’s the house:

JIMS

Your money goes here.

In his email to me, the paper’s co-author said this:

I hope all is well. I was recently approved for publication but never knew I’d have to pay a fee to be published. As I now educate myself with your site, pls advise if this is a legitimate publication. I do appreciate it. Thx.

I attached the payment form as well. Looks odd…

I agree. This is very fishy. This is gold open-access publishing. I recommend that scholars avoid any association with these three journals and their corresponding conference.

10 Responses to Article Acceptance Letter Reveals a Bogus Peer Review

  1. Rob Rittenhouse says:

    The fee is mentioned under the journal home page. Won’t say I’m real impressed by the operation but it is worth noting they’ve apparently been in business since 2006.

    • omg says:

      lmao @ that house. That they have been scamming people since 2006 means nothing except it’s sad we can’t shut them down yet somehow.

      And that payment form is just completely ridiculous. Further, any author who publishes with them and takes their word that there was peer review is just tarnishes their own reputation.

      I seriously wonder what the hard copy of this “journal” looks like… this blatant abuse of the publishing system is really begging for some legal regulation, or at least a new watchdog organization to actually certify any new journals.

      A reputable white list/black list can’t come soon enough.

  2. Alex H says:

    Umm actually this is NOT gold OA-Publishing. In gold OA, we (or our institution) pay for our article to be made open so that access can be free of charge for everyone, and not for the unconditional acceptance of our papers or for skipping the peer review.

    I advise to the person in question to ask for the peer reviews. It will be obvious from the text if they have been written by qualified and competent peers or not.

    • I think the person decided to withdraw his submission when he realized the questionable nature of the operation.

      I’ve never seen a definition of gold OA that mentions anything about the quality (or authenticity) of the peer review.

      • Alex H says:

        in Peter Suber’s Open Access Overview, para. “OA journals (“gold OA”)”., the first thing that the author states is that “OA journals conduct peer review”.

        http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm

        Let’s say that a publishing platform let the author think that they sent out the submitted material to peers and the acceptance is based on their expert recommendations. It still does not change the fact that they did not conducted peer review. They can write acceptance emails, give certificates, put a statement in their website that “all published materials undergone double blind peer-review” etc., still does not matter. There are some exceptions, but usually the only proof for a peer review is the actual text of the peer review.

        A peer review also presuppose peers. As i m not an expert in quantum geometry, i can not write a peer review for a qg ms. Even if i write a review for a manuscript dealing with that topic, it is still not the review of a peer. The same applies for the editor of any obscure journal who manage to find someone (anyone) to write a few praising words for Author X: Hu can’t say either that the manuscript was peer-reviewed. IMHO.

        Some other iteresting quotes from Mr. Suber.

        “There are two primary vehicles for delivering OA to research articles, OA journals (“gold OA”) and OA repositories (“green OA”). The chief difference between them is that OA journals conduct peer review and OA repositories do not.(…) Most activists refer to OA delivered by journals as gold OA (regardless of the journal’s business model), and to OA delivered by repositories as green OA. ”

        “”A common misunderstanding is that all OA journals use an “author pays” business model. There are two mistakes here. The first is to assume that there is only one business model for OA journals, when there are many. The second is to assume that charging an upfront fee is an “author pays” model. In fact, most OA journals (70%) charge no author-side fees at all. Moreover, most conventional or non-OA journals (75%) do charge author-side fees. When OA journals do charge fees, the fees are usually (88%) paid by author-sponsors (employers or funders) or waived, not paid by authors out of pocket.”

        I do not think that the quality of the peer review have any relevance in deciding the question whether a publishing platform is a “gold OA journal” or not.

  3. Alex H says:

    (*) as long as it is the review written by a peer.

  4. Wayne Dawson says:

    Interesting idea to publish from home. It does look a bit lax to have people send their checks to a home address and their policies should be a lot clearer up front if that is what an author is confronted with after submitting an article to such a place.

    Comments from peer reviewers are very important. Reviewers comments are the last stage before an article goes to print, so even if what the reviewer says is wrong, the author has one last chance to look for why the reviewer miss the point (if that be the case). So at the very minimum, an author, regardless of where he/she publishes, should really want that feedback. A publisher that cares about content should also want intelligent comments. In the end though, it is kind of a lottery as far as how much feedback a reviewer offers.

  5. [...] Jeffrey Beall  lists publishers and journals that seem to be blatantly dishonest, for example in claiming to use peer review while not doing so, or by not even publishing actual journals, only citations (e.g. “The [...]

  6. [...] articles about how to detect such practices. For example, his latest blog post highlights an article acceptance letter that reveals a bogus peer review. Jeff was recently featured in two articles, one in Inside Higher Education, “Librarians and [...]

  7. […] eden kişinin gözünü boyamak. Genelde bu adresler incelendiğinde, ya boş bir arazi, ya da sıradan bir vatandaşın ev adresi olduğu […]

Leave a Reply -- All comments are subject to moderation, including removal.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,054 other followers

%d bloggers like this: