Taylor & Francis has threatened legal action against an online group that has made allegations, based largely on vague insinuations rather than evidence, about the publisher and a member of its research integrity team.
The group, ScienceGuardians, is an anonymous organization whose website serves as what they call an online “journal club.” On X, it has been posting so-called “investigations” of several sleuths, publishers and organizations, what it calls “perpetrators of the PubPeer Network Mob.” Its targets have included sleuths Kevin Patrick and Reese Richardson, and others such as Science editor-in-chief Holden Thorp, and its posts are often amplified by those whose work has been questioned on PubPeer or retracted.
On September 7, the group published a string of claims on X about Nick Wise, a sleuth who joined Taylor & Francis in January as a research integrity manager. The ScienceGuardians post characterized the move as Wise “infiltrated” the publisher’s research integrity office. The post states he is responsible for 1,300 posts on PubPeer (which we have noted he does under his real name), and, ScienceGuardians claims, more than 100 others under the name “Simnia avena.”
“These inflammatory words suggest that something illegal or secret has occurred, although it seems more likely that T&F hired Nick because of his sleuthing experience,” said sleuth Elisabeth Bik, who has also been called out by ScienceGuardians. “They also accuse Nick and other sleuths of using ‘fake accounts’ on PubPeer, even though many of us sleuths might use or have used pseudonyms out of fear of being sued. It is not a crime or fraud to use a pseudonym. In fact, ScienceGuardians are hiding behind one as well.”
On September 8, the group sent a “formal notice” to Taylor & Francis, which they also posted on Substack, to the attention of Laura Wilson, head of research integrity and ethics, and Sabina Alam, director of publishing ethics and integrity. Among its “material concerns,” the letter cites “conflicts of interest,” referencing Wise’s PubPeer posts, and whether he “disclosed his PubPeer activity” to the publisher. They also cite “collaboration with external actors,” referencing an exchange on Bluesky between Wise and Bik. The letter was signed by “Elias Verum, on behalf of ScienceGuardians.”
Alam responded 10 days later in an email, the text of which ScienceGuardians posted online. “Your email and social media posts include several significant allegations about a particular individual at Taylor & Francis,” Alam wrote. The integrity team “committed to upholding the highest standards of research integrity and publishing ethics, as well as identifying and preventing unethical practices.”
Taylor & Francis takes such allegations very seriously. However, we note that you have not provided any evidence to support these allegations. If you have evidence to verify your claims, please share this with us and we will investigate accordingly. If you do not have such evidence, the substance of your email and social media posts are serious and highly defamatory, and have been disseminated by you to more than 3000 followers on the social media platform X. If you cannot substantiate these claims, then we insist that you retract these claims immediately.
If you continue to make these serious allegations without providing evidence of same, then we will have no choice but to refer this matter to our legal department and consider pursuing legal action.
A spokesperson for the publisher verified the correspondence reproduced in the posts as accurate but did not respond to further questions regarding the matter. Wise did not respond to a request for comment.
ScienceGuardians has sent two subsequent replies to the publisher for what it deems “extremely significant concerns.”
In its response on September 20, ScienceGuardians repeated and linked to the allegations they posted on X, calling them “specific, archived evidence that supports the material concerns set out in our notice.” They continued, “For clarity, your threat of legal action does not relieve Taylor & Francis of its duty of care to the academic community.”
In a second follow-up email sent September 22, ScienceGuardians requested Taylor & Francis tell them whether Wise has access to the STM Integrity Hub, and if so, what permissions, data access and activity he has carried out, among other details of integrity research and work.
In past posts, the group has also singled out Retraction Watch, with claims including that this site is the “institutional-level predatory arm of the PubPeer Network Mob.”
“It is disturbing that ScienceGuardians not only post their vague insinuations on X, but that they also send emails to the employers of ‘sleuths’ in a clear attempt at defamation,” Bik told us. The account “uses accusatory language such as ‘malicious activities’, ‘entrapment’, ‘implicated’, and ‘exposing’, without actually showing any proof of fraudulent activities. “It is likely that these vague insinuations are costing the sleuths’ employers a lot of time and headaches.”
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
No one can take legsl action if the provided evidences of fraud or unethical practices are true.
T&F should just sue them, don’t make threats, but do it. It’s about time someone acts against that idiotic platform. Although nobody, aside from conspiracy idiots, takes them seriously, it’s about time someone stops them. The stuff they come up with is just insane. Now they are already linking murders with pubpeer.