Taylor & Francis: Formal Notice Escalated — New Questions on Conflicts, Data Access, and Accountability
Following our formal notice of 8 September 2025 (read here: Formal Notice) and our reply of 20 September 2025 (read here: T&F Under Notice — Their Reply & Our Response), we are still awaiting substantive answers from Taylor & Francis’ Publishing Ethics & Integrity Team (PEI Team).
On 18 September 2025, Dr. Sabina Alam (Director of Publishing Ethics & Integrity) issued an official reply, with Laura Wilson (Head of Research Integrity & Ethics) in CC. We responded on 20 September 2025 with detailed evidence and a 14-day deadline for transparent answers.
Since then, new and highly significant concerns have been raised publicly by the academic community, particularly regarding Nick Wise’s access to shared cross-publisher research-integrity platforms and the risks of external collusion. These concerns have now been formally escalated in our latest correspondence to Taylor & Francis, which we publish in full below.
This email places Taylor & Francis on clear and formal notice of additional accountability questions, ensures the record is preserved, and warns that spoliation of evidence (tampering, altering, or destroying records) would carry severe legal consequences.
Full Text of the Email (22 September 2025)
Subject: Re: Formal Notice Regarding Conflicts of Interest and Integrity Risks in Taylor & Francis’ Research Integrity & Ethics Office
To: Dr. Sabina Alam, Director of Publishing Ethics & Integrity
CC: Laura Wilson, Head of Research Integrity & Ethics; enquiries@taylorandfrancis.co.uk
Dear Dr. Alam,
We acknowledge your reply of 18 September 2025 and note that we are still awaiting your responses to the material questions set out in our correspondence of 20 September 2025.
While we await those responses, further extremely significant concerns are now being raised publicly by members of the academic community regarding the gravity of this matter. These have been documented here:
👉 https://x.com/SciGuardians/status/1970189804919804207
In the interest of transparency and accountability, we hereby place Taylor & Francis and its Publishing Ethics & Integrity Team (the “PEI Team”) on formal and clear notice of these additional concerns. For the avoidance of doubt, we now set out these questions explicitly in this correspondence and request transparent responses, so that the academic community may be reassured that appropriate safeguards and reviews are in place.
Specifically, we require clarification on the following:
Cross-Publisher Data Access:
Whether Taylor & Francis’s participation in cross-publisher integrity collaborations (e.g., the STM Integrity Hub) granted Mr. Wise access to any shared research-integrity signals or datasets.Permissions and Scope of Access:
If so, what permissions and scope of access he has held (including any retrospective queries) since January 2025.Export and Transmission of Data:
Whether Mr. Wise has queried, downloaded, copied, exported, or otherwise transmitted any cross-publisher integrity data or internal case files.External Sharing:
Whether any such signals, cases, or metadata were shared externally (directly or indirectly) with PubPeer, Retraction Watch, For Better Science, or other non–Taylor & Francis actors.Audit Logs:
What audit logs (access logs, export logs, security events) exist for Mr. Wise’s activity on internal systems and any connected integrity platforms, and whether these logs will be independently reviewed.Conflict-of-Interest Controls:
Whether COI/recusal controls and segregation of duties were enforced for Mr. Wise on any matter involving external actors, including Leonid Schneider and his network.Targeting of Researchers:
Which researchers Mr. Wise has chosen to focus on during his tenure to date, and whether this aligns with harassment campaigns documented and attributed to the PubPeer Network Mob (“PubSmear”).
These are precisely the kinds of items that may be subject to subpoenas in future legal proceedings. Any removal, alteration, or destruction of records following this notice would constitute spoliation of evidence and carry severe legal consequences.
We therefore request that Taylor & Francis and the PEI Team provide clear, documented responses to these additional questions, alongside those already set out in our 20 September correspondence, within the 14-day timeframe already specified.
Please note that this correspondence will be appended to the preserved public record. Any future proceedings — whether in courts of law, regulatory inquiries, or institutional reviews — may assess not only Mr. Wise’s conduct but also the adequacy of Taylor & Francis’s response once placed on repeated and formal notice.
We look forward to your timely and transparent reply.
Sincerely,
Elias Verum
On behalf of ScienceGuardians™
🌐 scienceguardians.com
𝕏 @SciGuardians
📧 support@scienceguardians.com | scienceguardians@gmail.com
Closing Note:
This correspondence now forms part of the preserved public record. Should researchers, authors, reviewers, or other stakeholders suffer reputational, professional, or financial harm as a result of Taylor & Francis’ compromised Research Integrity & Ethics Office, this material may be used as evidence in institutional or legal proceedings.
🔱 ScienceGuardians remains committed to transparency, accountability, and empowering the academic community with tools, guidelines, and investigative reports.
Have been following this effort and am rejoicing. This how I write in my dreams: concise and surgical, take no prisoners, fair and balanced. As an INTJ, my writing has been described as dry, but really, when transmitting information, is it not preferable to be accurate?
There simply must be something done about this manipulation seek-and-destroy cartel. RICO comes to mind, no matter from where these publications emanate. Please do not limit your reach; all the publications are complicit and coordinated. Follow the money: what or who is at the center of the wheel. A court case with discovery comes to mind, with complete follow-through to the end which would result in full exposure.
Recently had a case come to a jointly agreed settlement. Would have preferred a judge’s ruling (to set a precedent), but as an individual appellant carefully self-funding as the case(s) wended through the intentional delays and incremental changes over the last eleven (11) years, was satisfied they withdrew.
I understand there may not be many comments from actual scientists here, as many are still deathly worried about being attacked and harmed by the cartel in some way. I am not a scientist and have no research papers at risk (though I read many and used some in my case).
Good job.
I don't get these accusations. Dr. Wise works in the research integrity department of an STM-associated publisher, so he and his colleagues have access to cross-publisher networks - what is the problem with that? These attacks seem futile and childish, especially since they do not contain any prove of illegal activity, and are sent from an anonymous account.