AN ASSESSMENT OF MARKETISATION OF 'REVIEW' THROUGH LITERATURE

AN ASSESSMENT OF MARKETISATION OF ‘REVIEW’ THROUGH LITERATURE ABSTRACT This qualitative study based on multiple-case study designs collects data using a ‘vector manuscript’ that carries 5 fatal mistakes. The review comments are mainly assessed based on the editorial guidelines for the reviewers. This assessment, based on the reviews of conferences, international journals, and review comments of the reviewers at the institutional level (N=126), suggests that the elements of negligence and marketisation have already infused in the academic field which must be addressed through structural and strategic considerations because those who were more oriented towards money were found to be 6.9 times more threatening in comparison to those who were not money oriented. In this study, at the institutional level those accepting gifts from the student before reviewing the paper are coded as asking for money. Keywords: Marketisation of Review; Review Ethics; Research Integrity; and Covert Study Author: Chandu Lal Chandrakar Mail: Cheng_le@outlook.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2853-8200 A research needs many skills and traits; however, all these are founded on our esteem to respect the truth without compromise. INTRODUCTION Apart from writing research papers, the post graduate students of the Institute of Education of the “Midtown A hypothetical name of the university.” University are required to publish academic papers at least in peer-reviewed international journals that are listed in the Social Science Citation Index, and to participate in an international conference before being conferred upon an academic degree. The method of cultivation of talents and enrichment of skills for international students, unlike the students of the host country, is designed to confine to SQ 3R method (Matsumoto, 2009, p514) which mainly involves some kinds of surveys, questions, reading, reciting, and reviewing of a set of materials under the guidance of dedicated instructors; batch by batch, and year by year. However, all the contributions of these academic activities undergo one common process of assessment, called academic review. The way of assessment of these papers is not very open. According to the narratives collected from a few international students, the pressure on the host country students is not the same as that of the international students due to following reasons: they work more closely with professors and hence they are more informed about the requirements of the courses and the important questions of the examinations, they are given considerations for the late submissions, they submit the paper only for research methodology courses and graded for all the courses for offering them early degrees, they have more access to the real world population for conducting research, and most of the time they are closely assisted by the domestic faculties or those specially hired from abroad to help them write dedicatedly an English language paper so that they could be launched to a good university abroad. The situation for the international students is quite different, post hoc ergo hoc, they are not evaluated on the same pages. However, there could be exceptions to these perceptions. Commercialization and marketisation (Lynch, 2006; Brown & Carasso, 2013) of higher education have been driving the academic researchers and institutions very hard to cash their identities and research with the selling points in the academic market (Molesworth, Nixon, & Scullion, 2009). This has led to some unfortunate consequences for those scholars who are power deprived but academically robust as researchers outside the academic world where rules are mainly defined by power, price, reputation, and pelf. Owing to the lack of responsibilities, the scholars too pressed by the academic needs become easy prey in this academic market (Grant Harman, 2010; Molesworth et al., 2009). This small-scale covert study is an attempt to assess the drive of counting cash and responsibility apparently prevalent in the academic market if counted from the perspectives of the international students (Bendixen & Jacobson, 2017). Accordingly, review as assessment is purely an academic activity. It becomes quintessential to see in what respect this activity is compromised under the guise of marketisation of higher education today because in all cases it costs time, in most of the cases it costs money, and hence in some of the cases it also costs life. I have purposefully conducted the research after accomplishing the credit requirements of the institution of “Midtown” University, taking the Graduate school and my previous supervisor in consideration, for ensuring the fact that my authority for conducting this research should not be questioned, especially because I am a paid student. As the customer of education, we must request we are served rightfully and dutifully and not just lured to pay for anyone’s reputation, but work. The data collection of this study spanned from 09th of April, 2018 to 09th March 2019. RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS This study stems from the international student experiences, where I got the opportunity to witness some evidences of proliferation of marketisation of higher education in the class. The idea dispensed to the post graduate students in the class by one of the highly qualified international educators, though arguably questioned by another, included intentionally evading the question from informed audience during academic presentation of the research work that the students (presenters) believe they do not have answer for. This class was formally meant to teach the academic publication and presentation methods to the postgraduate students. The same teacher did not deliver his duties after accepting the manuscript for review of a self-paid international student. The magnitude of proliferation of the negative ideas in highly competitive universities are exponentially higher than anywhere else because the recipient of the negative ideas and values are disseminated to the most competitive talents of tomorrow. Universities as higher education institutions are the pool of universal ideas, for there are also the elements of academic freedom, academic respect, and academic integrity associated with them. This study mainly focuses on the reviewers’ response using a vector that travels from the classroom to the academic market at large. This vector has been explained in the research design section below. The research questions of this qualitative study are as follows: RQ1. How do the responses of the reviewers vary to the vector of review after knowing the fact that the vector has been used for collecting their review comments on purpose? RQ2. What could be recommended to them? The vector in the research question is a manuscript that has employed quantitative research methodology on a data-set but is associated with 12 errors in it. Due to the limited time, sensitivity, and nature of the respondents this research has been conducted only to understand the phenomenon of sincerity towards review practices among the reviewers in a covert way. LITERATURE REVIEW Scholars though agree that the structure of academic quality is built upon peer review, they also have agreed with the fact that the higher education educators could find their class being assessed as confronting (Gosling, 2014; Healey, Ambler, Irhammar, Kilfoil, & Lyons, 2014; Kilfoil, 2014; Sachs & Parsell, 2014; Spencer, 2014) and disrespectful. Review of teaching, due to anonymity and the nature of the object of review involved, is different from academic review of research work (Sachs & Parsell, 2014; Spencer, 2014) in journals. Moreover, review is associated with many kinds of academic genres including research article, thesis work, research grant application, research proposals, book proposals, or academic writings of both occluded and public nature. This list is even longer (Paltridge, 2017b; Swales & Feak, 1996). According to Wager, Godlee, & Jefferson (2002) academic review in terms of rigor and expertise involved could be divided into three groups i.e., Professional review, Peer review, and Informal review. In terms of accountability, professionalism and expertise involved in delivery of services the professional review stands highest in this hierarchy. Ideally, this is a top-down process where the expertise of the reviewer(s) formally exceeds that of the manuscript writer, and delivery of services by and large is longer than the other two. It mainly involves professors, editors, editorial-boards, and committees where experts with highest caliber and skills would review the academic paper or recommend the paper for additional reviews on the basis of the technicalities, and the context of the paper. The ‘peer review’, ideally, is defined as the pre-publication formal collaborative system whereby a piece of academic work is scrutinized by people who did not involve in its creation but are considered knowledgeable about the subject (Paltridge, 2017a; Spencer, 2014; Wager et al., 2002). However, it also describes professional appraisal processes used to assess the performance of an individual, team, department, etc. In terms of seriousness of consequences, the most significant of all the peer-reviews is the ‘post-publication peer review’ where the authors do not have any scope to change the information they have dispensed in their pieces of academic writing (Sachs & Parsell, 2014; Wager et al., 2002). Both professional and peer reviews, as process, are mostly blinded where the author(s) does not have the access to the identity of the reviewer(s). The informal peer (my emphasis) review mainly is concerned with seeking comments and feedbacks from the experts, peers, and potential readers informally. This is a case of open review where the authors and reviewers know the identity of each other (Liu & Carless, 2006; Matsumoto, 2009; Wager et al., 2002, Angelo, 2004). However, authors like Wager, Godlee, & Jefferson (2002) believe that seeking feedback informally on academic writing from colleagues is helpful but without telling them the specific area of the paper where and how they could decide to glean their thoughts in, is also literally asking for a trouble. In their terms: “…This is asking for trouble. You will avoid much frustration if you select reviewers for specific skills and give them clear directions. In a work’s early stages, you might ask someone to comment on the overall structure, whether the arguments flow logically, and whether you have omitted anything vital… (Wager et al., 2002) p.43. Nonetheless, not all open reviews are informal reviews because in some cases the manuscripts could be over technical for the publications where the publishers might ask the authors to suggest some experts of their field who could make competent reviews for them. In such cases, the requisite of anonymity could be compromised (Comer & Schwartz, 2014; Fogg & Fiske, 1993; Leung, Law, Kucukusta, & Guillet, 2014). The premise of anonymity and blind review do not guarantee a bias-proof practice of reviewing and hence could not be considered academic. In this regard, the review as a process, though complex, needs to be assessed and reported for even respecting the rules of the higher education market. DATA AND DESIGN The data for analysis comes from the observations, email responses, and instant messenger WeChat responses of the reviewers from 09th of April 2018 to 09th of May 2019. All the respondents in this study were highly professional academic reviewers whose professional accountability could not be controlled and giving informed consent would have distorted the natural-settings of the research. Furthermore, it would be quite intimidating to ask them to perform the reviews. Altogether 126 review responses for the vector were collected (conference=43, Institution=38, Journal=45). These review responses were coded according to the variables displayed in the table below. Table 1. Tree structure of the data in terms of variables Note: PRCM: Prompted with comments for sending review; SRC: Sends review comments (Accepts or Declines or No Data); DNSRC: Do not send review comments (Accepts or Declines or No Data); TYPE: Institution (University Institutions), Journals, and Conferences; N: Number of observations at each level; K= number of times alternative is chosen. After situating the context, the nature of respondents, and the data; the multiple case-studies design was found to be the most suitable methods of all for this study. The multiple case-study design is suitable for searching the phenomenon and trends in the real world where the researchers have little or no control (Lorna & Connie, 2013; Yin, 1984) upon. The concept of multiplicity in the study strengthens the external validity of the research. The study is not designed to measure the cognitive capacity, expertise level, and reputation of the respondents but their adherence to the reviewer’s ethical guidelines on the basis of what they would respond in their review comments. The pre-informed consent was not submitted to the reviewers but a post-study debriefing. Moreover, since the review process involves credible amount of time and money for the manuscript writers; it therefore, is expected from them to deliver it dutifully. WHY COVERT DESIGN Ever since Nazi atrocities on human beings, covert studies have been considered illegal and un-ethical if they ever include human subjects. However, in social world research where the existence of phenomenon and trend has to be investigated, the studies without informed consents, with some conditions, are permissible (BERA, 2018,p7; BPS, 2000, 2014,p24; BSA, 2002,p4; Deaton & Cartwright, 2018 (my emphasis); Sally, Ron, & Ursula, 2004,p61; SRA, 2003,p34). For example, the social research association with some restrictions stipulate that: “…covert observation and any other forms of research which use deception (my emphasis: this study does not involve deception) can only be justified where there is no other ethically sound way of collecting accurate and appropriate data. If research requires any kind of deception, then only by the clear demonstration of the benefits of the research can it be justified...” (SRA, 2003) p.33-34. The Psychological Society, however, find deception and covert study legitimate to those situations only where it is quite essential for maintaining the truth in the research result: “…covert collection of data should only take place where it is essential to achieve the research results required…(my emphasis)…where there is an appropriate risk management and harm alleviation strategy.” (BPS, 2014) p.24. In most of the cases Randomized control trial designs are associated with some sort of covertness (Corbetta, 2003,p115). There are regulations for informed consent for children participants, and participants with intellectual and cognitive disabilities too. In these cases, informed consents from the gate-keepers are eminent. However, in this study no such human subject interventions are involved. In order to respect the privacy of the subjects their responses have been analyzed with anonymity. The research environment was kept in a purely natural settings and no monetary reimbursements, benefits, or gifting were practiced during the data collection of this study. However, all the participants were shown respect without partiality At institutional level some accepted gift before responding to the review.. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The dictionary meaning of vector is a physical quantity that has both direction and magnitude. It’s a vessel that carries pathogen and transmits it to the host. It’s the position of an air-craft represented in terms of coordinated values. The original meaning of vector however is a carrier (Oxford Dictionaries, n.d.). The comprehensive meaning of vector could be best described through a Chinese story ‘Chao Chuan Jie Jian’ where a strategist, called Kong Ming, mindfully tricks his enemy soldiers to collect all the arrows from them Strategist Kunming was ordered by the General Zhou Yu to collect 100,000 arrows from the enemies or else face the execution. Kunming, a man of unsurpassable intelligence and virtue, accepts the challenge to bring the arrows within three days. With 20 boats having straw-soldiers made on both sides of the boat, with torch, and a few chieftain Kunming boats during the late night in the river where on the other side a large troop of soldiers from the enemy king Caocao is waiting to wage a war. Kunming’s boat closes to the bank of the enemy side and they start shooting arrows on the boats. The arrows get struck in the straws and Kunming returns with the arrows to Zhou Yu. Zhou Yu asks why he was so confident about this act of Caocao. Kunming answers he knew that it’s going to be foggy those days and the king Caocao was a little over-confident (Luo Guizhong, 1979). (Guizhong, 1979). In this study, the vector (the boat) is the ‘One-minute paper’ which collects the feedbacks (arrows) on the basis of the 12 requisites from the reviewers as stipulated in the guidelines for them (Australian Government, 2017; COPE, 2013; CSE, 2012; ELSEVIER, 2015; ESRC, 2010; ICMJE, n.d.; Taylor & Francis, 2017; Wiley, 2017). The boat fits the vector analogy theoretically, here as well. In theory, measurement, as stated by Stevens (1946) is ‘the assignment of numerals to objects or events according to rules’ (Aftanas, 1988; Stevens, 1946). The different sections with obvious mistakes in the ‘One-minute paper’ strictly fulfill the number of boats in the story stated above. These mistakes have been discussed in the theoretical section below. This study like other multiple case-studies design is based on the grounded theory using constant comparisons to analyze the data based on the themes that has emerged after coding the guidelines for reviewers from the various authentic sources (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Table 2. Source of guidelines for reviewers OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK The unit of analysis for this study was the reviewer’s comments on each section grounded on the themes so induced from the literature review of the guidelines. Altogether 115 themes were coded from 16 different sources of ethical guidelines for the reviewers. The source file of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) 2013 and 2017 were merged together; and the ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) guidelines were only used for consultation purpose. Practically, there appears only 14 guideline sources in the data set. In total, 12 themes emerged from these guidelines in which the review for rigor in research was the most counted in terms of both reference themes and number of words in the guideline materials. The data so collected from emails WeChat were put together on a word file and were then coded based on these themes to measure the alteration in the review work. DEFINITION OF THEMES According to the listed source of definitions in Table 2, Competence referred to accepting a manuscript when the reviewer, journals, conference have the expertise in the subject of the manuscript. has expertise in the subject of the manuscript. The auto-coded sub-categories on the basis of reference-codes were subject expertise, relevant expertise, and adequate expertise. Confidentiality referred to respecting the intellectual independence, not disclosing the details of the manuscript and review comments to anyone unless approved by the editor. The auto-coded sub-categories of confidentiality mainly suggested to keep the content, and identity confidential both during and after the review process. Conflict of interest referred to vested ideological, or material interest, directing if the reviewer has already reviewed the paper 3 months before or belongs to the same institution to which the author or investor in the manuscript belong to, then s/he should decline the manuscript for reviewing. In short, in such cases the editor should be informed if there are potential interest of kind or means vested in the manuscript by the reviewers. Constructive critic refers to giving both positive and negative critics irrespective of ideological, personal inclination of the manuscript writer(s). Impartiality, rather appeared as a complex concept with many sub-themes but it was related to making decisions without any personal, professional, intellectual, commercial biases for the nature of the manuscript. Integrity contained the sub-themes of ethics in research where reviewers also supposed to not use the research findings for the interest of their organization, and searching for the fatal-flaws in the manuscript. Parameter of Review were the specific requirements from the publishers to follow while conducting a review for them. Predatory Journals or Pseudo-Journals referred to those journals or conferences that are mushrooming to make money and deliver very little for the academic quality and progress, and are having no record in the standard academic market. Respect for Person referred to respecting the authors and not using derogatory remarks on anyone involved in the study while conducting the review. Rigor referred to making all possible kind of judgement on the manuscript in terms of its (but not limited to) structure, design, data, methodology, analysis, and conclusions. Timeliness was related to delivering review services on time or else not accepting the review rather suggest some names for the review. Transparency referred to if the reviewers in all circumstances conduct review under their own identity and never in the guise of anyone else, or even anonymously. However, a comparison of themes by coding similarity indicates that some of the themes emerged to be very similar. It would not bring much different result if they are merged into thematic super-codes. Moreover, codes of similar themes would make the coding process very ambiguous that ultimately would lead to not clear results. The themes of Conflict of Interest, and Confidentiality were merged with Integrity; themes of Competence were merged with Rigor; themes of Parameters were merged with Transparency; and themes of Constructive Critics were merged with Impartiality (See Figure 6). Figure 1. Reference coded count. Synthesized based on ethical guidelines literature Figure 2. Words coded count. Synthesized based on ethical guidelines literature DATA ANALYSIS For answering the Research Question 1, the data analysis section emphasizes two key findings in terms of data whether there are reviewers who are more interested in earning money than sending review comments; and how do they respond while knowing the ‘One-minute paper’ was a litmus test for their review practice. Some of them were found to be little threatening even after knowing their mistake, some remain silent, and there are some who sounded apologetic for their negligence. This section would analyse the reviewer’s comments (qualitative data) interpreting them into the concepts of Integrity, Rigor, Transparency, Impartiality, Respect, Timeliness, and Predatory stand. Figure 3. Comparison of themes by coding similarity The ‘One-minute paper’ as a vector containing 5 fatal errors and 7 ordinary errors collected 64 review comments from 126 reviewers. However, very few authors were able to pin point those 5 mistakes. These mistakes were related to data, design, and dates in the paper. Other small mistakes included missing citations from the reference section, inconsistency in the reported tables of correlation and also official involvement of other researchers. Multiple case study for the convenient of reporting the results have been divided into three categories i.e., the Institutions, Conferences, and the Journals. There are journal articles where the reviewers have declined to make reviews on the manuscript. Nonetheless, in most of the cases reviewers from the journals have sent reviews only when they must reject the paper. There are few cases at Institutional level when the reviewers have not sent reviewers’ comments even after accepting the manuscript for reviewing. The reviewers of the conferences have mostly accepted to review, sent reviews, and accepted to publish (Presentation) the manuscript in the conference. The over view of the data from the reviewers explain their attitude for their profession which costs both time and money for the young scholars at the higher education institutions. It becomes therefore necessary to see some of the quintessential responses in the milieu of those parameters. 1.Cases from Institutions Duration: 27 Weeks Means of data collection: Email, We-Chat, Observation There were altogether 38 different responses at the institutional level. Among these 9 reviewers’ responses were availed from WeChat, other responses were collected through emails. Observation of the reviewers on the manuscript during the presentation in the class were also noted in case of some extreme or exceptional comments. However, the comments in the cases from Institutions mainly dwindled around the etiquette and the rigour. The review comments lacked professional reporting style and did not appear very specific to the fatal errors. One of the reviewers after a request sends the post-presentation review on the ‘One-minute paper’ as follows: “Dear Chandu: Sorry for not getting to your email in time—I can’t always promise <24 hour turnaround. I am pleased it was helpful to you to bring forward the presentation and produce in solo format. In any event, I think best to keep low key in the interests for you and other class participants. Remember in a presentation that to communicate best it is important to present just a few ideas in the simplest form possible. Parsimony is best. Also please stick to time. I got a little lost in your talk with lots of very detailed results stemming from multidimensional thinking, and as colleagues asked it is unclear to me the context or source of the evidence hence generalisability and relevance, etc. You have a very imaginative and thoughtful approach to studying education research matters. Remember even (especially!) if the study/analysis is very complex or difficult, it is always best to communicate in the most compelling and direct way. In terms of 1-minute paper, I learned from your presentation, so thank you for that. Take care. 7/10” There were two instances where the reviewers accepted to review but did not send comments on time. Some of the characteristics of the review in this space (Institutions) involved disrespecting the integrity, and timeliness. However, after multiple prompts sent to the reviewers the boat of ‘One-minute paper’ returned to its destiny when one of the reviewers did not send reviewers comments on the fatal errors of the manuscript but informed to the committee to reject the paper. Nonetheless, at this stage also the timeliness, and integrity were not respected. After knowing that the ‘One-minute paper’ is a vector for collecting data, instead of accepting negligence, the threats were also sent on the grounds of prestige issue, from some of the reviewers, particularly those who accepted the gifts. 2. Cases from Journals Duration: 27 Weeks Means of data collection: Email All the journals selected for collecting reviewers’ comments were those International journals which are delivering their services in English language and are somehow related to higher education institutions. Altogether, 45 reviewers from the international journals responded to the vector ‘One-minute paper’. Among these, one declined to accept the ‘One-minute paper’ even for review as well. Among these only 37 reviewers involved in deep email discussions and 2 out of 8 who did not send the review comments, rejected the paper. The two journals, which were somewhat related to very reputed institutions, accepted the paper to publish without giving any comments on the manuscript, albeit asking for publication charges 100 British pounds, and 400 USD respectively. One of the typical reviews reads: “We are happy to inform you that your article is going to be published in XXXX Studies (Vol 13). Before your article goes into press, please take some time to review the proofs and this is the last chance that you may make any correction on the article. Please fill in the enclosed "Permission to Publish form" and "Error report form" and return them via email to notifications@xxxxx.co.xx before 8pm GMT July 4. We look forward to receiving your response.” One of the journals that accepted to publish the paper after giving the reviewer comments was somewhat very professional in writing its review report. It first talks about the strength of the paper and then it talks about the weakness of the paper, but it also does not point out the fatal mistakes in the vector manuscript. “This is a really interesting exploration and reporting on the usefulness and accuracy of the one-minute paper on a student’s final score. I think this paper is far too statistical and scientific for the journal. It is really difficult to follow, comprehend and understand after page 5. It would be great if the authors could write in plain academic English what the tables are saying as it would be quite interesting. However, from my perspective, the way in which the data is presented is inaccessible to many of the journal’s audience.” Most interestingly, when journals were informed about the experimental nature of the vector and telling them the manuscript was borne with 05 fatal errors, they either chose to not respond to this, send some apologetic comments, or even send encouraging words. However, unlike the sentiments of threat from institutions and conferences, none of the journals had sent any threatening comments after understanding the nature of the manuscript. Some of the typical examples in this regard are: “Dear Chandu Lal Chandrakar, Thank you for your email. To check my understanding – you wish now to withdraw your manuscript from consideration? As it stands this paper has not yet been sent for review as it is still with the lead editor for an initial assessment. The initial email you received was to confirm the paper had been received by the journal and may be considered to send forward for peer review but it had not yet been seen by any reviewers. We would no longer hold this manuscript for further consideration. Sorry for the delay. Best wishes…” One of the well reputed journals, which has been listed in International Social Science Index has sent very encouraging comments after understanding the real nature of the manuscript. “Thank you. Hopefully we doing up to your expectation. I wish you the best with your endeavours. … Kind regards….” The reviewer’s comments of the journals appeared to be relatively more professional and ethical on the parameters of Integrity, Transparency, Impartiality, and Respect. However, they also lacked rigor in their review comments as their comments also mainly were related to the structure of the manuscript but not about the specific problems in the proper. Moreover, the two journals though related to institutions of high-class repute did come out to be predatory in nature. Nonetheless, all of the reviewers remained considerate for the kind of study conducted on them. 3.Cases from Conferences Duration: 27 Weeks. Means of data collection: Email Among 43 reviewers from the conferences, 13 did not send any review comments and 4 out of these 13 rejected the manuscript. The Conference reviewer’s comments on ‘One-minute paper’ have been swinging from very predatory to very benevolent in this study. Among the 43 conference reviewers, only 30 involved in deep discussions, including the post-hoc vector-nature revelations of the manuscript. Among the post-hoc vector-nature response 16 reviewers send apologetics remarks, whereas 9 send threatening comments. One case in which the reviewer though asks for modification but rejects the paper has been the most professional example of the review. In this study, the reviewer recommends for writing the paper in short and briefing the entire research in 2000 words. However, as informed by the editor the editorial committee rejected the paper on the ground that the paper is too technical for the audience they serve. This was the only situation when the reviewers asked me to revisit the paper especially the dates in the manuscript of the vector and cordially reject the paper for publication. “Dear Chandu, please rewrite your manuscript not exceeding 2000 words including references. Check the dates, and data, and choose only two tables to describe your findings. Put the tables and figures together in one page and send us as soon as possible.” This section in terms of collecting responses was rich section because here the reviewers were asked to write the importance and significance of their conferences too. This section was studied in more detailed way also because in terms of money, time and life the conferences cost are relatively high owing to registration and conference fees, and the participants would need to go to their location for participation. However, one of the conference reviewers who also sent the review on ‘One-minute paper’ was quite unhappy about the experiment: “As a highly respected organisation The XXXXX Studies Association draws its membership from over 50 UK and international Universities and must look after the integrity of its membership. Therefore, in the next 48 hours you must reply to advise me that: 1. All data relating to XXXX in your deceptive project has been removed. 2. Forward the Title of your research project and supervisor. 3. Forward the Ethical Approval Documentation from “Midtown” University Ethics Review Board which specifically related to the deceptive project which you say below XXXX has been part of. If this is not forthcoming, I may have to contact the Head of Ethics at “Midtown” University. As you have already upset one of our reviewers who tried to help you I would argue that you have already breached the prime ethical directive to do no harm with your research. Our conference has had wonderful feedback and participants came from Canada, Hong Kong, Australia and the Middle East; and I will protect the reputation of XXXX at all costs. I look forward to your reply herewith.” As a researcher the most fundamental principle is searching the truth but it is equally based on respecting the respondents of the research. The reviewer, therefore, was replied in the following manner: “Dear XYZ Sir, you are right. This was an experiment in a capacity of a customer. Informed consents are academic terminology and informed judgement is a universal one. But I have to attend a BSA/BERA level of international conferences in future. Some names are confusing and therefore it was a sort of experiment to filter out the better conferences, not a research. I, therefore have sent you the email that was meant for the withdraw of manuscript from your conference. You have the right to contact to anyone you want, Ethical committee of Govt of the US, India, and China too! I am not rich so cannot pay just like that! Good Night! May God Bless You!” This reply culminates a very strong discussion with an apologetic response from the reviewer and later revealing all the chains of discussion from their organisation ensuring the manuscript has been destroyed: “Hi Le Cheng, we shall leave it there then -attached is the file of discussion with us. Good luck with your future studies. Dr.XXXX, PhD(Liv.) SFHEA, MSc. C.Dip.A/F (ACCA), PGCE, BA. Senior Lecturer.” While conducting this study, I also encountered very modest reviewers in the market who do not bother about the nature of study but always provide professional comments and remain very respectful in their responses. One of the representative responses is as follows: “I’m not sure all that this means, Chandu. I hope it’s not a disappointment for you involving your PhD. With all of your efforts that I see on the internet, I’ll bet you’ll be at our Institute another year. Best wishes to you…” While conducting this study, I received two bursaries for attending conferences but in order to serve the purpose of the research the revelations of the experiment was necessary before the end of the Semester (2018). The discussions with highly professional people in this filed helped me understand the possible glitches in academic review market and it also improved my capacity to make honest academic decisions in my life. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS In spite of the fact that the results of this study could not be generalised the statistical analysis of this study shows very typical trend among the reviewers of the academic market. All the data collected from the reviewers were coded and hence are categorical in nature. Kwalis test is used to compare two unpair groups in which the null hypothesis assumes that the distribution of both the groups will be identical (Agresti, 2019). The results of the frequency distribution of SRC for both the cases (sends review or not) for AFM (Asks for Money) and AFE (the response of the reviewers After knowing that was Experiment) were found to be identical i.e., (p-value = 0.4216 for AFM and p-value=0.5124 for AKE). Table3. Description of the variables According to the Bonferroni's method of comparison it was found that there are plenty of evidences pertaining to the attitude of the reviewers after knowing the experimental nature of the vector manuscript of this research (Agresti, 2019; Prasad, 2015). Furthermore, the comparison of the odd ratios of the variables AKE, and AFM pertaining to the variables Type and SRC indicate that there are significant differences in the Odd Ratios of each stratum of the variables with reference to the variable SRC, and the variable Type (Prasad, 2015). The point estimate in the model below indicates that asking for money and the response of the reviewers after knowing the characteristics of the vector (One-minute paper) among these variables are statistically significant particularly in reference to the those who have sent the comments on the vector manuscript were 6.9 (95% CI:1.56, 30.40) times more likely to send threatening comments if they have asked for money in comparison to those who did not (Prasad, 2015, p89). Table 4. Odd Ratios of AKE & AFM pertaining to SRC respectively Table 5. Odd Ratios of AKE & AFM pertaining to Type respectively Table 6. Logistic regression of AKE on AFM CONCLUSION This qualitative study in this context of marketisation of review could be debriefed under the following recommendations. Research is not a mere display of capacity, but also a matter of reality, therefore, responsibility and respect for the people involved. The phenomenon of predatory nature of reviewers is prevalent in the academic market who are more interested in money than their duty of assessing the quality of research manuscripts. The review comments of predatory reviewers are more generic than specific which could be interpreted as presence of less qualified and sincere reviewers in the academic market. Reviewers of predatory nature are more aggressive towards their repute than accepting their negligence on duty. The reviewers of international conferences are aggressively predatory when their attitude towards manuscript reviews are compared to that of the International Journal reviewers. In academe, research is founded on truth and evidence, not on repute and shame of the researchers or the institutions. The authors should openly embrace the criticism offered for the improvement of the papers. An open infusion of academic institutions, reviewers, and the publishers including journals and the conferences could be helpful in this regard. Due to the multi-disciplinary nature of the higher education research, the reviewers committee must be composed of the experts of different backgrounds. Data must be read first before appreciating the results and the methodological rigors. Universities stands for the ideals of universal truth. It is ethically strong enough to investigate any phenomenon of any sensitivity without compromising the ethics and values on which the academe is founded upon. It is in this space where the presentation of research would find most informed audience. Dispensing ideals of escapism during presentations by the scholars i.e., ‘you should trickily escape the question that you do not know or tell the audience would answer you later’; would bluntly nip the creativity, ideals of inquisitiveness, quest for worth, and respect for truth among the budding scholars. It must be stopped immediately at the higher education level, considering the scale of proliferations of this degenerated idea. Asking specific questions based on expertise would certainly save the time and improve the mutual expertise of the scholars during the presentations of research manuscript. An open portal of reviewers in the academic could solve this purpose. Lastly, while conducting this study, I witnessed two learning points. First, the students must respect their teachers and in turn all students must be respected by their educators. Second, students should be allowed to inform their mind to the fullest to their humble teachers. This is the only way how the reality could be shaped for betterment, rightful decisions could be made, and the skills of virtue and excellence could be cultivated. If I were a teacher, I must practice these learnings. In spite of the fact that the covert study is seldom permissible, it could be conducted after getting consent from the higher committees (gate keepers). The respondents must be respected in whatsoever manner by the researchers forever. A self-introspection among the reviewers is the need of the hour. REFERENCE Aftanas, M. S. (1988). Theories, models, and standard systems of measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12(4), 325–339. Agresti, A. (2019). An introduction to categorical data analysis (3rd ed.). Florida: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. APA. (2011). American psychological association: Guidelines for reviewing manuscripts. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/dhe/manuscript-reviewer-guidelines AMS. (2010). American metrological society: Obligations of editors and reviewers in the AMS scientific publication process. Retrieved August 25, 2018, from https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/editors-and-reviewers/obligations-of-editors-and-reviewers-in-the-ams-scientific-publication-process/ ASME. (1999). Best practices guidelines for peer reviewers. Retrieved March 14, 2019, from https://journaltool.asme.org/Help/AdminHelp/WebHelp/Administrators/Reviewers/Best_Practices_Guidelines_for_Peer_Reviewers.htm Angelo, C. (2004). Ethical issues in journal peer-review. Journal of Academic Ethics, 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10805-005-9001-1 Australian Government. (2017). 4. Principles, obligations and conduct during peer review. Retrieved August 25, 2018, from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/book/guide-peer-review-2017/4-principles-obligations-and-conduct-during-peer-review Bendixen, C., & Jacobsen, J. C. (2017). Quality in Higher Education Nullifying quality: the marketisation of higher education Nullifying quality: the marketisation of higher education, 23(1), 20–34. BERA. (2018). British education research association: Ethical guidelines for educational research. Retrieved from www.bera.ac.uk BPS. (2000). Code of conduct, ethical principles &amp; guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.bps.org.uk BPS. (2014). Code of human research ethics. Retrieved from https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/bps_code_of_human_research_ethics.pdf Brown, R., & Carasso, H. (2013). Everything for sale?: The marketisation of UK higher education. Everything for Sale?: The Marketisation of UK Higher Education. BSA. (2002). Statement of Ethical Practice. Retrieved from http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carrerasdegrado/psicologia/sitios_catedras/obligatorias/723_etica2/material/normativas/british.pdf Cambridge university. (2019). Ethical standards. Retrieved March 14, 2019, from https://www.cambridge.org/core/about/ethical-standards Comer, D. R., & Schwartz, M. (2014). The problem of humiliation in peer review. Ethics and Education, 9(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2014.913341 COPE. (2013). Council of publication ethics: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Corbetta, P. (2003). Social Research: Theory, Methods and Techniques. 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London England EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom: SAGE Publications, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209922 COPE. (2013). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf CSE. (2012). Council of science editors: 2.3 Reviewer Roles and Responsibilities. Retrieved August 25, 2018, from https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-3-reviewer-roles-and-responsibilities/ Deaton, A., & Cartwright, N. (2018). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Social Science &amp; Medicine, 210(August 2018), 2–21. EPA. (2015). Peer review handbook. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa_peer_review_handbook_4th_edition.pdf ELSEVIER. (2015). Publishing Ethics for Editors. Retrieved August 25, 2018, from https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/publishing-ethics ESRC. (2010). Peer review rrequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://peerreviewtraining.esrc.ac.uk Fogg, L., & Fiske, D. W. (1993). Foretelling the judgments of reviewers and editors. American Psychologist, 48(3), 296. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/614318670/fulltextPDF/9932C48D18FA4423PQ/1?accountid=14426 Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory : strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Pub. Gosling, D. (2014). Collaborative Peer-Supported Review of Teaching. In Peer Review of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (pp. 13–31). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Grant Harman. (2010). Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(1), 69–83. Griffin, P., Care, E., Francis, M., & Scoular, C. (2014). The Role of Assessment in Improving Learning in a Context of High Accountability. In C. P. Wyatt-Smith C., Klenowski V. (Ed.) (pp. 73–87). Dordrecht: Springer, Dordrecht. Hafner, J. C., & Hafner, P. M. (2003). Quantitative analysis of the rubric as an assessment tool: An empirical study of student peer-group rating. International Journal of Science Education, 25(12), 1509–1528. Healey, M., Ambler, T., Irhammar, M., Kilfoil, W., & Lyons, J. (2014). International Perspectives on Peer Review as Quality Enhancement. In Peer Review of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (pp. 201–219). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. ICMJE. (n.d.). International committee of medical journals editors: Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process. Retrieved August 25, 2018, from http://icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html Kilfoil, W. R. (2014). Peer Review as Quality Assurance. In Peer Review of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (pp. 105–123). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582 Leung, D., Law, R., Kucukusta, D., & Guillet, B. D. (2014). How to review journal manuscripts: A lesson learnt from the world’s excellent reviewers. Tourism Management Perspectives, 10, 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.01.003 Lorna, H., & Connie, C. W. (2013). Choosing the case study route. In Using case study in education research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Luo Guizhong. (1979). Using tricks Kongming borrows arrows from enemy soldiers 《用奇谋孔明借箭》. In San Guo Yan Yi 《三国演义》 (pp. 399–407). Beijing: People’s Literature Publishing House 《人民文学出版社》 Lynch, K. (2006). Neo-liberalism and marketisation: The implications for higher education. European Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 1–17. Matsumoto, D. (2009). The Cambridge dictionary of psychology. London: Cambridge University Press. Molesworth, M., Nixon, E., & Scullion, R. (2009). Teaching in higher education having, being and higher education: the marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 277–287. Molesworth, M., Scullion, R., & Nixon, E. (2010). The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer. Routledge. Oxford Dictionaries. (n.d.). Definition of vector. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/vector Paltridge, B. (2017a). Conclusions. In The Discourse of Peer Review (pp. 183–194). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-48736-0_8 Paltridge, B. (2017b). Peer Review in Academic Settings. In The Discourse of Peer Review (pp. 1–29). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-48736-0_1 Prasad, K. (2015). Data analysis with stata. Birmingham: Packt Publishing. Provenzale, J. M., & Stanley, R. J. (2005). A systematic guide to reviewing manuscript. AJR, 185, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.0782 Rockwell, S. (2005). Ethics of peer review: A guide for manuscript reviewers. New Haven. Retrieved from https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/prethics.pdf Sachs, J., & Parsell, M. (2014). Introduction: The Place of Peer Review in Learning and Teaching. In Peer Review of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (pp. 1–9). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Sally, D., Ron, I., & Ursula, H. (2004). IES Report 412. Retrieved from www.respectproject.org Spencer, D. (2014). Was Moses Peer Observed? The Ten Commandments of Peer Observation of Teaching. In Peer Review of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (pp. 183–199). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7639-5_12 SRA. (2003). Ethical guidelines. Retrieved from http://the-sra.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ethics03.pdf Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the Theory of Scales of Measurement. Science, 103(2684), 677–680. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.103.2684.677 Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1996). Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. College Composition and Communication, 47, 443. https://doi.org/10.2307/358319 Taylor & Francis. (2017). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Retrieved August 25, 2018, from https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/ethical-guidelines-for-peer-reviewers/ Wager, E., Godlee, F., & Jefferson, T. (2002). How to Survive Peer Review. London: BMJ Books. Wiley. (2017). General and ethical guidelines for reviewers. Retrieved August 25, 2018, from https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/general-and-ethical-guidelines.html Yin, R. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications (Vol. 5). https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-199102000-00025 26