"If a scholar is interested in or has proposed any theoretical or religious concept, new construct, algorithm, routine, statistical method, etc. s/he should seek advice and approval from the authority figure(s) in the related domain." (Tourism Critiques)


Critical Analysis

We analyse business research published in Clarivate/Scopus and other indexed Business Journals to identify unethical research reporting and publishing practices.

Research Consultancy

Research Mentorship and Consultancy Services to authors for identifcaion of orthographic, technical, structural, and statistical inaccuracies.

Mentorship for Editors

Editors of Academic Business Journals are guided on conducting a superior desk review. We focus on mechanisms essential for flawless publishing.

Featured Articles

Latest Criticism on Published Business Research

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business Publishes Anything without Peer Review and Copyediting
Today, we are not going to identify technical issues as we usually identified in our many previously published stories. This time we present a Web of Science and Scopus recognized business journal which publishes articles without any credible quality control. We can say that the Editors and Reviewers of this Clarivate Analytics (Emerging Sources Citation Index - ESCI) and Elsevier’s (Scopus) recognized so-called quality journal are not even... For more details, click here

Journals not Listed in Pakistan's HEC Journal Recognition System (HJRS) are "Predatory": A Methodologically Flawed Study Claims
"Predatory publishers/journals" was the terminology first used by Jeffery Beall who was an American librarian. He became controversial during the period he maintained his so-called list of predatory publishers and journals. The controversies started when research stakeholders and academics questioned his eligibility and credibility to maintain the list. Many questions were raised by various... For more details, click here

Elsevier Unethically Promotes its Journals via Scopus: The Case of Heliyon
This article highlights unethical money-making tactics adopted by corporate publishing giant "Elsevier". We know that Heliyon is a journal owned by Elsevier and is now operated by Cell Press which is a part of Elsevier. The journal calls itself an "all science" journal which has no definitive scope and would publish anything from any area of science. Elsevier also operates a so-called quality abstracting and citation database i.e., Scopus. The database lists over 42,000. Due to its corporate... For more details, click here

Wrong Identification of Levels in Multilevel Studies Would Lead to Erroneous Results
Today, we will analyze an article titled “The more you connect, the less you connect: An examination of the role of phubbing at home and job crafting in the crossover and spillover effects of work–family spousal support on employee creativity” published in Wiley’s Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (Clarivate SSCI Impact Factor for 2022: 6.2; Scopus Q1). Exact identification of levels in multilevel research is crucial to get accurate results in multilevel studies... For more details, click here

Wrong use of the Concept of Nomological Validity and its False Testing
In this text we will present an article titled "Student well-being in higher education: Scale development and validation with implications for management education" authored by Khatri et al. (2024) which was published in the "International Journal of Management Education" (SSCI Impact Factor 2022: 5.1; Scopus Q1; ABS). In the Study 4, the authors claimed to investigate the nomological validity and predictive strength of Student Well-being Scale (SWB) using the antecedents, decisions ... For more details, click here

Why Do Journals Publish Articles with Incomplete Information? An Example from Cogent Business & Management
The article "Tourism and hospitality firms' response to COVID-19: the role of entrepreneurial orientation and managers' market recovery perception" was authored by Calisto et al. (2024) and published in "Cogent Business & Management" a publication of Taylor and Francis. The journal’s Clarivate (ESCI) Impact Factor (2022) is 3. The journal is also indexed in Scopus (Q2), DOAJ, Cabell's directories etc. ... For more details, click here

Flawed Article First Tested Data and Then Proposed Hypotheses: Nescient Review by PLOS ONE
The article “Do business records management affect business growth?” by Mintah et al. (2022) was published in PLOS ONE which is a journal indexed by Clarivate Analytics (SCIE/IF 2022: 3.7), Scopus (Q1), PubMed Central, DOAJ etc. The analysis of this article shows that this journal would virtually publish anything full of scientific, methodological, and structural blunders. It seems that the journal doesn’t exercise peer review ... For more details, click here

Anxiety Causes Stress: A Defective Article Published in Journal of Migration and Health Proved!
Today we are going to analyze the article "Factors contributing to the mental wellbeing of Afghan migrants in Iran during the COVID-19 pandemic" by Khozaei et al. (2024) and published in the "Journal of Migration and Health", Clarivate Impact Factor 2022: 4.60; Scopus Q1. This journal is publishing erroneous research without exercising good quality control practices. which simply means that the Editors of this journal don't read submitted papers. For more details, click here

Heliyon Publishes Ataei et al. (2024) Ignoring Major Theoretical and Methodological Problems: An Instance of Relaxed or Nescient Peer Review
This article is published in Heliyon published by Cell Press/ Elsevier and indexed on Scopus, PubMed Central, DOAJ, and Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) (Clarivate Impact factor 2022: 4). Relaxed peer review or no peer review, whatever we call it, the analysis of the present article shows that the Editors and Reviewers completely failed to identify beginner level mistakes. For more details, click here

Sameeni et al. (2024) Left Many Important Things Unaddressed: An Article with No Theoretical Underpinnings, Methodological, and Analysis Flaws
This article indicates a strong instance of published business research where Editors and Reviewers completely failed to identify and rectify many unacceptable bloopers. It seems that the article is a result of compromised quality control. This article is published in the "Journal of Business Research" which is a Clarivate (SSCI - Impact Factor for 2022: 11.3) and Scopus (Q1) Business Journal. For more details, click here

Critical Analysis of Rather et al. (2024) Published in the "International Journal of Hospitality Management" Shows Many Orthographic, Structural, and Methodological Errors
Today, we are analyzing an article published in so-called prestigious tourism journal “International Journal of Hospitality Management” which is a Clarivate SSCI (Impact Factor 2023: 11.7), Scopus (ScimagoJR Q1), and Cabell's Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Marketing indexed Tourism Journal. The journal is published by Elsevier. For more details, click here

The Article Kalnins & Williams (2021) Published in the "Strategic Management Journal" is a Best Example of Outdated Literature Review
This article was authored by Kalnins & Williams (2021) and published in "Strategic Management Journal" (Clarivate SSCI Impact Factor for 2022: 8.78; Scopus Q1) is a best instance of outdated literature review. The hypotheses development section completely missed to provide latest picture on the hypothesized relationships. Literature from 2015-2019 was missing. Editors must identify such issues. For more details, click here

Ramayah et al. (2020) is a Piece Spreading False Claims, Wrong Attributions, and False Self-Credit
The article was published in the "Business Process Management Journal" in 2020. The journal is indexed in Social Science Citation Index (Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor: 4.1 for 2022) and Scopus (Q1). This article contains many instances of poor language, structural issues, no underpinning theory, false claims, and supports mythologies and urban legends. The Editors and Reviewers overlooked many serious issues. For more details, click here

Educational Videos

About Us

"Scholarly Criticism" is launched to serve as a watchdog on Business Research published in so-called Clarivate/Scopus indexed high quality Business Journals. It has been observed that, currently, this domain is empty and no one is serving to keep authors and publishers of journals on the right track who are conducting and publishing erroneous Business Research. To fill this gap, our organization serves as a key stakeholder of Business Research Publishing activities.

For invited lectures, trainings, interviews, and seminars, "Scholarly Criticism" can be contacted at Attention-Required@proton.me

Disclaimer: The content published on this website is for educational and informational purposes only. We are not against authors or journals but we only strive to highlight unethical and unscientific research reporting and publishing practices. We hope our efforts will significantly contribute to improving the quality control applied by Business Journals.