ComplaintsforJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.

• Initial Complaint

  09/10/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I have purchased a membership and am now being asked to pay another ***** to renew because they claimed they sent me an email that they didnt to renew. So they are asking that I completely restart the process. This will be the second time they are trying to scam me.

  Business response

  09/23/2024

  Thank you for your inquiry and allowing us to respond to the concern raised by former Everything DiSC Authorized Partner, *** *****.
  
  Through ongoing efforts, we have attempted to collect payment from *** *****, which has unfortunately been unsuccessful to date. Despite numerous attempts to process the payment, the information on file has been declined.
  
  In our correspondence with ***, we have consistently included the relevant contract information and have offered several solutions to help avoid such issues in the future. These solutions were designed to facilitate smoother transactions and ensure compliance with the terms outlined in our agreement.
  
  Below is a summary to this inquiry, you will find references to the transactions and conversations we have had regarding this matter. We believe these documents will provide a comprehensive overview of our diligent efforts to resolve this issue.
  -Annual **************************************************** must pay an annual fee to renew their partnership.
  -Contract Terms: The contract states that failure to pay the renewal fee by December 31 results in cancellation of partnership benefits. The handbook reiterates this and outlines the consequences of non-renewal.
  -Reminder Emails: Multiple reminders were sent to *** from October to December 2022 to renew for 2023, including both renewal reminders and messages about declined payment, but he did not act.
  -Previous Lapse: *** previously failed to renew for 2020 and only rejoined in September 2021 after signing a new agreement and paying the new Partner fee.
  -Current Lapse: *** did not renew for 2023, and he has not been informed that he needs to pay $2,000 to rejoin.
  -Recommendation: Due to his lapses in renewal payment, and low purchase volume, it is recommended that *** purchases Everything DiSC products through another Authorized Partner to avoid renewal fees.
  
  We want to emphasize that we are always here to support our Partners, provided that all parties adhere to the guidelines established in our agreements. Our goal is to maintain a positive and productive relationship with all our Partners, and we remain committed to finding a resolution that benefits everyone involved.

  Customer response

  09/23/2024

  
  Complaint: 22267925
  
  I am rejecting this response because: they did not try to contact me. Every time I logged in to use the portal there was no message that anything was due. They did not send the emails they stated. They were not in my inbox or spam. They are trying to scam me out of *****. I am not the only one they have and are trying this scam with. I will pay them the fee and pay it a year in advance. 
  
  
  
  Regards,
  
  *** *****

  Business response

  09/25/2024

  Good day,

  Wiley's Director of Global Partner Success has reached out to the complainant directly and believes this issue is resolved.

  *** is going to work through another authorized partner, as previously recommended.
  
  We reiterated there is no scam by reinforcing the outreach and activities we've shared were actually quite the oppositegiven the volume of his purchases, he may not have seen an ROI out of continuing to be a Partner. (We also shared all of the email comms and platform reminders that he would/should have seen.)

  We expect this matter to now be resolved. 

  Thank you.

  
  

• Initial Complaint

  03/01/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Order Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  This complaint is toward John Wiley & Sons, who is the publisher for the ******* scientific journal. We published a manuscript 10 years ago in this journal, and recently concerns were raised about reusing the published images by one of the authors in later publications. The journal requested the original images, and we sent them multiple electronically date-stamped images from 2012 or older. The ******* journal Managing Editor stated, The new images provided by the author have been analyzed and the concerns of two images 1B and 3B are resolved. Then, the journal requested other images afterward, and we provided these, which were also 2012 time-stamped. They came back that these images had too much white background. We requested that the journal provide its publication guidelines from 2012. They gave their current, up-to-date guidelines, which do not apply to our 2012 submission. There has been no contact after these communications since December 2022. I filed a BBB complaint on February 16th against Wiley Publishers for improper business practices for a different journal that they handle (complaint #********); they apologized and made the corrections. Then, without notice, on February 27th, the journal abruptly retracted our ******* manuscript and posted a write-up on their and other websites stating, concerns regarding possible image manipulation were raised. The authors were unable to provide the raw data and unedited images for the editorial teams review. Therefore, the journal no longer has confidence in the results and conclusions drawn. These statements have no basis and are false, as we provided the images, and the concern was not for image manipulation but for image reuse in later publications. These actions indicate retaliation from the publisher because of a prior complaint, improper and false statements, and misrepresentation. Together, these actions indicate improper business practices from Wiley, and the company is misleading in its writeup.

  Business response

  03/07/2023

  Hello -

  I need to request a one week extension for Wiley's response to this complaint.  A response is forthcoming, and will be available on or before March 17th.  Please let me know if this is not acceptable.

   

  Sincerely,

  *************************

  Executive Customer Relations team

  Business response

  03/17/2023

  Dear ********************,
  We are writing to respond to the complaint raised regarding Wileys and the journal Obesitys decision to retract the article Increased HO-1 levels ameliorate fatty liver development through a reduction of heme and recruitment of FGF21.
  We would like to start our response by confirming that the decision to retract this article is not retaliatory in relation to any prior complaints raised to Wiley.  The decision to retract is based on our investigation into the concerns raised regarding this article. Our role as a publisher is to ensure the integrity of the scientific record through that investigation and post-publication process.
  For background, a concern was raised with Wiley on June 4th,2022, alerting Wiley and the journal to evidence of potential image manipulation in a 2013 article that you co-authored, Increased HO-1 levels ameliorate fatty liver development through a reduction of heme and recruitment of FGF21. The concerns directed us to this forum on PubPeer: ********************************************************************** receipt of this message the journal editorial office was notified, and the Editor-in-Chief, *****************************, confirmed that by his judgement there was evidence of image manipulation present in the paper. Therefore, Wileys Integrity in **************** (IPG) began investigating the paper, in collaboration with the journal editorial office.
  Throughout this process, Wileys IPG followed the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) workflow for concerns raised about image manipulation, which can be found here: ************************************************************************************************************* investigation focused on five figures within the article. These figures were carefully inspected by Wileys image integrity staff, as well as the Editor-in-Chief. Our concerns regarding images 1A and 3B were eventually resolved. However, concerns regarding images 2C, 4A and 4B remained.  Wiley did receive several image files from you and other co-authors, however none were the original, unmodified files as requested.  Our last request to secure the original, unmodified files was sent on December 19th, 2022, in which the journal confirmed that we were considering a retraction if our concerns could not be resolved.
  When we did not receive a satisfactory response to this final request, Wiley, in agreement with the editorial office and ******************** which owns the journal, made the decision to retract the paper. This decision was made on the grounds that the image data could not be verified, and therefore we could no longer be confident in the conclusions of the paper. The retraction notice is available here: **********************************************************************.     
  We regret that you and your co-authors were not informed of the decision to retract the paper prior to its publication, and we apologize for the oversight.
  
  Sincerely, 
  *******************************
  Director, Research Integrity & Publishing Ethics 
  Wiley 

  Customer response

  03/22/2023

  
  Complaint: 19511532
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  There seems to be some confusion, as no image manipulation occurred for our ******* manuscript in question, which was accepted in 2013. It is my understanding that the investigation into the paper in question was initiated by comments in PubPeer, a website which allows anonymous individuals to post comments/concerns regarding published papers. The accusations from PubPeer, which supposedly started this investigation into my paper in *******, alleged that the images from my paper were subsequently utilized in later publications. This is an accusation of image plagiarism (reuse) in later publications by one of the authors, which occurred years after the accepted paper in question. The images plagiarized from my manuscript were taken from Figures 1A and 2A, which were allegedly used in later publications. I am not an author on any of these later manuscripts. These accusations in PubPeer have never raised any questions regarding the manipulation of the original images in my ******* publication. They were focused on imaged plagiarism in subsequent publications. The manuscripts that allegedly plagiarized/reused my manuscripts images are PMID: ******** (PLOS, ONE, June 22, 2015), PMID: ******** ********************** of ********* Sciences, June 29, 2019), and PMID: ******** ******** of ********* and Metabolism, Sep 14, 2017). The accusations against these publications involve the repeated use of the same images from our 2013 manuscript; hence, they plagiarized the work in question. I would like to reiterate that I am not an author on any of the publications alleged to have plagiarized images from my original ******* publication.
  
  Wileys comment: Wiley did receive several image files from you and other co-authors, however none were the original, unmodified files as requested.  Our last request to secure the original, unmodified files was sent on December 19th, 2022, in which the journal confirmed that we were considering a retraction if our concerns could not be resolved.
  Response:
  On December 19th, as you state, it was written in an email from the Managing Editor, we will have to seriously consider an editorial expression or concern or a retraction. They had just gotten me involved, and I responded, you just brought me in on this email chain, which you and the journal should have done months ago. I think the journal not informing me earlier when the other authors were emailed is inappropriate. I am not okay with this rushed and inappropriate response. Also, I will likely need time to find documents that are over a decade old.
  
  I was only contacted during the last month of several email correspondences that were occurring with the ******* journal, Wiley, and some of the other authors. For unknown reasons, I was left out of these communications by Wiley. When I was contacted by the ******* journal Managing Editor, I did send original images that were exported directly from the Odyssey imager from which they were originally captured. Before I sent the original files, I informed the Managing Editor that the images were from the Odyssey software, cropped using the Odyssey software, and then exported as TIFF files. These files constitute an original file that originated from the Odyssey software. The images also contained more area than those in the final publication, proving that these are the original images.
  
  Then on December 20th, the Managing Editor wrote back that these images had too much white background. There were no such rules for image background quality in 2012 or 2013 per the journal requirements. These rules commenced in ********************************************************************************** Western blotting. And if there were such rules by Wiley and the ******* journal, why were these not addressed in 2012 or 2013?
  
  Also, per the *** rules, data only needs to be retained for 3 years. Federal regulations require research records to be retained for at least 3 years after the completion of the research (45 CFR 46). However, I still contacted the other authors in hopes of finding the Odyssey and the original computer from 2012. I found that many of the authors had moved out of state, and the senior author (*************************) had moved out of the country to ****** for retirement. Then, abruptly, after my first complaint on February 16th against Wiley for another unprofessional issue, our manuscript was retracted on February 27th. I consider this to be a highly unprofessional act of Wiley and an intentional act of retaliation.
  
  Wileys comment: Upon receipt of this message the journal editorial office was notified, and the Editor-in-Chief, *****************************, confirmed that by his judgement there was evidence of image manipulation present in the paper.
  Response: Neither the journal nor Wiley provided proof that image manipulation occurred because it did not. The original accusations in PubPeer never centered on image manipulation but rather on image plagiarism that occurred in subsequent publications. Image manipulation means that someone did a fraudulent act to deceive. Wiley will need to provide documentation showing such image manipulation in my manuscript. Otherwise, I will consider this defamation and an act of retaliation from Wiley.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Regards,
  
  *********************

  Business response

  03/28/2023

  Hello Rain F.
  I need to request a two week extension for Wiley's response to this additional complaint.  A response is forthcoming, and will be available on or before April 14th.  Please let me know if this is not acceptable.
  
  Sincerely,
  *************************
  Executive Customer Relations team

  Business response

  04/12/2023

  Hello Rain -

  Unfortunately, I need to request another extension for Wiley to respond to this response rejection.  There are a number of various parties we need to get together to review this response for a resolution, and scheduling has been challenging.  I sincerely apologize for the delay and appreciate your patience in this matter.

   

  As we discussed, I will reach out directly to ******************** with our response, once it is available.  Another month, has been requested, which is *** 14th.  I will do my best to expedite this as quickly as possible.

   

  Thank you,

   

  *************************

  Wiley **************** Manager

  Executive Customer Relations

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩