Wiley has confirmed it is investigating a complaint that someone posing as a peer reviewer tried to extort payment from an author in exchange for a favorable recommendation on a manuscript submitted to its journal Security and Privacy. The case, first reported by Retraction Watch on July 20, 2026, is unresolved: Wiley’s investigation is ongoing, and the true identity of the person behind the alleged scheme has not been established.
What the author alleges
Tushar Sen, an independent researcher based in New Delhi, submitted a manuscript on modeling polymorphic malware to Security and Privacy, a Wiley journal whose Editor-in-Chief is Mohammad S. Obaidat. According to emails Sen provided to Retraction Watch, someone identifying as a peer reviewer contacted him directly on May 15, 2026, writing: “i may revise it with you but you should follow paid review for my efforts. i may finalise it in one week and i will recommend acceptance as a final decision.” On May 20, the same correspondent warned of a pending rejection. On May 23, the person said they had recommended rejection — and that same day, Sen received a formal rejection letter from the journal.
Sen told the Editor-in-Chief the journal was “bugged with CORRUPT reviewers.” Obaidat responded that using “unprofessional language, making accusations, and belimihsing [sic] reputations of highly respected entities” could “entail serious consequences.” Sen has since filed complaints with the FBI and the SEC, and sent multiple emails to Wiley and journal staff calling for an independent audit of the journal’s editorial logs, a full ethics review, and reconsideration of the journal’s indexing status.
An unconfirmed reviewer identity
Direct author–reviewer contact of this kind is itself a breach of standard peer review confidentiality — reviewers are not supposed to be in a position to solicit anything from an author, let alone payment. But who actually sent the emails is, as Retraction Watch’s own reporting lays out, genuinely unresolved. The email address used matches one that appears on published mathematics papers under the name “Sobhan Sobhan Allah.” A mathematics researcher, Zeraoulia Rafik, who had collaborated online with someone using that name, told Retraction Watch the collaboration was “entirely online and has ended,” describing “Allah” as a self-described independent Palestinian researcher interested in astronomy and mathematics, and said he had asked for a verifiable institutional email but never received one. Retraction Watch’s own checks found that neither institution listed on “Allah’s” papers — University of Batna 2 and Abbès Laghrour University Khenchela, both in Algeria — had any record of the name, and an email sent to the address bounced as undeliverable. None of this confirms who was actually behind the extortion attempt, and no response from the accused individual is on record.
Wiley’s response
Wiley told Retraction Watch its research integrity team is investigating, that Sen’s account is “supported by copies of corresponding email conversations,” and that it re-evaluated the manuscript decision after excluding the disputed reviewer’s input. The publisher stated: “Confidentiality is a main responsibility for peer reviewers. Reviewer conflicts of interest must be avoided and reviewers are not allowed to contact the authors in the context of the peer review process. Receiving or requesting financial compensation from authors is strictly prohibited.” Wiley also said the email address used does not match that of any reviewer it had actually invited, and that it may bar the individual from future review invitations if the complaint is substantiated — framing that keeps the outcome conditional rather than settled. Wiley characterized the case as unique and isolated, with no record of similar prior incidents at the journal.
Why it matters for research administrators and publishing-integrity staff
Whatever the eventual finding, the case is a live illustration of a structural gap several publishers have been working to close: peer review still depends heavily on reviewers using the email address and identity a journal’s editorial system has on file, with limited independent verification behind it. A reviewer able to email an author directly, outside the journal platform, was already a process failure before any request for money entered the picture — and the fact that a disputed identity traced to a legitimate-looking research profile could not be confirmed by either named institution underscores why reviewer identity verification (ORCID-linked reviewer records, editorial-platform-only correspondence, disclosed conflicts of interest) remains a live concern for editorial offices and the research-integrity staff who support them, not a solved problem. It also illustrates why publishers’ own escalation paths matter: Wiley’s stated response — re-evaluating the decision without the contested reviewer’s input, and treating the report as substantiated enough to formally investigate — is closer to the process COPE guidance on peer review fraud recommends than a dismissal would have been, even with the reviewer’s identity still unresolved.
Status: ongoing. As of this writing, Wiley’s investigation has not concluded, no findings have been substantiated, and the identity of the person who contacted Sen has not been confirmed by any institution. This article will be treated as describing an active, disputed matter unless and until Wiley or Retraction Watch reports a resolution.
