Purpose
The Journal of Islamic Marketing (JIMA), established in 2010 and published by Emerald Publishing, has never retracted an article but has issued two expressions of concern (EoCs) about two of its articles. This study aims to investigate the context, content and outcome of these EoCs.
Design/methodology/approach
The author raises research questions about the two EoCs’ issuance, impact and handling by JIMA and Emerald Publishing. To answer the research questions, the author gathered data from a variety of sources, including JIMA’s website, Clarivate’s Web of Science, Scopus and Mendeley.
Findings
The two EoCs were issued under the acknowledgments section of articles, which is not standard practice, and they lacked separate Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs). The dates of EoC issuance were unknown, limiting understanding of the timeline and resolution progress. The two EoCs were issued by two different entities (i.e. Emerald Publishing and JIMA), one of which contained an incorrect journal name. Concerns included issues with originality and compromised peer review, which could involve duplication and fake peer review. Despite EoCs, the two articles continued to receive downloads, reads and citations, most likely because JIMA’s readership is unaware of related concerns.
Research limitations/implications
The lack of progress from EoCs to retractions or corrections puts authors and readers in limbo, necessitating prompt resolution. Recommendations include assigning DOIs to EoCs, providing issuance dates, correcting errors, tracking investigation progress and ensuring transparency in maintaining publishing ethics. The unresolved EoCs in JIMA highlight the importance of handling publication ethics concerns in a transparent and timely manner to maintain scholarly integrity and trustworthiness.
Originality/value
This opinion piece discusses a scholarly document that is rarely studied by (Islamic) marketing researchers.