Monday, 14 September 2026

Appealing false AI attribution for the self-published novel- ALIEN : Broken Covenants

Authors beware- Original content creators have minimal recourse when self-publishing platforms falsely flag their novels for “using artificial intelligence".

Authors can face serious obstacles when their self-published books become withdrawn from international retail due to false allegations of artificial intelligence (AI) being used in its creation. Simultaneously, there may be reasons that are concealed, since authors do not receive any specifics on what the identified breaches are. Nor is there any transparency in the appeal process. Authors are not alerted upfront that their original content may enjoy no due process or recourse in response to false accusations of AI use. If their ISBN listing is withdrawn, the ISBN may be lost, plus there is no third-party, such as a publishing ombudsman, that one can appeal to for support. By contrast, genuine authors should merit transparent reporting and a fair appeal process as their online publishers’ clients. Such protection seems necessary given that AI’s identification of false positives is not uncommon.

I have shared the case below as it may strongly resonate with other authors’ experiences of false AI bans. It follows my appeal's success against a false flag by AI following the first edition of Create With Cape Town's ALIEN : Broken Covenants becoming automatically withdrawn from online retail. While I eventually found a way to successfully appeal this, the long-wait prompted the creative collaborators to rather submit a second edition:

Broken Covenants' softcopy gets removed from online retail

Create With Cape Town’s fan-fiction novel, ALIEN : Broken Covenants was pulled by Ingram Spark from international distribution via online retailers in June, 2026. Previously listed by Blurb under the ISBN 9798349827167 internationally (via Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc) and locally (takealot, etc.), this book’s softcopy is now unavailable. Its delisting followed Ingram Spark identifying AI's use in preparing some the book’s content. As per themessage I received from Blurb Distribution Services: "Your book has not been accepted for global distribution, as it has been identified as containing content generated using artificial intelligence or mass-produced processes. Please note that this goes against section 11.1 (vii) of our Terms & Conditions: https://www.blurb.com/terms. Books containing AI-generated content will no longer be accepted into Ingram distribution. Moreover, future violations may result in your Blurb account closure.” (email- 5 June, 2026)

An in-depth reply to Blurb Distribution Services

I replied to this ticket: "Hello, (Blurb Distribution Services). This book is an original work of fan fiction that was published in June, 2025, and distributed via IngramSpark shortly afterwards. My company Create With Cape Town (CWCT) commissioned the author Robert Walcott to write it in December 2023, with Rupert Dolby supplying visual inspiration via concept illustrations he began work on from 2022.

This book was resubmitted after two missing sentences were spotted by Robert Walcott, but IngramSpark served Blurb with a Catalog Integrity Notice on the 5th of June. This was surprising as none of the book’s prior content had been changed since its original submission.

None of us have used AI in the course of plotting, writing or designing this novel. It is a wholly original production of fan fiction by our team. Robert Walcot writes; ‘The book’s text and each chapter’s plot were created solely by me. AI was not used in any capacity during the creation and development of this book. To me, the creative process is a sacred covenant between myself (storyteller) and the reader. Therefore, I take great pride in the knowledge that my authorial voice cannot be replicated by AI. Thank you for your attention.’ And Rupert Dolby states; ‘As the illustrator and visual designer of Broken Covenants, I can assure you that none of the artwork is AI generated. The illustrations have been developed by myself over a period of years. This work is not AI generated from a few key words to a final image in one step. To prove this I am happy to supply initial rough sketches and then the multiple iterations of each illustration to show development.’

I can also confirm that I have not used AI in plotting this fan fiction work. It is intended to provide an original, speculative narrative for Sir Ridley Scott’s incomplete ALIEN movie prequel. The third film in this trilogy was never made. We are currently working on a follow-up book that will involve original world-building by sharing David 8’s development of a synth civilisation and a completely new one, a First Civilisation of bio-mechanoids.

I hereby supply two images as proof that our original project has been worked on for a few years:

1) CWCT first Contracted Robert (redacted) in December 2023. He worked at lengthy intervals, which should suggest that he has not used AI to speed up his work.

(screenshot redacted)

2) Studio Dolby began working on illustrations for CWCT from November, 2021. These were intended to flesh out CWCT's world-building for a synthetic civilisation in ALIEN, serving as inspiration for Robert. Attached is an example of how Rupert built up an illustration for Chapter 11. He followed the same process for all other chapters.

Studio Dolby manual illustration process

Should more proof be needed, I can meet with BDS online for sharing similarly salient material from my work desk that will confirm our project is entirely the product of human creativity (e.g. creative briefs, written documents, illustrated source). We did not use AI in producing ALIEN : Broken Covenants, and any finding to the contrary is a false positive by IngramSpark distribution.

In terms of “mass-produced processes”, I cannot find what this means in Blurb’s contract, nor via searching its website? Should this relate to fan fiction produced in relation to major franchises, our work does not infringe on the copyright of the franchise owner. The trademark and copyright attorney, Roy Taberer, read the book and confirmed that it falls under fair use as an original work. Furthermore, the book features a legal disclaimer regarding this. CWCT has not received any complaints from the franchise-holder, such as take-down requests.

On the contrary, there is positive feedback from fans, who were disappointed that ALIEN Covenant’s trilogy was never completed.

I trust that the information here is sufficient to argue for our novel’s reinstatement?

Thanks for any assistance in resolving this unfair decision."

Advised to resubmit our book

In response to this lengthy submission, Blurb requested that our novel should be revised to remove any AI content, then resubmitted for review by IngramSpark. Blurb did not supply any specifics for why the novel received this notice and was withdrawn. Consequently, a CATCH 22 situation emerged. Robert, Rupert and I knew that its content was not generated by AI. So, resubmitting the same book to Blurb unchanged would almost certainly lead to Ingenta's false flagging of AI content simply reoccurring! Alternatively, we three could attempt to guess the least original illustrations and text, then modify them. However, if these guesses proved unsuccessful, this would be a wasted effort, as we would be no wiser with Blurb and IngramSpark’s opaque processes.

After tactfully flagging this, I asked Blurb Distribution Services for a contact at IngramSpark to query this false flag and/or make an appeal, but no contact was provided. While I offered to address any clearly identified, legitimate concerns, no genuine ones were.

Submiting an appeal via IngramSpark

IngramSpark is the service Blurb uses to allocate ISBN numbers via Bowker, which enables books to be globally distributed. Blurb owns the ISBN 9798349827167 for ALIEN : Broken Covenants, and was the first point of appeal.

I then created a free IngramSpark account to lodge a second appeal. The following (limited to 700 characters) was submitted on 26th of June: "This book is the result of over three years work by my Create With Cape Town (CWCT) business, the author Robert Walcott and illustrator Rupert Dolby. None of us have used AI in the course of plotting, writing or designing this novel. It is the first to provide an original, speculative narrative for Sir Ridley Scott’s incomplete ALIEN movie prequel. The third film in his trilogy was never made. Blurb Distribution Services published our work of fan fiction in June, 2025. Blurb could not supply us with details on why our was withdrawn by IngramSpark. Do let us know why, so that we might fix this?"

Eventually, the Ingram Content Group responded to this appeal on the 22nd of July by just stating: "Thank you for reaching out requesting an appeal. It appears your title is already enabled and active through our global distribution network!" While this seemed a positive development, Blurb only listed a PDF for sale on its site. Our novel must presumably still be resubmitted via Blurb to become available via Ingram Spark's online retailers.

Alien : Broken Covenants, 2nd edition

Our original novel was first published in May, 2025. Our experience with the false AI flag suggested that we should add an AI disclaimer to it. With our trademark attorney shifting to an international firm and other text corrections, we decided to update our novel to a second edition. It's was published to https://www.blurb.com/b/12997217-alien-broken-covenants with a revised cover, and I hope it will be made available to purchase as a softcopy soon with its new ISBN.

On the upside, our first edition's softcopy is now a collector's item for its select purchasers!

Concerning false-AI-positives

False positives by detectors for AI content are a well-documented problem. It seems unethical to falsely accuse authors of using AI without providing them with sufficient details to support their right-to-reply. As our example demonstrates, there is minimal transparency during Blurb or Ingram Spark's appeal process.

Instead, the AI content flagging process seems to assume guilt with no direction on what aspect of our work featured AI creation. Their opaque appeals process can take weeks to resolve, meanwhile their clients lose book sales and are embarrassed by their book's links redirecting to a different Blurb title.

In addition to false positives, an inscrutable ‘black box’ AI system may readily be subject to abuse.

A lack of transparency leads to speculation as to the motives of Blurb and IngramSpark. For example, its 'AI check' could be clandestinely fulfiling powerful franchise-holders interests. Such as Disney and 20th Century Studios seeking to prevent fair use via original Alien™️ fan fiction productions. It is a pity that self-published authors do not have access to an ‘explainable AI’ (XAI) to directly interrogate the AI check's decision and thereby potentially allay such misfounded fears!

Archive of Our Own (AO3)'s flags content correctly

As a contra-example showing how to do it properly, AO3 sent me a 'Warning: Commercial Promotion Violation' email. An anonymous party had reported Alien : Broken Covenants for being in breach. Perhaps not-so-surprisingly close to media reports covering Sir Ridley Scott plans for complete his Alien prequel by returning David 8 in a moote sequel to Alien : Romulus!

AO3's email was crystal clear about the areas of infringement and how they should be fixed, before our book might be reinstated- "The AO3 Policy & Abuse committee has received a complaint that one of your works contains references to commercial activities:

"ALIEN Broken Covenants", located at https://archiveofourown.org/works/64030441

This is a violation of Section II.C of our Terms of Service, which states: "Promotion, solicitation, and advertisement of commercial products or activities are not allowed." This includes any mention of commercial sites (e.g. Amazon), paid memberships or donations (e.g. Patreon or Ko-fi), sales, paid commissions, or any other language which one might interpret as requesting or having requested financial contributions, whether for yourself or others. For more examples of commercial activities, please refer to our Terms of Service FAQ: https://archiveofourown.org/tos_faq#commercial_examples

We have determined that the following content is commercial in nature:

Visit https://www.createwith.net/alien-ebook-download to see soft copy order OR epub and PDF download options. Buy a soft copy from Blurb at https://www.blurb.com/b/12456220-alien-broken-covenants or order via online book retailers. Use the book's ISBN 9798349827167 to search on Amazon, Barnes & Noble and others. We appreciate your support, as we work on a sequel.

3 Also available as a free e-pub and PDF via createwith.net

Also available as a free e-pub and PDF via createwith.net

To enjoy the free novel in its optimal layout, download the e-publication (e-pub) and/or portable document (pdf) file versions from ebook-download/" rel="nofollow">www.createwith.net/alien-ebook-download.

Broken Covenants was sponsored by Crafty Pixels T/A Create With Cape Town™️ CC, established 2008, ©️ 2025.

Create With welcomes well-justified criticism for improving this novel before its first dropshipped version completes production. Readers alerting us to major errors will be eligible for a complimentary hardcopy of the drop-shipped first edition after it's linked from https://www.createwith.net.

The moral rights of this creative work’s author, illustrator and sponsor are hereby asserted.

However, this is not necessarily a comprehensive list. It is your responsibility to ensure that your account and the works posted on it are in compliance with our Terms of Service.

We have hidden the work and require you to edit out all instances of commercial promotion within 7 days. You can access the hidden work using the link provided above. If you don't sufficiently edit your work by this deadline, an AO3 administrator will delete the work. Otherwise, your work will be unhidden after the deadline.

A warning has been placed on your account as a result of this violation. We recommend that you review your account and ensure your other works are in compliance with our Terms of Service. If you do not remove all violating content, or if you violate the Terms of Service again, you may be temporarily or permanently suspended.

For more information about content and behaviors that are not permitted on AO3, and the penalties you may receive for a violation, please refer to our Content Policy and Terms of Service FAQ:

https://archiveofourown.org/content

https://archiveofourown.org/tos_faq#policy_procedures_faq

If you have any questions, or if you wish to appeal this decision, please reply to this email." (email, 2nd of September, 2026).

I quickly replied to AO3 Policy & Abuse with, “Thank you for giving me the opportunity to remedy the commercial promotion infringements. As requested, I've removed the flagged content from our book’s description and background content in Chapter 18’s end. I trust that none of the remaining content will be in breach of AO3’s terms, and am committed to promptly fixing any other examples that your team spotlights."

AO3's Policy & Abuse committee were happy with my fixes, unhiding our novel by the next day. What a contrast versus Blurb and Ingram Spark.

False AI attribution as an emergent field

With my researcher cap on, the topic of false AI misattribution for authors' self-published novels seems a potential new scholarship opportunity. Hopefully this example might be referenced by this nascent field's researchers in the future....

Monday, 4 May 2026

A few user experience improvements for Academia.edu to consider

Written for the future benefit of academia.edu's users, should the front-end developers at Academia Inc address my unsolicited suggestions! Updated- 7 August, 2026.

Dear Dr Richard Price and whom else it may concern, below are some issues that academia.edu should address to provide a better service for subscribers like yours truly.

1. A route to see the citations flagged in Academia Manuscript alerts

It can be exciting to learn that one's work is cited in an email alert (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Academia.edu claim your citation email

Figure 1. Academia.edu Mentions - claim your citation email alert (screenshot in author's Mail, 2026)

In stark contrast, it's underwhelming that the 'View your Citation' button's link simply takes one to one's personal academia.edu stream, versus that specific mention*. This would not be so irritating, if your subscriber could then follow a route under Mentions to spot the specific, flagged citation. Or at least have the option to view citations for the mentioned article, rather than scrolling through many that one has already reviewed. Without efficient navigation routes for reviewing a specific article's citation, such emails can be interpreted as clickbait targeted to drive visits. It's certainly not an alert that is easy for users to act on with many unverified citations.

* I appreciate that the non-specific link may be caused by Mimecast's security checks in my university email address. This creates a long link, e.g. https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/url=https%3A%2F%2Furl.za.m.mimecastprotect.com%2Fs%2FyPrKCDREy2sANNPXuWfrUjI5xu%3Fdomain%3Dacademia.edu&data=05%7C02%7Cusername%40cput.ac.za%7Cbb1bb20f47b74b5fc07d08dea9ab2ffe%7C90bb22dba73a4971b7d67ca3ef90cf06%7C0%7C0%7C639134749886270150%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=l4AQJ8IKnUYPhIT%2Bc0IxBQD1Q3fN3BbtQfbWpsqmYks%3D&reserved=0.

Given that this is likely to be happening for many academic email addresses, providing a workaround for users to locate the exact citation would be helpful to them.

2. A route to better identify one's mentions vs. those whose initial(s) and surname match


Figure 2. Screenshot of academia.edu identifying mentions of T Noakes (2026)

Being the son of a prolific Emeritus Professor whose first initial I share, my experience is admittedly an outlier's. But while this issue may not affect many of your users, the current identifying Mentions route shown in Figure 2 will be highly inefficient for those impacted unfortunates. In my case, I would appreciate having the option to preclude all outputs that originated before my publication record began from 2011. Hopefully, this would substantially cut down the 6,000 odd mentions I still "need" to review! Then, for those that remain, it would be good to have a mass selection option for 'This is not me', rather than slowly doing them one-by-one to get closer to my Google Scholar citations profile that shows just over 200. As you can appreciate, that's a lot of 'This is not me' still to identify 😅...

3. Add a 'This is fake!' button to report hallucinated references and fake outputs

Figure 3. Screenshot of the 'This is me' and 'This is not me' button choices on academia.edu (2026)

Naddaf and Quill (2026) describe a sharp increase in references that cannot be traced to actual academic publications. This Nature news team and Grounded AI investigation spotlights how researchers' increasing use of AI has resulted in tens of thousands of 2025 publications that contain "hallucinated references". To prevent researchers inadvertently mis-identifying such references as their own, academia.edu could provide an additional option to flag 'This is a fake reference' to remove it from users' consideration. On a related note, there seems also a need to "Report a fake paper", too. So, perhaps a 'Report fake' button that gives subscribers an option to define what's fake would be best.

4. Consolidate to reduce Academia.edu's email overload

Figure 4. Screenshot of Academia.edu emails, 16 - 25 April (2026)

Figure 5. Screenshot of Academia.edu emails, 2 - 14 April (2026)

Academia.edu provides an extensive range of notification options to select from under one's Account > Email Notifications. Despite disabling many options, I receive almost daily email correspondence. For example, Figures 4 and 5 consolidate all the email alerts received for April. Do consider offering the option to consolidate alerts for; General Announcements, Your Network, Analytics, Discussions, Your Papers and Other Emails all into a weekly update. This alternative is preferable to unsubscribing from communications that may be helpful, but seem far too frequent.

5. Support easy reporting of article duplicates

Since each academia.edu author can upload a co-authored paper, it is relatively easy for multiple records to be created for the same manuscript.

Figure 6. Screenshot of Academia.edu My Mentions page showing four duplicate records

Figure 6. Screenshot of four duplicate records for the same article by one author under Academia.edu's My Mentions

These doppelgängers become very obvious when Academia.edu's My Mentions is organised by 'Recency'. Multiple records for same article are then shown underneath each other (as per Figure 6's example for a sole-authored paper that strangely has four records), so are hard to miss. It would be helpful if there was a tickbox to select such records and suggest that they be merged.

6. Flag co-authors names that are missing-in-action

Figure 7. Screenshot of academia.edu article edit showing all four co-authors being credited (2026) ...

It is possible for co-authors to be added in a research output's edited record, but not be shown in that output's listing. An example of this is shown in Figure 7, where four article co-authors are credited, but only two are shown under the article's listing (see Figure 8).

Figure 8. ... but only two authors are shown under the title for the same Academia.edu record (2026)

There should be an option to report on academia.edu that co-authors' names are missing-in-action through not being displayed for a particular output. This may in turn assist Academia.edu in cleaning up separate records for the same research output.

7. Offer citation exports for popular referencing file formats

Please shift from offering only a 'cut-and-paste' referencing option to supporting downloadable references. It would be helpful for researchers to be able to export citations in popular referencing file formats, such as RIS (.ris), BibTeX (.bib) and EndNote XML (.xml).

8. Provide a reporting option for incorrect titles of one's paper(s) when identifying citations

Academia.edu page featuring the wrong article title for claiming.png

Figure 9. Screenshot of academia.edu page for claiming authorship that shows three wrong article titles (2026)

Figure 9 purports to show three new citations of my co-authored papers. However, they are very confusing and I do not have the option of flagging the following issues: The top purported citation for i) 'A role for qualitative methods in researching Twitter data on a popular science article's communication' is presented as citing 'Engagement in structured social space: an investigation of teachers’ online peer-to-peer interaction' with "cited". However when I click on the work cited OR citing output, academia.edu links directly to a different co-authored chapter at ii.) Online content creation: looking at students’ social media practices through a Connected Learning lens).

At least the second and third links do take me to the citing works (Empowering Learning Through Networked and Connected Education and The readiness and challenges of lecturers in adopting social media platforms as a teaching and learning tool during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak). The former's bibliography confirms that (ii) was in fact cited, while the latter cites our (iii) initial article's republication as a chapter.

Since all three seemingly link under the title for a completely different publication ('Engagement in structured social space: an investigation of teachers’ online peer-to-peer interaction' by James Robson, 2015), it would be helpful for users to have the option to flag such incorrect titles being displayed for their cited works!

9. Stop asking subscribers to identify blank "citations"

Identify blank reference found outside of Academia.edu

Figure 10. Screenshot of academia.edu request to identify a blank, unlinked mention

The five blank citations shown in Figure 10. are impossible to select whether 'This is me' or not, particularly since they also do not link to the citation's source for checking against 🙄.

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions, Academia.Inc and academia.edu.

Readers, kindly add any additional suggestions in the comments below, thanks.

Saturday, 14 February 2026

A research article’s digital cul-de-sac. How to fix an academic paper that is hidden and/or unreachable

Written for researchers keen to understand potential obstacles to their articles not being readily searchable via academic indexes and search engines thanks to broken linkages, a metadata mismatch or non-submission. Updated- 22 March 2026

Most researchers are keen for their works to be well-indexed, quick-to-find, and reliably linked to their academic publisher’s landing page from search engine results. This is especially true for scholars whose performance reviews include consideration of their works’ impact in reaching interested readers. Such impact scores can include citations, amplification and readership, as tracked via altmetrics and other sources.

This post provides an example to illustrate why a research author should not assume that every article of theirs will be properly indexed. As result, this work may not be seen by potentially interested parties searching for pertinent work with salient keywords, despite the work's merits. Metadata mismatches and broken linkages can unwittingly emerge during academic publishing, and may persist if not checked, flagged, and corrected. This post gives helpful advice for correcting or working around a few key problems. It shares the practical example of errors that impacted a South African journal article's availability after its digital publication on the 1st of December, 2025:

'Brandjacked for social media advert fraud'- a ghost in the fog...

The first publication from a research project that began in 2021, Brandjacked for social media advert fraud: Microcelebrities' experiences of digital crime, was published in the Acta Criminologica: African Journal of Criminology & Victimology journal. Ordinarily, new articles should only take a few weeks after being indexed by an an academic metadata aggregator, such as Crossref, before featuring on authors' academic profiles. Crossref can update researchers' ORCID and Google Scholar records, followed by listings on academic social networks. These may be preceded by results in search engines and in Artificial Intelligence results (such as Grok). While search results for Brandjacked were quickly available from the last two, it could not be found under any of the former by February, 2026.

This post explores such challenges, the root cause of the article not being be properly indexed for academic searches, plus the work-arounds that Brandjacked's authors followed. While their paper technically existed, it could not efficiently be shared online by the four co-authors, with some listing results defaulting to a 'page not found' error message, rather than the publisher's article landing page:

Multiple URLs as expected

A normal part of the academic publishing process sees several URLs being created for a particular publication. In Brandjacked's case, these are from the handle.net domain (pointing to hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-crim_v38_n3_a2) and journals.co.za's (onto journals.co.za/doi/10.10520/ejc-crim_v38_n3_a2). Sabinet African Journals (journals.co.za) is a searchable platform providing a comprehensive, full-text collection for over 600 African-published electronic journals. Handle.net is developed by the Corporation for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) to support a distributed information system for persistent, unique, and actionable identifiers (handles) for digital objects over the internet. The Handle System is the underlying technology used by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) setup for identifying content, particularly for digital publishing and commerce.

Brandjacked's DOI value changed post-publication

A DOI is a unique, permanent alphanumeric string that is assigned to digital objects. DOIs include a prefix always starting with 10 and a suffix, separated by a forward slash (/). Prefacing the DOI with doi.org creates an actionable link. Originally, the Brandjacked article was allocated the DOI 10.10520/ejc-crim_v2025_nse1_a2. However, this was subsequently changed to 10.10520/ejc-crim_v38_n3_a2 to reflect the article’s publication as the second in the 38th volume’s third issue. Commonly linked to journal articles, books, and research datasets, each DOI should provide a stable, long-lasting link to a research output’s internet location, regardless of whether its online address [or Uniform Research Location (URL)] gets changed.

Social media shares…

On social media, academics, researchers and scholars typically share the DOI version of URLs, since a DOI's usage is the primary identifier for tracking comments and mentions via altmetrics. Attention for academic publications is typically sparse, with most not being shared via social media, and a significant portion only being shared once via popular platforms. Only a few papers, often with high public interest or "quirky" topics, receive the vast majority of shares. To help Brandjacked's visibility, I wrote a 31 tweet long thread at x.com/travisnoakes/status/2001585342000898177, shared a LinkedIn post at linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7407406366052569089/, and wrote this public Facebook post at facebook.com/share/p/1BtsXaJtQC/.

… but no AltMetrics listing yet

On the Brandjacked article’s landing page, the altmetrics badge only shows a question mark at the date of this post's publication (see Figure 1 below).

No AltMetrics listing for Brandjacked article.png

Figure 1. Screenshot of No AltMetrics listing for Brandjacked article,12 Feb 2026.

Nor are results for the Brandjacked article shown on app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?search_mode (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Screenshot of No AltMetrics listing for Brandjacked article,12 Feb 2026.

As a research blogger, I like to share Altmetrics badges for my publications, but none is available for Brandjacked via badge.dimensions.ai/details/doi/10.10520/ejc-crim_v38_n3_a2?domain=https://journals.co.za. Nor for a PlumX badge, searching with Branjacked's DOI value at https://plu.mx/plum/a/?doi=10.10520/ejc-crim_v38_n3_a2.

No automatic ORCID profile article update

Each of Brandjacked’s four authors have an Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) address. This is a 16-digit persistent digital identifier (e.g., 0000-0001-9566-8983) that uniquely identifies research-contributors all over the world. Like the DOI value does for research outputs, ORCID resolves name ambiguity. It links all research publications, datasets, and grants to an individual, regardless if their name or institution changes. Authors can set their ORCID profile to be automatically updated with research outputs that are linked to them. As at this post’s publication date, the Brandjacked article had not automatically been linked to any of its authors’ ORCID profiles.

Google Scholar links to a 404 error

The academic search engine, Google Scholar, is popular due to offering the widest automatic global indexing of scholars' works. Its account holders can create manual entries for their research outputs, or select pre-existing records featuring their author name. In Brandjacked’s case, I created a manual record in late December, since no record for this paper was available for selection (Figure 3). Since then, Google Scholar has come to list two versions of the article.

Figure 3.Screenshot of Two versions of Brandjacked on Google Scholar, 12 Feb 2026.

The top version, which can be Saved and Cited, produced a '404 not found' error when clicked through to Acta Criminologica (Figure 4).

Figure 4.Screenshot of DOI not resolved from Google Scholar, 12 Feb 2026.

Thinking that this may have been caused by the manual record I created featuring the initial DOI, I chose to delete the article from my record. Then went into Google Scholar trash and selected ‘Delete Forever’. However, the article available for manual selection (Figure 5) still links to a '404 not found' result.

Figure 5. Screenshot of Google Scholar manual selection of Brandjacked, 12 Feb 2026.

Report a failed DOI link via doi.org

A manual entry created on ResearchGate (at researchgate.net/publication/398814505_Brandjacked_for_social_media_advert_fraud_Microcelebrities'_experiences_of_digital_crime_in_South_Africa) lists the correct DOI (Figure 6), but it also showed a '404 not found' error when attempting to link to the digital publication.

Figure 6.Screenshot of ResearchGate DOI being correct for Brandjacked, 12 Feb 2026.

At least this page presented an option to report the failed DOI. So, I submitted this error report to DOI: "The article 'Brandjacked for social media advert fraud' should be available at this DOI. Related working URLs are: https://journals.co.za/doi/10.10520/ejc-crim_v38_n3_a2 & https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-crim_v38_n3_a2. Thanks in advance for fixing this."

Figure 7. Screenshot of DOI error report for Brandjacked, 12 Feb 2026.

As a shortcut for checking-and-reporting DOI errors, authors should open www.doi.org, then scroll down to the 'Try resolving a DOI name' section. There they can enter a DOI value to check it, and report a DOI URL address that fails in throwing a '404 not found' error.

Figure 8. Screenshot showing DOI Prefix 10.10520 Not Found error message, 12 Feb 2026.

Just a few downloads...

Acta Criminologica’s ‘Open Access’ policy initially provides restricted access via the South African Bibliographic and Information Network (SABINET)'s archives. These are available via university libraries’ annual SABINET subscription for SABINET African Electronic Publications (SA_ePublications). There is a 12-month open access embargo from the date of publication/loading on the Criminological Society of Africa (CRIMSA)’s website.

Perhaps being published before the Christmas holidays in an access-restricted versus open-journal format contributed to Brandjacked only being downloaded five times in the first two months. But even achieving that readership is not been helped by a ghost-listing amidst a heavy stream of academic publications. As Trend MD reports, nearly 8,000 research articles are published each day. In this flood of information, the visibility of our niche publication is hampered through not being indexed in aggregators for academic (meta-)data or authorial content registries. Consequently, it is vital for scholars to work with the journal, their publisher, and co-authors to achieve work-arounds. Authors should also build awareness around remedying any root causes that undermine their visibility of their academic work.

Emailed the editor

Given that the landing page URL is throwing a '404 not found' error and the DOI is not resolving, it seemed likely that the error was a flaw on the publisher's end. In response, I wrote to the journal's editor requesting that the Crossref metadata be updated. I hoped that the journal’s production team could soon ensure that: (i) the landing page URL for the article is correctly mapped to its DOI. And that (ii) the metadata provided to Crossref and other aggregators could be updated to reflect a functional DOI link. As this issue impacted other articles in the Cybercrime special issue, it seemed crucial to fix for the visibility of all its authors’ articles.

Subsequent investigation spotlighted that the failure for the DOI to resolve actually applied to all articles in the journal: prior to 2017, the 'Acta Criminologica: African Journal of Criminology & Victimology' journal was known as 'Acta Criminologica: Southern African Journal of Criminology'. Its first issue started in 1988, and entering its first ever article's DOI produces exactly the same error as shown in Figure 8.

Feedback from the publisher

A product manager for content services at SABINET replied to the editor's query that the DOI link is not working as the journal is not using registered DOIs yet. The 10.10520 prefix is a "dummy" DOI that SABINET uses to ingest content. By contrast, the persistent link to resolve each article is at a fully-functioning https://hdl.handle.net address.

The product manager offered to reach out to the Google Scholar team to ask that they use the handle link rather than the DOI code, unless they use the complete URL. She also flagged that the DOI issue can only be addressed for future Acta Criminologica articles once their allocated actual DOIs are registered with Crossref. This issue relates to a broader problem around the visibility of African journals that Asubiaro and Onaolapo (2023) have spotlighted- their 'low representation in Crossref, a free indexing infrastructure that could be harnessed for building an African‐centric research indexing database, is concerning'. This paper flags how less than fifty percent of journals from Africa feature in Crossref.

Not being indexed there has an important knock-on effect, as it provides data for other bibliographic databases. These include Dimensions, The Lens and Scilit. In the Lens' case, it serves global scholarly records. These are compiled and harmonised from Crossref and PubMed, enhanced with OpenAlex and UnPaywall open access information, CORE full text and links to ORCID. Data from The Lens can be imported into ORCID records, allowing authors to synchronise their records.

A manual ORCID listing

In the absence of such synchronisation for Brandjacked, I could not select a DOI or handle.net address in ORCID for automatically linking to my record. Instead, I created a manual one. Its entry route provided an option to define both the DOI's 'identifier value' (10520/ejc-crim_v38_n3_a2) and the full identifier URL's address (https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-crim_v38_n3_a2) (Figure 9). I asked my co-authors to add this manuscript to their ORCID records, which correctly resolves to the publisher's article landing page.

Applying the handle.net identified in manual ORCID listing.png

Figure 9. Screenshot of applying the handle.net identified in manual ORCID listing, 16 Feb 2026.

However, each author was unable to select this listing for automatic addition, despite entering the assigned DOI index number, the full handle.net address (Figure 10) or the journal's URL.

Figure 10. Screenshot showing handle.net URL does not work for co-author selection via ORCID, 16 Feb 2026.

Instead, I shared a screenshot of the details I used (Figure 11) which each author copied for adding the same details.

Figure 11. Screengrab of manual ORCID entry for co-authors to copy, 16 Feb 2026.

By using the same DOI and handle.net address, we wanted to ensure that just one record was captured via ORCID for our paper (versus four separate records for all co-authors!).

A manual Academia.edu entry

Like ORCID, Academia.edu's manual field entries for an article support both the entry of the DOI value, and also related Links/URL (Figure 12). This contrasts to ResearchGate's support for just one DOI address.

Figure 12. Screenshot of adding handle.net entry to manual Academia.edu record, 16 Feb 2026.

Cannot get (a) Kudos (addition)

Kudos is a networking platform designed to increase the visibility, reach, and impact of published research It supports scholars with explaining their work in plain language, and adding salient context. In theory, a DOI, article title or recent manual entry on ORCID should support Kudos with finding 'Brandjacked for social media advert fraud'. However, none of the three searches worked (Figure 13).

Screenshot of Kudos DOI text search ORCID search option

Figure 13. Screenshot of Kudos search options - DOI, text search & ORCID, 16 Feb 2026.

I emailed Kudos' support team to flag this issue, asking if there was an alternate route for authors to add a publication. They replied that Kudos currently depends on the entry of DOIs: 'Please be aware that we do plan to create more options to add a publication to Kudos in the future and this is on our product roadmap. In the meantime we recommend that you kindly contact your publisher and ask them to send published work metadata to Crossref so it is more discoverable, and appears in Kudos and other online services' (email correspondence, 4 March, 2026),

Who is responsible for submitting to Crossref?

The primary responsibility for submitting and maintaining Crossref entries typically lies with the publisher in being formal Crossref members. CRIMSA publishes Acta Criminologica : African Journal of Criminology & Victimology. The editor ensures that high-quality metadata (such as ORCIDs and funding info) is received from authors before manuscript approval. CRIMSA would then be responsible for submitting accepted articles' bibliographic metadata (including URLs and references, plus registering DOIs), then ensuring this information remains up-to-date. The publisher handles the technical side of generating "Crossref XML" files, or using deposit tools.

Like many small organisations though, CRIMSA's office bearers may be stretched across many roles. So, not able to prioritise learning how to do Crossref submissions as a new responsibility, let alone find the time to do them. The extra funds to pay for such work may also not be available.

In the near future, CRIMSA's academic journal does plan to submit metadata to Crossref for new articles. I have encouraged Acta Criminologica's editor to organise that its full archive becomes retroactively registered with Crossref. The estimated cost of $0.15 per article’s uploaded meta-data should hopefully not prove a showstopper. Supplying the correct metadata for all articles will benefit this journal's visibility, and hopefully support not just its altmetrics results being listed, but also Acta Criminologica being listed on journal portals used to rank and compare academic journals (and country-level scientific output). Notably, the free Scimagojr and Scilit portals.

Conclusion

After overcoming the challenges of review, revisions, and achieving a digital publication, academic authors may face a new challenge- following up that their publications are well-indexed. As this post illustrates, this must not be assumed. Rather authors must check that their article's DOI identifier does indeed link to their article's publication page. And that their paper's social media impact and amplification is being correctly reflected via that page's Altmetrics badge.

If there is a problem, it is most likely to be taking place in the earliest phase of the Research Data Lifecycle (RDLC)- this broad concept is used to describe the "cradle-to-grave" journey of research data:

In terms of sharing research outputs, it includes curation of metadata that is standardised, ensuring outputs are both disseminated, and findable via academic search engine optimisation (ASEO). And that the article's reach, amplification and media interest can be measured via Altmetric statistics.

In the case of our article, the DOI indexing flaw lay in phase 1 of output sharing. The journal does not supply metadata for its articles to the academic metadata aggregator, Crossref. Instead, the journal's publisher setup a temporary DOI as a workaround. While this may work as a stopgap measure, it poses a major obstacle for scholars keen to share the work with centralised registries in phase 2, since each co-author must manually create an ORCID record. In phase 3, academic aggregators (such as Google Scholar) may direct users to a 'page not found' response on doi.org or from the journal's website. In phase 4, researchers may face a similar problem on academic social networks (such as ResearchGate) which require an accurate DOI link. For phase 5, the ability of altmetrics services to track an article's amplification, reach and media interest is scuppered. By contrast, the article's citations are still tracked.

However, until this happens, authors keen to share their Acta Criminologica publications via their scholarly profiles and social networks must do a lot of extra work. My colleagues and I followed work-arounds to address the placeholder DOI index information in phases 2 to 4. These included listing their article's and/or handle.net address in manual entries on ORCID's centralised registry, academic aggregators (e.g. Google Scholar or Bielefeld Academic Search Engine). Plus, shifting to using the handle.net address in academic social network posts. These work-arounds required extra labour from the four authors, three of whom are independent and not formally affiliated to any university. As the journal publisher already covers the journal's Crossref fees, such extra work can readily be avoided. Hopefully, the journal will put aside the resources necessary for generating the required XML metadata, and for depositing its full archive, plus new publications via Crossref's record manager.

Related suggestions

Journal publishers and editorial teams can help their authors upfront by being transparent about what the opportunities and limitations of their journal's current indexing are in relation to sharing publications online. Plus, publishers should provide advice to authors for how these strengths and weaknesses support, or limit, the online visibility and potential amplification opportunities for their new works. For example, in Acta Criminologica : African Journal of Criminology & Victimology's case, it has several strengths, such as indexing works in the reputable databases of SABINET and African Journals OnLine (AJOL). However, its metadata is not currently submitted to Crossref, nor does the journal appear in Scopus title lists. As described regarding Crossref, this requires authors to make several work-arounds to ensure their articles become visible via centralised registries and academic aggregators. Authors must also accept that they cannot source altmetrics for their work, and cannot use services solely reliant on DOI link entries.

Publishers and editorial teams who provide transparency about their journals' academic indexing issues, could also make public their plans to resolve them. This would be performing a helpful service, not just for their authors, but also for potential case-study research in an area for which there seems to be a dearth of detailed local descriptions to learn from. With less than half of African journals being indexed in Crossref, there must be systemic problems preventing their indexing. Learning in detail from African journal publishers and editors on why this is the case, plus how it might be addressed on the ground, would seem a worthwhile gap for scholars to research, and close.

N.B. Kindly add a comment below if you have any related suggestions or other feedback...

Thursday, 18 December 2025

Brandjacked for social media advert fraud: Microcelebrities' experiences of digital crime in South Africa

Written for readers interested in the virtual epidemic of digital crime and online scams.

The Noakes Foundation established the Fake Celebrity Endorsement (FCE) research project in 2023 to address research gaps regarding the brandjacking of South African public figures in fake social media adverts. I’m delighted to share that the FCE's first peer-reviewed article is now available in a special Cybercrime issue from Acta Criminologica: African Journal of Criminology and Victimology. {Please note that the journal's ‘Open Access’ policy initially provides restricted access via the SABINET archives. These are available via university libraries’ annual SABINET subscription for SA_ePublications (Sabinet African Electronic Publications). There is a 12-month open access embargo from the date of publication/loading on CRIMSA’s website, so expect external access to be available from January, 2027}.

Japhet Kayomb Travis Noakes Karen Heath Taryn van Niekerk 2025

Japhet, Travis, Karen and Taryn in The Cellars-Hohenhort's garden.

The article was written by myself, Dr Taryn van Niekerk, Dr Karen Heath and Mr Japhet Mutomb Kayomb to begin covering the cybervictimization experiences of a hard-to-reach sample of South African public figures. This post provides some context to the (i) neglected digital crime problem that our scholarly contribution spotlights before summarising (ii) the article's literature review, (iii) the research and its key findings, (iv) their broader implications, plus (v) suggested areas for future research:

i. Digital crime cybervictimisation as a neglected research problem in the Global South

A massive footprint of digital crime looms right across South Africa. Pumped through a hypnotic body of popular social media platforms that include; Alphabet's YouTube, Bytedance's Tik Tok, Meta's Facebook, Instagram & WhatsApp, Microsoft's LinkedIn and xAI's X. Forced labour cybercrime compounds pump billions of scam adverts through these platforms daily into the path of locals' scrolling fingers. Once clicked on, algorithms push even more scam slop to users. Once tricked, victims are completely unsupported. They have no recourse against cybercriminals cloaked behind expensive privacy services. Nor will an apology be forthcoming from unscrupulous and unrepentant advertising hosts. Notably, Meta earned 16 billions of dollars of ill-gotten gains in a year from sharing criminal clientele's adverts (Horwitz, 2025).

In South Africa (SA), it can be unclear to victims which authorities to report these crimes to. Financial victims will not be reimbursed by their bank, and cannot expect support from law enforcement or other local authorities (Noakes, 2025). This complete lack of societal support for victims of 'digital crime' distinguishes this online crime from 'cybercrimes'. These target corporations, whose employees are often better positioned to respond with the support of corporate technical teams and cybersecurity countermeasures (Olson, 2024). For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, SA businesses were targeted with spear phishing emails impersonating colleagues, line managers, and senior executives (Minnaar, 2020: 45). Executives in blue-chip companies using cyber defence services, such as ZeroFox, benefit from proactive monitoring and countermeasures versus executive impersonation. In stark contrast, even the most influential public figures outside corporate cannot access such costly support for fighting digital crimes.

Their scale approximates an epidemic, with Africa being among the fastest growing regions in terms of cybercrime activities (Kshetri, 2019). Its rapid growth of digital crime follows patterns in the Global North, where cybercrime now represents up to half of all crime (Aebi, Caneppele & Molnar, 2020). Growing at 15 percent a year, the economy of cybercrime would be the third largest in the world if it were considered a nation. Only the economies of the United States and China are larger (Bo, Franceschini & Li, 2025). A recent taxonomy of scams (Zhou et al., 2024) identifies that many different types contribute to a rapidly evolving fraudulent economy:

   1 Financial fraud (e.g. phishing “employment” scams)
   2 Identity theft (impersonation and brandjacking of small businesses)
3 Internet health scams (weightloss ads brandjacking doctors)
4 Advert fraud (marketing fake “pop concert” tickets)
5 E-commerce and product scams (non-existent “flash sales”)
6 Online harassment (cyberstalking, cyberbullying and doxxing)
7 Social engineering (business phone fraud and cold calling scams)
8 Crowdfunding and charity scams (a fake crowdfunding site purportedly linked to a political party’s “fundraiser for student bursaries and groceries”)
9 Lottery and prize scams (unsolicited messages claiming recipients have won prizes, and that they should pay a fee or provide their bank details)
10 Employment scams (impersonate hiring companies to request fees for job placements)
11 Romance and relationship fraud (cyberdating that leads to “employment” offers)
   12 Spam (unsolicited SMS and email communications featuring marketing offers or scams)
13 Miscellaneous (QR phishing code scams that elude email security software)

In stark contrast to the high prevalence of digital crime, little research addresses people’s cybervictimisation experiences in responding to online scams. In response, we wrote a paper that starts covering South African public figures whose reputations were brandjacked for fake endorsements. This ever-evolving digital crime can involve six scam types: 1. financial fraud, 2. identity theft, 3. internet health scams, 4. advert fraud, 5. e-commerce and product scams, plus 7. social engineering.We also address how digital crime content spans a myriad of digital services: from (A) ads on popular social networks to "research reports" on academic networks; across (B) search engine results, blogs and online forums; from (C) clickbait news to fake business index listings, plus shopfronts; and (D) onto local fulfilment via global retailers or local sellers.

The inspiration for our paper started in 2019, from when the reputations of Prof Tim Noakes and Dr Michael Mol were repeatedly brandjacked for fake endorsements, primarily in Facebook ads for non-existent products (e.g. ketogummies). Dr Karen Heath, myself and other reps worked to raise public awareness of these scams, and to stop them on social networks. We didn’t have much success with the latter, especially on Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, where most victims reported being scammed. With Prof Noakes and Dr Mol's revictimization being an intractable problem in 2022, I identified a gap in scholarship on this particular digital crime. The Noakes Foundation's Academic Free Speech and Digital Voices project launched the FCE as a new Digital Visibility Risks theme. It catalysed novel interdisciplinary work between health communication, psychological and digital forensic experts for understanding cybercriminals’ fake endorsement adverts on social media platforms, and celebrities experiences in responding. In 2023, Dr Adrie Stander (Advanced Digital Forensics) did an Open Source Intelligence investigation that established the vast extent of the scam. This investigation also revealed that the scammers used professional tools, such as CloudFlare. This made even locating their continental origin impossible.

ii. Literature review

The team’s ongoing literature review suggested an opportunity to respond to an urgent call for 'exploratory cybervictimisation research that can help address ever-expanding patterns of online victimisation’ (Halder, 2021, 4-6). Just as FCE micro-frauds typically evade detection by authorities, they also seem by-in-large to have escaped scholarship. There seemed to be no scholarly accounts of SA celebrity influencers’ lived experiences of cyber-victimisation, brandjacking, and impersonation. This contrasted to many press reports- we tracked how over 50 SA celebrities had been brandjacked by 2024. Brandjacking is the allegedly illegal use of trademarked brand names on social network sites (Ramsey, 2010, p. 851).

The psychologist and victimisation expert, Dr Taryn van Niekerk, led our interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) of celebrities' and their reps' accounts. Taryn also led a literature review on cybervictimisation across the North-South divide. It unpacks the development of Northern scholarship on cybervictimology, plus the growing literature on this topic from the global South. Importantly, it highlights the gap in knowledge around the subjective experiences of digital victims, and more specifically, microcelebrities. Our paper proposes that the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of victim identity within global Southern cybercriminological scholarship can be reimagined. We further suggest what is required to develop a body of scholarship that yields insights into cybervictims' needs, and routes to recourse.

iii. Research and key findings

During the preliminary research process, we tested our approach by interviewing representatives from The Noakes Foundation. In late 2024, Price Green Creative Studio approached over 50 SA celebrities’ agents to request they participate in cybervictimisation research. Almost all in this hard-to-reach sample declined, despite generous incentives. Such research resistance is an interesting topic in itself, as Professor Michel Anteby describes in The Interloper (2024). The agents’ common feedback was that their celebrities were concerned about the potential for revictimisation. They seemed unfamiliar with how research ethics would protect them. For example, as part of securing ethical approval, the FCE organised cybervictimisation experts to provide psychological support should interviews have proved traumatising.

We completed fieldwork in early 2025, with: Dr Michael Mol and a rep; Shashi Naidoo; Prof Tim Noakes; and his representatives having done separate, semi-structured interviews. Their feedback supported an exploration of how individuals’ positions as public figures shaped their lived experiences as victims of complex webs of digital crime. The findings showed how fake endorsements and brandjacking were experienced as relentless and as interwoven with other forms of online fraud, highlighting the deep intricacies of their mechanisms. These digital crimes varied in their severity, ranging from impersonation to sextortion for child pornography, leaving trauma and emotional chaos in their wake. They were furthermore aggravated by their unknowable and unpredictable nature, leaving many unanswered questions. Each celebrity victim was left without closure i.e., who the cybercriminals were, where the crime originated, where they might next be brandjacked online, and if it would ever end! Finally, as novices in cybercrime fighting, both the celebrities and their representatives attempted varied techniques to stop the work of ‘savvy cybercriminals’; however, many described this battle as grim and having minimal impact.

iv. Broader implications from our research

These findings have important practical implications for SA’s regulatory environment, digital crime reporting and law enforcement authorities, plus victim support:

New laws are urgently needed to regulate social media platforms that profit significantly from scam advertisements. For example, Meta’s internal documents describe how it fears regulation as the only credible threat to its scam advertisement business (Horwitz, 2025). Regulation could mandate reporting on advertising fraud, impose penalties for slow takedowns of scams, and provide local micro-agencies (e.g., Meta Trusted Partners based in South Africa) with the opportunity to take down scammers’ accounts and content. Artificial intelligence watermarking could also be mandated for identifying AI-generated content to aid in tracing its provenance.

The epidemic of digital crime may largely go unreported and remain invisible to local law enforcement authorities. This gap must be addressed by the state increasing support for formal channels to report digital crime. Regular, publicly accessible reports on digital crime and cybervictimisation could be mandated to raise awareness while also supporting platform accountability.

It seems likely that there will be a long wait before regulatory and enforcement measures are in place to protect victims of cybercrime. In the interim, an anti-digital crime network could be established to advocate for and provide support to victims and future targets of online scammers’ digital crimes. This network could raise funds for the neglected area of digital crime scholarship in the Global South, tackling important gaps, such as who is vulnerable and what types of preventative education are most impactful.

Addressing this paper’s meaningful questions about ‘risk’ and victimhood in the online domain can offer opportunities for more extensive dialogue about cybervictimisation experienced by the broader public. As a digital crime, fake celebrity endorsements target private individuals and the general public with limited access to resources for combating fraud. Many of the financial victims are elderly, with little disposable income.

We trust that our research may additionally inform legal and social media policies that can better support South African victims of this crime. Such a contribution seems highly salient for the challenging environment that SA law enforcement faces in resolving online crimes.

v. Suggested areas for future research

Our study offers an exploratory focus on a novel area of research and recommends that future studies develop this focus on microfrauds and their cybervictimisation of civilians. Research on cyber victims must gain traction to motivate digital platforms and law enforcement to better assist individual victims. This study illuminated just three SA public figures’ cybervictimisation experiences, but other local celebrities’ experiences may differ according to their contrasting roles and types of exposure. There is also an opportunity to explore public figures' experiences in the Global North. Scholars can also address how realities ‘on the ground’ prevent brandjacking cases from being stopped, and what some solutions might be.

There are many future research directions that could enhance the understanding of digital crimes and cybervictimisation in the Global South. In particular, researchers could expand our understanding of the online experiences of victimisation beyond public figures to include everyday citizens. Scholars can urgently contribute to our understanding of who may be vulnerable, how they are targeted online, and the damage they experience. Academics can also contribute to a growing understanding of how individuals can be better empowered to guard against the myriad of digital crimes from which labour compounds and Big Tech profit. For example, little is known about how multi-cultural anti-crime communications might be improved for more effective outreach. The development of knowledge by SA scholars on cybervictimisation, digital crime reporting, and regulatory remedies, along with anti-crime education, seems vital for assisting citizens in combating the overlooked frontline of digital crime.

To further mobilise this body of work to ensure SA’s protection of digital consumers, this study offers several recommendations for future research and the development of policy. In stark contrast to the well-resourced cybercrime fighting efforts in the corporate sector, digital crimes that target ordinary individuals are often neglected. Therefore, there are significant incentives for expanding this body of work on digital crime, particularly from a Global South perspective, where cybercriminological scholarship is growing and requires further insights into victims’ experiences and support. In terms of theoretical contributions, this study’s utilisation of IPA as a qualitative tool to gain insights offered meaningful observations into the relational experience of victimhood shared by the participants. It demonstrated how cybervictimisation is experienced as persons-in-context and contributes to the extensive literature on IPA by providing novel insights into digital forms of victimisation.

Help support our future research

The size of the digital crime problem is vast, but little scholarship of it exists. This is directly related to how the global leaders behind research funding far prefer prioritising making grants to tackle the "harms" (unproven) of (mis-, dis- and malinformation). This MDM- with no A focus, seems to be an addictive topic for censorious 'hall monitors' in the Communication and Media Studies fields.

Not so for The Noakes Foundation which has worked with Price Green Creative Studio to prepare a funding proposal 'Protecting South Africans from “petty” digital crimes: a case for urgent funding'. It proposes to tackle key areas in (v) future digital research, and research funders are welcome to contact me for a copy on noakest@cput.ac.za. I also welcome advice on any related external funding opportunities linked to digital crime in SA.

Gratitude

Our article developed from a collaboration between two public benefit organisations. I greatly appreciate The Noakes Foundation’s and Dr Mol's support, plus the research participants’ contributions. The qualitative research contribution of psychologist Dr Taryn van Niekerk was integral to our manuscript. In particular for leading the literature review and applying a critical interpretative phenomenological approach’s analysis from Big Q Qualitative Specialists (Pty) Ltd. Thanks too, Dr Adrie Stander and Dr Alize Pistidda-Scheenstra for digital forensic advice. And Mrs Megan Lofthouse for assisting with the project’s fieldwork, plus Dohne Green from Price Green Creative Studio for driving outreach to celebrities' agents. The authors also greatly appreciate the legal advice of John Spengler and Adam Pike of Pike Law regarding local laws and regulations that cover fake celebrity endorsements and social media advertising frauds. Thanks too to Dr Ashwill Phillips and Professor Francois Steyn for their journal’s positive response to our abstract's submission. Plus for their assistance in the review process and organising helpful reviews that helped particularly with addressing our article’s context and contributions to the field. We also appreciate The Criminological Society of Africa (CRIMSA)'s for its role in supporting and publishing Acta Criminologica.

In the press

Lyse Comins from the Mail and Guardian has covered our concerns in Meta criticised for slow action as deepfake adverts target South African celebrities (2024).

Comments welcome

I am particularly interested in comments related to scholarly collaborations, digital crime research funding leads, or offers related to anti-digital crime networking support.

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )