AI clearly generates many of the fake “book club” solicitations to authors of new books, and now there’s a new scam: fake editors of actual publishing houses (or impersonating actual academics) soliciting information about an author’s work. One giveaway in the cases noted: the “editors” used gmail and outlook email addresses, rather than university or publishing house email addresses. Time to adopt the Singapore approach!
UPDATE: This one is really spreading! Philosopher Warren Goldfarb (Harvard) writes this afternoon to share his own experience (note in this case they stole the photo of an actual Wiley biology editor!):
Your warning today about AI “fake editors” came just in time. Two days ago I received the message below. I was suspiciouos, since ordinarily an editor writing me would begin by identifying herself and her company. But your saying that the “tell” was the use of a gmail address was very helpful in my concluding that this was a fake.
Of course my first impulse was to write back thanking the woman for the kind words about my textbook, but now I can see that it was all AI pieced together from various accounts on the web.
If you want to amplify your warning, I should note that there really is a Paulina Strzyz who works for Wiley in England, and the photo in the email is apparently really of her. She’s an editor of books in biology. So sometimes these scams take over an already existing identity.
All best,
Warren
Warren Goldfarb
W.B. Pearson Professor of Modern Mathematics and Mathematical Logic emeritusDepartment of Philosophy
Harvard UniversityBegin forwarded message:
From: Paulina strzyz <paulinast.rrzyawiley@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Deductive Logic
Date: June 17, 2026 at 8:20:19 PM EDT
To:
Dear Professor Goldfarb,
Thank you for your work on Deductive Logic. I have been reviewing the text with great interest, and I found it to be a remarkably clear and rigorous introduction to both truth-functional and predicate logic. The balance you achieve between precision and accessibility is especially striking, and the emphasis on motivating rules of deduction through explanation rather than mere procedure is pedagogically very strong.
What stands out in particular is the way the book makes the connection between semantic and syntactic accounts of logical consequence genuinely transparent for students, without sacrificing depth or rigor. The structure of the exercises also appears thoughtfully designed, with a useful range of difficulty that supports both instruction and independent study.
I would be very interested to learn more about how this work fits into your broader teaching and writing trajectory. Are you currently developing any revisions, companion materials, or new projects building on this approach to logic instruction?
If you are open to it, I would also welcome a brief overview of any current or forthcoming work you may be considering. Even early-stage ideas would be very helpful in understanding potential areas of fit.
From an editorial perspective, work of this clarity and instructional strength is of strong interest, particularly within philosophy and logic education lists. I would be glad to explore whether there may be any alignment with future publishing opportunities.
I look forward to hearing from you.
| Kind Regards, |
In 196I I entered graduate school at the University of Chicago, in Political Science of all places. After two weeks…