Center for Promoting Ideas
Open-knowledge reference entry
The Center for Promoting Ideas (CPI) is an organization that engages in predatory publishing. Run out of Bangladesh with a claimed office in New York, it publishes a number of journals that publish academic articles for payment, claiming they are "peer-reviewed and refereed". Like many predatory journals it operates under the guise of an open access model. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported in 2018 that authors wired money to Bangladesh and sometimes never saw their paper published, or edited poorly. In addition, the CPI habitually lists unwitting academics as editors in chief or members of the editorial board, against their wishes.
One such scholar is American academic J. Peter Pham, who has been listed as on the editorial board of the International Journal of Humanities and Social Science since 2011, despite having sent letters asking to be removed. As of November 2022, he is still listed.
Journals published by the CPI
Predatory journals often take an existing journal's name and put "International" in front of it, according to an editorial in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology. Journals published by the CPI are listed on Beall's list.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Center for Promoting Ideas” as open-knowledge reference entry. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as open-knowledge reference entry. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 17, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q105905656. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2018, 2011 and 2022.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Center for Promoting Ideas”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Center for Promoting Ideas primary sources, Center for Promoting Ideas archive and Center research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Center for Promoting Ideas”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Center for Promoting Ideas” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.