Predatory Invitations from Journals: More Than Just a Nuisance?

Spam e‐mail invitations to submit manuscripts for publication in predatory journals are increasingly received within the academic biomedical research setting. The nature and characteristics of spam e‐mails and the implications to the practicing oncologist are reported in this article.

Abstract

Physicians and academic researchers are frequently targeted with spam invitations to submit manuscripts to predatory journals. This study was conducted to understand the nature and characteristics of these invitations. All spam e‐mails received by an academic medical oncologist over a 3‐month period were collected and categorized. Presumed predatory journal invitations were analyzed and cross‐checked against Beall's list of “potential, probable, or possible predatory” journals and publishers. Invitations to submit to predatory journals were the most common single type of spam received.

Background

The term “spam” is often applied to unsolicited commercial e‐mail and other undesirable or unwanted e‐mail communications. The term was originally derived from a Monty Python sketch set in a restaurant where the meat product SPAM is in almost every dish [1]. As the waitress describes the menu, a group of Vikings begins singing, “Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam,” drowning out all other communication. The analogy to unsolicited commercial solicitations in one's e‐mail inbox is clear. Spam now accounts for over 80% of all e‐mail globally and is increasingly reported in clinical practice [2], [3]. The cost of receiving spam is not insignificant and results in considerable lost productivity. For the practicing oncologist, is spam moving beyond these basic annoyances and becoming more pervasive and sinister?

Of all the types of spam received within the academic biomedical research setting, perhaps the most rapidly increasing are e‐mails inviting recipients to submit manuscripts for publication [4]. So‐called “predatory journals” are defined as those that display “an intention to deceive authors and readers” [5]. The main purpose of these journals is to profit from article processing charges, and they may therefore have little regard for the scientific quality or integrity of the work they accept. They may also promise expedient review, rapid publication, and relatively low author processing charges [2], [6]. In practice, predatory journals can be difficult to identify, as there are relatively few comprehensive sources to identify recognized journals and their publishers. In addition, predatory journal logos, names, and remits may be very similar to established legitimate journals, creating additional confusion.

Moreover, given that the current system of incentives in academia is centered upon one's ability to get published, predatory journals fill a void for researchers looking to meet these demands. Although many researchers and clinicians will simply delete these invitations, with the increasing need to “publish or perish” in one's academic career, others may be more vulnerable to the allure these invitations can offer in a system geared toward rewarding productivity rather than quality [7], [8]. There is also the distinct possibility that funded research may be getting “published” in these predatory journals, not only wasting money but also severely limiting the potential reach of publicly funded information, as predatory journals are not typically indexed or searchable (e.g., in PubMed).

Despite the perceived rise in the number of spam e‐mails received, relatively little is known about their magnitude and nature in the oncology setting. The objective of this study was to prospectively evaluate spam e‐mails received by an academic oncologist and to explore in greater detail the nature of predatory journal invitations.

Methods

This study used an anecdotal cross‐section research design. One of the authors (Mark Clemons) is a medical oncologist practicing within a university‐affiliated academic cancer center. His research is predominantly in the area of breast cancer management. He only has one e‐mail address, which is run through the institutional firewall. During the 3‐month study period, all e‐mails that he perceived as being spam (unsolicited, unwanted, commercial‐type e‐mails) were moved to a separate folder for subsequent categorization and analysis. For e‐mails from presumed predatory journals, additional information was collected, including the name of the journal and associated publisher, use of hyperbole and flattering salutations, the name of the person sending the e‐mail, details on the description of the peer‐review processes used, and whether there was an unsubscribe mechanism. For a full list of variables collected, see Panel 1.

Statistical Analysis

Once the data collection period ended, the invitations were exported to Microsoft Excel, the data were cleaned by a research assistant (M.S.), and descriptive analyses were completed. The data are presented as frequency distributions. Beall's list of suspected predatory journals and publishers [9] was used (accessed during the week of August 15, 2016) to cross‐reference invitations [10].

Results

Between January 21 and April 21, 2016, 578 e‐mails that the recipient felt were spam were received (Table 1). The most common categories of e‐mails were invitations to submit manuscripts to presumed predatory journals (n = 191, 33.0%), invitations to attend conferences (n = 109, 18.9%), product advertisements (n = 98; 16.9%), and surveys (n = 67, 11.6%). Other sources of spam included newsletters from journals the recipient had not subscribed to (n = 45, 7.8%), invitations to attend webinars (n = 28, 4.8%), requests to review manuscripts from journals unknown to the recipient (n = 16, 2.8%), scholarships/prizes (n = 11, 1.9%), new employment opportunities (n = 5, 0.8%), and e‐mails containing incomprehensible text (n = 8, 1.4%).

Table 1. Categories of spam e‐mails received during study period.

^aSurveys came from a number of sources, including publishing groups/journals, market research agencies, pharmaceutical companies, health care panels, patient support providers, and clinical trial evaluation agencies.

Characteristics of Spam E‐mails from Predatory Journals

Of the e‐mails received, 191 were categorized as being invitations to submit manuscripts to presumed predatory journals. These invitations were received from 156 different journals from 33 different publishers. The publishers most frequently sending invitations are shown in Table 2. All of these publishers were listed by Beall (excluding Matthews International). The frequency breakdown of invitations received from journals was as follows: 3 times (3 journals), 2 times (25 journals), 1 time (132 journals). The majority of publishers (n = 27, 81.8%) and journals (n = 91, 58.3%) were cited in Beall's list. The number of journals issued by each of these publishers was found from the publisher's website. This ranged from 6 for Imed Pub to 700 for OMICS Publishing Group. We then looked at the mean number of articles published in all of the journals from each of these publishers. This ranged from 3 for Peertechz to 196 for SciEdu Press.

Table 2. Publishers sending the most frequent invitations and their presence on Beall's list.

^aNo platform available for this information.

^bFormat is based on book chapters and not journals.

Abbreviations: —, no data.

These predatory journal invitations were then broadly classified (Table 3). With respect to invitation relevance, in 65.4% (n = 125) of cases, the invitation subject matter was unrelated to the recipient's clinical and research interests. Journal invitations were frequently (n = 139, 72.7%) overly formal (e.g., “Dear Doctor X, we are honored to”) and often (n = 92, 48.2%) used flattery about the recipient (e.g., “it's your eminence and reputation”). Of interest, despite these being unsolicited invitations, 39.3% (n = 75) of invitations informed the recipient that there was urgency required with the submission.

Table 3. Characteristics of e‐mails received from predatory journals.

With respect to the invitation content and characteristics of the journal, journal names were frequently given a global “context,” with 30.9% (n = 59) of journal titles including words such as “world” or “global.” Most journals (n = 148, 77.5%) were biomedical in nature and nearly half (n = 92, 48.2%) said they were open access. However, only 52.4% (n = 100) provided full and verifiable contact information, including address, on the journal site. Interestingly, invitations were often sent from the same sender for multiple journals from the same publisher. For example, a “Kathy Flora” was responsible for sending invitations for more than 7 journals published by the OMICS publishing group, or a total of 16 e‐mails in the 3‐month period studied.

When assessing the practicalities of the submission process, as described in the e‐mail itself, the fact that the journal was peer‐reviewed was mentioned in 34.0% (n = 65) of cases. However, in these 65 journals, the actual peer review process was only described in 21 (11.0%) cases. Interestingly, although 48% of journal e‐mail invitations stated that the journal was open access, when we actually went to each of the 156 journal websites, 80% (126/156) of journals identified themselves as being open access. We are unsure as to the reason for this difference. Although 7.9% of journal invitations cited a submission fee, details on actual costs were rarely present. Analysis of the websites of the 13 publishers in Table 2 showed the average price of processing fees was $983 (range $225–$1,800).

Discussion

The rapid expansion of electronic access to health care and biomedical research has had many positive effects on patient care. Members of clinical health care teams are able to gain access to the latest updates in terms of medical care and research findings and are able to communicate and respond to each other's questions in a far more time‐sensitive manner than ever before. However, with this innovation has also come the rapid influx of spam e‐mails. The costs and consequences of spam are generally known, but for the practicing physician, the question of whether spam is simply annoying, requiring time to read and delete, or whether it represents a more serious concern remains [1], [3], [11]. Although predatory journal invitation spam has been previously described, it has not been well studied within the oncology setting [12]. The current study confirms that despite the presence of institutional firewalls, spam invites are common, as the recipient received 578 unsolicited e‐mails over a 3‐month period. Of all these, invitations to predatory journals accounted for 33.0% of all the spam received.

In addition to the usual issues around unsolicited spam, such as wasting recipient time, predatory journal invitations can result in a potentially more sinister outcome. With these journals, there is the risk that investigators may be tempted, or coerced, into submitting their articles. This is problematic, as many of these journals are not indexed and thus the work is unlikely to be read or used. This wastes the time spent by the researchers on their study but also reduces the efficiency of funder monies and the time of any participating patients. Globally, the current reward system in biomedicine, including for promotion, tenure, and in some cases pay, is still geared toward quantity rather than quality. A paradox is thereby created wherein there is a need to publish more at a time of increasing cutbacks in research budgets [8]. This pressure is compounded by the appropriately high rejection rates at many journals. Thus, receiving a “personalized” highly flattering invitation to submit a manuscript to a journal or to present your “prestigious” research at a conference could be very tempting [5].

This study is not without limitations. Predatory journals are challenging to identify. Here, we used Beall's list [9] to classify journal invitation. Beall's list is curated by a single individual; hence, maintenance of an up‐to‐date list is challenging. There have also been a number of journals that have challenged Beall as to whether they should be considered “predatory.” This study of spam is also based on the experience of a single researcher, who had to decide for himself what he perceived as unsolicited e‐mails. The extent to which these findings are generalizable, particularly to early career researchers or those outside of oncology, is therefore unknown. In addition, as we did not summate all of the e‐mails received, we do not know what proportion of all e‐mails were spam. In a study of seven oncologists, we recently found that 18.2% of all e‐mails received were spam [13].

Conclusion

Unsolicited spam appears to be pervasive for those working in the area of oncology. Strategies are needed to minimize this so that physicians spend less time cleaning their inbox and more time attending to those areas of practice that actually benefit patients. In addition, physicians need to be made aware of the presence of predatory journals, know how to recognize these, and understand the negative consequences resulting from “publishing” in these outlets. Funders and institutions may benefit from developing specific policies against “publishing” in predatory journals, as work in these outlets is not likely to add positively to biomedical knowledge or increase their impact.

Disclosures

The authors indicated no financial relationships.