Jump to comment:

• The era of predatory academia.
  Anuradha Bishnoi, Keshavamurthy Vinay
  Published on: 19 July 2019

• Published on: 19 July 2019

  The era of predatory academia.

  • Anuradha Bishnoi, Dermatologist PGIMER, Chandigarh, India
  • Other Contributors:
    • Keshavamurthy Vinay, Dermatologist

  We congratulate Wilkinson et al. for their excellent piece of work that assessed the burden of academic spam emails (ASEs) received by the academic grant receivers.1 This paper is very relevant in the current scenario when ‘predatory academia’ is emerging as a potential threat to the ethos and virtuosity of medical research.

  We are all aware of the unsolicited ASEs adorned with flowery language that we routinely receive. On a closer look, these emails follow a certain predictable pattern. These are replete with grammatical errors, are usually asking authors to submit one ‘eminent article’ in order to complete/ inaugurate an issue of their journal, or inviting to be a part of their editorial board or a chairperson in an upcoming conference. These can be quite intimidating when received and read for the first time, and a naïve researcher might in fact like the manner in which these emails are addressed. A little discussion with the senior colleagues and mentors, and a quick trip to the hastily put together, incomplete websites with dual addresses (one of which is usually located in developing countries) and fake editorial boards (usually with pictures of prominent physicians/ surgeons from different specialties put together) shall however, soon make things clear for these young researchers.

  Predatory journals have been now present for more than a decade.1 Previously, the researchers were exposed to these journals, either through their colleagues or, themselve...

  Show More

  We congratulate Wilkinson et al. for their excellent piece of work that assessed the burden of academic spam emails (ASEs) received by the academic grant receivers.1 This paper is very relevant in the current scenario when ‘predatory academia’ is emerging as a potential threat to the ethos and virtuosity of medical research.

  We are all aware of the unsolicited ASEs adorned with flowery language that we routinely receive. On a closer look, these emails follow a certain predictable pattern. These are replete with grammatical errors, are usually asking authors to submit one ‘eminent article’ in order to complete/ inaugurate an issue of their journal, or inviting to be a part of their editorial board or a chairperson in an upcoming conference. These can be quite intimidating when received and read for the first time, and a naïve researcher might in fact like the manner in which these emails are addressed. A little discussion with the senior colleagues and mentors, and a quick trip to the hastily put together, incomplete websites with dual addresses (one of which is usually located in developing countries) and fake editorial boards (usually with pictures of prominent physicians/ surgeons from different specialties put together) shall however, soon make things clear for these young researchers.

  Predatory journals have been now present for more than a decade.1 Previously, the researchers were exposed to these journals, either through their colleagues or, themselves while actively trying to search a journal suitable to submit their manuscript (especially in situations where a publication could help land a much-coveted grant, promotion or residency spot).2,3 The practice of sending such unsolicited, inviting and tempting emails, however, seems recent; and can be attributed to relatively easy and unhindered access to internet and email ids, which makes it possible for these journals to actively contact a large number of scientists.

  Wilkinson et al1 noted that the amount of time spent in addressing the ASEs had a significant negative correlation with the number of articles authored in peer-reviewed journals. Of the people who did not spend any time responding to such emails; all had >20 publications. Negative correlation was also observed between the time spent in addressing such mails and previous history of publishing in journals with open access (OA) policy; and may suggest the negative experience garnered through the whole process of publication in the predatory OA journals, that ultimately lead to not devoting further time or attention to these emails. We, however, feel that it could have been better to specifically address the type of OA journals the participants were asked about.

  No association was observed between time spent on addressing these emails and the presence/ absence of spam filters.1 Rather, a positive association was observed between the feeling of being left behind (if these ASEs were not read) and time spent on addressing the emails; which again has a bearing on the overall growth, maturity, learning and experience that comes over time with publishing in academia; and guides one to when and how ignore these ASEs. Despite receiving the ASEs, Wilkinson et al observed that 69% of participants actually did not respond back to these emails, suggesting that though researchers are actually spending their time reading these emails, the actual response rate to such mails is less.
  A comparison of the number of such ASEs received by grant receivers vs non-receivers; corresponding vs other authors; senior authors vs junior authors; junior authors with more publications vs senior authors with lesser publications; and those working in different specialties shall better explain the variables and targets that predatory agencies have in mind when these ASEs are actually being distributed.

  ASEs represent an active effort on the part of predatory agencies to expose an ever-increasing number of researchers to predatory journals and conferences. Future studies should try to define the particular subgroups of researchers; a) those who receive such emails more, b) those who spend more time reading these, and c) those who actually succumb to the naivety or the pressure to publish, and therefore end up responding to such emails. Accurate identification of this shall help in risk stratification, and appropriate division and dedication of the valuable efforts needed to curb this predatory academia in a more efficient manner. Needless to say, faculty members at various institutions have the most important role to play, and they should proactively warn and guide their residents about the presence and pitfalls of these predatory journals and conferences. To conclude, always follow this initiative: think, check and submit.4

  References
  1. Wilkinson TA, Russell CJ, Bennett WE, Cheng ER, Carroll AE. A cross-sectional study of predatory publishing emails received by career development grant awardees. BMJ Open. 2019;
  2. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Diyanova SN, Kitas GD. Publishing ethics and predatory practices: A dilemma for all stakeholders of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015;
  3. Beall J. Predatory journals, peer review, and education research. New Horizons Adult Educ Hum Resour Dev. 2017;
  4. Beall J. Best practices for scholarly authors in the age of predatory journals. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2016;

  Keshavamurthy Vinay, M.D, F.R.C.P
  Department of Dermatology
  Postgraduate Institute of Medical
  Education and Research,
  Sector 12, Chandigarh, India

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top