Literature DB >> 31149367

Burden and Characteristics of Unsolicited Emails from Medical/Scientific Journals, Conferences, and Webinars to Faculty and Trainees at an Academic Pathology Department.

Matthew D Krasowski1, Janna C Lawrence2, Angela S Briggs1, Bradley A Ford1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Professionals and trainees in the medical and scientific fields may receive high e-mail volumes for conferences and journals. In this report, we analyze the amount and characteristics of unsolicited e-mails for journals, conferences, and webinars received by faculty and trainees in a pathology department at an academic medical center.
METHODS: With informed consent, we analyzed 7 consecutive days of e-mails from faculty and trainees who voluntarily participated in the study and saved unsolicited e-mails from their institutional e-mail address (including junk e-mail folder) for medical/scientific journals, conferences, and webinars. All e-mails were examined for characteristics such as reply receipts, domain name, and spam likelihood. Journal e-mails were specifically analyzed for claims in the message body (for example, peer review, indexing in databases/resources, rapid publication) and actual inclusion in recognized journal databases/resources.
RESULTS: A total of 17 faculty (4 assistant, 4 associate, and 9 full professors) and 9 trainees (5 medical students, 2 pathology residents, and 2 pathology fellows) completed the study. A total of 755 e-mails met study criteria (417 e-mails from 328 unique journals, 244 for conferences, and 94 for webinars). Overall, 44.4% of e-mails were flagged as potential spam by the institutional default settings, and 13.8% requested reply receipts. The highest burden of e-mails in 7 days was by associate and full professors (maximum 158 or approximately 8200 per year), although some trainees and assistant professors had over 30 e-mails in 7 days (approximately 1560 per year). Common characteristics of journal e-mails were mention of "peer review" in the message body and low rates of inclusion in recognized journal databases/resources, with 76.4% not found in any of 9 journal databases/resources. The location for conferences in e-mails included 31 different countries, with the most common being the United States (33.2%), Italy (9.8%), China (4.9%), United Kingdom (4.9%), and Canada (4.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: The present study in an academic pathology department shows a high burden of unsolicited e-mails for medical/scientific journals, conferences, and webinars, especially to associate and full professors. We also demonstrate that some pathology trainees and junior faculty are receiving an estimated 1500 unsolicited e-mails per year.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Electronic mail; open access publishing; peer review; publishing; scholarly communication; scientific conferences; webinars

Year:  2019        PMID: 31149367      PMCID: PMC6537630          DOI: 10.4103/jpi.jpi_12_19

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pathol Inform


  27 in total

1.  Spoof research paper is accepted by 157 journals.

Authors:  Nigel Hawkes
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-10-04

2.  Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences.

Authors:  John D Bowman
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 2.047

3.  Detecting Hijacked Journals by Using Classification Algorithms.

Authors:  Mona Andoohgin Shahri; Mohammad Davarpanah Jazi; Glenn Borchardt; Mehdi Dadkhah
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-04-10       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  Predatory journals: Beall's List is missed.

Authors:  Wadim Strielkowski
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2017-04-26       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Predatory Journals: Illegitimate Publishing and Its Threat to All Readers and Authors.

Authors:  Jason Roberts
Journal:  J Sex Med       Date:  2016-11-11       Impact factor: 3.802

6.  How predatory journals leak into PubMed.

Authors:  Andrea Manca; David Moher; Lucia Cugusi; Zeevi Dvir; Franca Deriu
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  Canadian cardiac journal turns "predatory".

Authors:  Tom Spears
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2014-09-02       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals.

Authors:  Robert E Bartholomew
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Characteristics of Hijacked Journals and Predatory Publishers: Our Observations in the Academic World.

Authors:  Mehdi Dadkhah; Tomasz Maliszewski; Mohammad Davarpanah Jazi
Journal:  Trends Pharmacol Sci       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 14.819

10.  What is a predatory journal? A scoping review.

Authors:  Kelly D Cobey; Manoj M Lalu; Becky Skidmore; Nadera Ahmadzai; Agnes Grudniewicz; David Moher
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2018-07-04
View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Academic E-Mail Overload and the Burden of "Academic Spam".

Authors:  Kelly E Wood; Matthew D Krasowski
Journal:  Acad Pathol       Date:  2020-01-21
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.