Predatory journals and conferences: Analysis of invitation emails from a single clinician-scientist's inbox.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), the German philosopher, once said, “They muddy the water, to make it seem deep.” This quote can be reflective of the practices of predatory publishers, predatory journals or fake journals or deceptive journals. They number in thousands in the biomedical sphere alone. There has been a staggering increase in the number of such journals over the last decade, and multiple reasons are attributed for this surge, economic ones being the foremost.[1] These journals typically claim to be multidisciplinary with quick publication times for a particular charge.[123] They disguise as open access to profit from the article processing charges (APC). Contrary to their claims, there is no peer review, and most of the editorial board is fake. On several occasions, the claimed indexing and the listed impact factors are also fake. The predatory journals frequently contact researchers by email to solicit articles, and cramming of the inbox with such mails is not unusual.[3] As time passes, these journals are getting more deceptive, and it gets difficult for the prospective author to distinguish real from fake. The early and mid-career researchers are especially prone to the trap. Similar is the story of the predatory conferences.

The author of this editorial analyzed his inbox (Gmail) from July 16 to August 16, 2021. Email invitations’ soliciting papers or attendance at conferences were evaluated. The parameters assessed include listing on Beall’s list, Cabell’s list, Directory of open access journals, and CalTech’s library list, source of the emails (free email/claimed organization), claimed country of origin, addressing of the researcher, greetings, presence of flattery, invitation for a wide range of articles, and the urgency in soliciting papers. Data gathered also included ISSN no, claimed impact factor, an additional invitation for editorial board or to review, APC, discounts offered, claims for quick publication, relevance to the specialty of the researcher, inviting submission by emails, website links, mention of author’s previous work, and its relevance in the context of invitation, address of the journal, and presence or absence of the unsubscribe option. The parameters assessed while analyzing the solicitation for conferences include claimed country of origin, mode, relevance to author’s specialty, typical predatory features like unusually tall claims, conference charges, waivers on registration, website quality, and deadlines for abstract submission.

Analysis of Predatory Journal Invitations

A total of 291 journal invitations were received, of which 100 consecutive emails were analyzed [Table 1]. Only 36 mentioned the claimed country of origin, of which the USA (n = 29) was the most common. Fifty-nine (59%) invitations were not related to the author’s specialty. Of the 41 that were related, most were as a part of multidisciplinary journals. The author’s name was improper in 54%, the most common way of addressing being the PubMed ID “Ali MJ.” The use of flattery in the text and grammatical errors was noted in 21% and 26%, respectively. The use of certain typical sentences was interesting. For instance, “we know prominent people like you can help us,” “we are very sure you can help us,” “we are feeling sad that we are sending repeated mails,” and “we plead you to help us.” The claim for a shortfall or urgency of papers was noted in 69% of the invitations, and the timeline for submissions ranged from immediate to 1 month (1 month, n = 22; 1 week, n = 17). Occasionally, the date of the email is past the mentioned deadline! A quick publication was claimed by 43%, ranging from immediately to 6 weeks. A 2-week publication time was a common claim (23.2%, 10/43). Invitation requesting any type of article was universal. The author’s previously published works were cited in 19% of the invitations, of which 89.4% (17/19) were irrelevant either to the journal or to the theme. Simultaneous invitation to the editorial board of the journal was noted among 21% of the soliciting emails. ISSN number and complete address of the publisher were documented in 48 and 12%, respectively. The APC were discussed upfront in 36%, with others referring to links for more details. The APC charges ranged from 50 USD to 1099 GBP. Three invitations mentioned additional charges of 50 USD per author! Website links were provided by 47% of the emails, of which 53% (25/47) were direct submission sites. This means that once we click the link, the opening site has only a single page, where one directly uploads the manuscript. All the invitation emails (n = 100) provided an option to submit the manuscript by email. The unsubscribe option was available with only 53% of the mails, of which 22.6% (12/53) of the links were not working.

Table 1

Assessment of 100 consecutive emails from predatory journals (major findings)

Parameter	Observation
Claimed country of origin	USA (29%)
Invitations related to specialty	41%
Website link provided	47%
Submission by email	Universal
Addressing by improper name	54%
Flattery/excess flattery	21%
Grammatical errors	26%
Invitation for any kind of article	Universal
Claim for shortfall/urgency of articles	69%
Simultaneous invitation to editorial board	21%
Quick publication claims	43%
Simultaneous invitation for a review	2%
Cited previous works of the author	19%
ISSN number provided	48%
Article processing charge discussed upfront	36%
APC charges range	50 USD-1099 GBP
Complete address of the sender	12%
Option to unsubscribe from mailing list	53%

Analysis of Predatory Conference Invitations

A total of 39 invitations were received, of which 20 consecutive emails were analyzed [Table 2]. The conference continuity claims were universal. Typical boasting of well attended past conferences, delegates from “n” number of countries or distinguished speakers was also universal. Efforts to give the conference an international face were distinctly noticeable. The claimed place of the conference was either in Europe or Asia-pacific region, and 40% (8/20) was virtual. Although 60% (12/20) of the emails cited the author’s previous work as a basis for the invitation, a dismal 20% (4/20) were related to the author’s specialty. The conference theme and author’s cited work mismatched in 83% (10/12) of the emails. Upfront discounts on registrations were offered by 50% (10/20) of the invitations. Conference website links were provided by 85% (17/20) of the invitations. However, 65% (11/17) of these were either disorganized or of poor quality. Interestingly, the conference abstract submission deadline was mentioned in only 50% (10/20) of the emails, and it ranged from 2 weeks to 2 months. Another catch point was the simultaneous invitation to chair or co-chair the sessions, or be a scientific committee member if the addressee wishes to! Six of the invitations (30%) also had a disclaimer at the end of the message.

Table 2

Assessment of 20 consecutive predatory conference invitations

Parameter	Observation
Conference continuity claims	Universal
Tall claims of past attendance	Universal
Countries of origin	Europe/AP
Virtual Mode	40% (8/20)
Related to addressee specialty	20% (4/20)
Offering discounts on registration	50% (10/20)
Mention of addressee’s previous work	60% (12/20)
Conference theme and previous work mismatch	83% (10/12)
Deadline for abstract submission	50% (10/20)
Deadline range	2 wks - 2 mon
Website link provided	85% (17/20)
Poor or disorganized websites	65% (11/17)
Disclaimer at the end	30% (6/20)

AP – Asia-Pacific; wks – weeks; mon – months

Key message from the Inbox Analysis

Identifying the predatory journals is important before submissions. Reputed journals are unlikely to send the authors random emails soliciting articles. Several lists are out there in the public domain, which can be used to identify nefarious journals, conferences, and publishers, e.g., Beall’s list, Cabell’s whitelist, Cabell’s blacklist, etc. These lists are regularly updated to keep accommodating the increasing number of predatory journals. As evident from the email analysis, the identifiable characteristics of such journals and conferences should alert the researcher to stay away from such manuscript solicitations. As someone said, “if the words do not add up, it is usually because the truth was not included in the equation.”

About the author

Prof. Mohammad Javed Ali

Prof. Mohammad Javed Ali is an internationally recognized Clinician-Scientist and the current Editor-in-Chief of the journal “Seminars in Ophthalmology.” He heads the Govindram Seksaria Institute of Dacryology at the L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, India. Javed is also the Alumni chair of Ophthalmology at the L.V. Prasad Eye Institute. He is currently the Hong-Leong Professor at NUHS, Singapore, and DAAD Professor of Ophthalmology and Anatomy at the Friedrich-Alexander University, Nuremberg, Germany. He is also the visiting professor at the Wojskowy Instytut Medyczny, Warsaw, Poland. Javed is among the rare recipients of the Senior Alexander Von Humboldt Award and the Indian Nobel – the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize, the highest multidisciplinary scientific award by the Government of India. He described three new diseases of the lacrimal system along with their classifications and clinicopathologic profiles. He was honored by the 2015 ASOPRS “Merill Reeh” Award for pathbreaking work in the understanding of etiopathogenesis of punctal stenosis. He is a section editor for 13 journals, associate editor of Survey of Ophthalmology, has to his credit 487 publications at the time of this writing, and has delivered 330 conference lectures, including 13 keynote addresses. He has conducted 25 instruction courses and 30 live surgical workshops and has been honored by 37 national and international awards including the 2020 American Academy – ASOPRS “Lester T Jones” award for outstanding scientific contributions to the science of Ophthalmic Plastics Surgery.