A cross-sectional study of predatory publishing emails received by career development grant awardees

Tracey A. Wilkinson, Christopher J. Russell, William E. Bennett, Erika R. Cheng, Aaron Carroll

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective To investigate the scope of academic spam emails (ASEs) among career development grant awardees and the factors associated with the amount of time spent addressing them. Design A cross-sectional survey of career development grant investigators via an anonymous online survey was conducted. In addition to demographic and professional information, we asked investigators to report the number of ASEs received each day, how they determined whether these emails were spam and time they spent per day addressing them. We used bivariate analysis to assess factors associated with the amount of time spent on ASEs. Setting An online survey sent via email on three separate occasions between November and December 2016. Participants All National Institutes of Health career development awardees funded in the 2015 fiscal year. Main outcome measures Factors associated with the amount of time spent addressing ASEs. Results A total of 3492 surveys were emailed, of which 206 (5.9%) were returned as undeliverable and 96 (2.7%) reported an out-of-office message; our overall response rate was 22.3% (n=733). All respondents reported receiving ASEs, with the majority (54.4%) receiving between 1 and 10 per day and spending between 1 and 10 min each day evaluating them. The amount of time respondents reported spending on ASEs was associated with the number of peer-reviewed journal articles authored (p<0.001), a history of publishing in open access format (p<0.01), the total number of ASEs received (p<0.001) and a feeling of having missed opportunities due to ignoring these emails (p=0.04). Conclusions ASEs are a common distraction for career development grantees that may impact faculty productivity. There is an urgent need to mitigate this growing problem.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number027928
JournalBMJ Open
Volume9
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 17 2019

Fingerprint

Organized Financing
Cross-Sectional Studies
Research Personnel
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
Emotions
Demography
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Open access publishing
  • predatory journals
  • publishing
  • time management

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

A cross-sectional study of predatory publishing emails received by career development grant awardees. / Wilkinson, Tracey A.; Russell, Christopher J.; Bennett, William E.; Cheng, Erika R.; Carroll, Aaron.

In: BMJ Open, Vol. 9, No. 5, 027928, 17.05.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wilkinson, Tracey A. ; Russell, Christopher J. ; Bennett, William E. ; Cheng, Erika R. ; Carroll, Aaron. / A cross-sectional study of predatory publishing emails received by career development grant awardees. In: BMJ Open. 2019 ; Vol. 9, No. 5.
@article{a84119a59daf4212a86739b5c3e1266d,
title = "A cross-sectional study of predatory publishing emails received by career development grant awardees",
abstract = "Objective To investigate the scope of academic spam emails (ASEs) among career development grant awardees and the factors associated with the amount of time spent addressing them. Design A cross-sectional survey of career development grant investigators via an anonymous online survey was conducted. In addition to demographic and professional information, we asked investigators to report the number of ASEs received each day, how they determined whether these emails were spam and time they spent per day addressing them. We used bivariate analysis to assess factors associated with the amount of time spent on ASEs. Setting An online survey sent via email on three separate occasions between November and December 2016. Participants All National Institutes of Health career development awardees funded in the 2015 fiscal year. Main outcome measures Factors associated with the amount of time spent addressing ASEs. Results A total of 3492 surveys were emailed, of which 206 (5.9{\%}) were returned as undeliverable and 96 (2.7{\%}) reported an out-of-office message; our overall response rate was 22.3{\%} (n=733). All respondents reported receiving ASEs, with the majority (54.4{\%}) receiving between 1 and 10 per day and spending between 1 and 10 min each day evaluating them. The amount of time respondents reported spending on ASEs was associated with the number of peer-reviewed journal articles authored (p<0.001), a history of publishing in open access format (p<0.01), the total number of ASEs received (p<0.001) and a feeling of having missed opportunities due to ignoring these emails (p=0.04). Conclusions ASEs are a common distraction for career development grantees that may impact faculty productivity. There is an urgent need to mitigate this growing problem.",
keywords = "Open access publishing, predatory journals, publishing, time management",
author = "Wilkinson, {Tracey A.} and Russell, {Christopher J.} and Bennett, {William E.} and Cheng, {Erika R.} and Aaron Carroll",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "17",
doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027928",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
journal = "BMJ Open",
issn = "2044-6055",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A cross-sectional study of predatory publishing emails received by career development grant awardees

AU - Wilkinson, Tracey A.

AU - Russell, Christopher J.

AU - Bennett, William E.

AU - Cheng, Erika R.

AU - Carroll, Aaron

PY - 2019/5/17

Y1 - 2019/5/17

N2 - Objective To investigate the scope of academic spam emails (ASEs) among career development grant awardees and the factors associated with the amount of time spent addressing them. Design A cross-sectional survey of career development grant investigators via an anonymous online survey was conducted. In addition to demographic and professional information, we asked investigators to report the number of ASEs received each day, how they determined whether these emails were spam and time they spent per day addressing them. We used bivariate analysis to assess factors associated with the amount of time spent on ASEs. Setting An online survey sent via email on three separate occasions between November and December 2016. Participants All National Institutes of Health career development awardees funded in the 2015 fiscal year. Main outcome measures Factors associated with the amount of time spent addressing ASEs. Results A total of 3492 surveys were emailed, of which 206 (5.9%) were returned as undeliverable and 96 (2.7%) reported an out-of-office message; our overall response rate was 22.3% (n=733). All respondents reported receiving ASEs, with the majority (54.4%) receiving between 1 and 10 per day and spending between 1 and 10 min each day evaluating them. The amount of time respondents reported spending on ASEs was associated with the number of peer-reviewed journal articles authored (p<0.001), a history of publishing in open access format (p<0.01), the total number of ASEs received (p<0.001) and a feeling of having missed opportunities due to ignoring these emails (p=0.04). Conclusions ASEs are a common distraction for career development grantees that may impact faculty productivity. There is an urgent need to mitigate this growing problem.

AB - Objective To investigate the scope of academic spam emails (ASEs) among career development grant awardees and the factors associated with the amount of time spent addressing them. Design A cross-sectional survey of career development grant investigators via an anonymous online survey was conducted. In addition to demographic and professional information, we asked investigators to report the number of ASEs received each day, how they determined whether these emails were spam and time they spent per day addressing them. We used bivariate analysis to assess factors associated with the amount of time spent on ASEs. Setting An online survey sent via email on three separate occasions between November and December 2016. Participants All National Institutes of Health career development awardees funded in the 2015 fiscal year. Main outcome measures Factors associated with the amount of time spent addressing ASEs. Results A total of 3492 surveys were emailed, of which 206 (5.9%) were returned as undeliverable and 96 (2.7%) reported an out-of-office message; our overall response rate was 22.3% (n=733). All respondents reported receiving ASEs, with the majority (54.4%) receiving between 1 and 10 per day and spending between 1 and 10 min each day evaluating them. The amount of time respondents reported spending on ASEs was associated with the number of peer-reviewed journal articles authored (p<0.001), a history of publishing in open access format (p<0.01), the total number of ASEs received (p<0.001) and a feeling of having missed opportunities due to ignoring these emails (p=0.04). Conclusions ASEs are a common distraction for career development grantees that may impact faculty productivity. There is an urgent need to mitigate this growing problem.

KW - Open access publishing

KW - predatory journals

KW - publishing

KW - time management

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065960411&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065960411&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027928

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027928

M3 - Article

C2 - 31110104

AN - SCOPUS:85065960411

VL - 9

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 5

M1 - 027928

ER -