Dataset Information

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.

SUBMITTER: Wilkinson TA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6530445 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Wilkinson Tracey A TA Russell Christopher J CJ Bennett William E WE Cheng Erika R ER Carroll Aaron E AE

BMJ open 20190519 5

<h4>Objective</h4>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.<h4>Design</h4>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 ti ...[more]

PMID: 31110104

Similar Datasets

Project description:We aimed to develop an in-depth understanding of quality criteria for scholarly journals by analyzing journals and publishers indexed in blacklists of predatory journals and whitelists of legitimate journals and the lists' inclusion criteria. To quantify content overlaps between blacklists and whitelists, we employed the Jaro-Winkler string metric. To identify topics addressed by the lists' inclusion criteria and to derive their concepts, we conducted qualitative coding. We included two blacklists (Beall's and Cabells Scholarly Analytics') and two whitelists (the Directory of Open Access Journals' and Cabells Scholarly Analytics'). The number of journals per list ranged from 1,404 to 12,357, and the number of publishers ranged from 473 to 5,638. Seventy-two journals and 42 publishers were included in both a blacklist and a whitelist. Seven themes were identified in the inclusion criteria: (i) peer review; (ii) editorial services; (iii) policy; (iv) business practices; (v) publishing, archiving, and access; (vi) website; and (vii) indexing and metrics. Business practices accounted for almost half of the blacklists' criteria, whereas whitelists gave more emphasis to criteria related to policy. Criteria could be allocated to four concepts: (i) transparency, (ii) ethics, (iii) professional standards, and (iv) peer review and other services. Whitelists gave most weight to transparency. Blacklists focused on ethics and professional standards. Whitelist criteria were easier to verify than those used in blacklists. Both types gave little emphasis to quality of peer review. Overall, the results show that there is overlap of journals and publishers between blacklists and whitelists. Lists differ in their criteria for quality and the weight given to different dimensions of quality. Aspects that are central but difficult to verify receive little attention.IMPORTANCE Predatory journals are spurious scientific outlets that charge fees for editorial and publishing services that they do not provide. Their lack of quality assurance of published articles increases the risk that unreliable research is published and thus jeopardizes the integrity and credibility of research as a whole. There is increasing awareness of the risks associated with predatory publishing, but efforts to address this situation are hampered by the lack of a clear definition of predatory outlets. Blacklists of predatory journals and whitelists of legitimate journals have been developed but not comprehensively examined. By systematically analyzing these lists, this study provides insights into their utility and delineates the different notions of quality and legitimacy in scholarly publishing used. This study contributes to a better understanding of the relevant concepts and provides a starting point for the development of a robust definition of predatory journals.

Project description:IntroductionAs part of the Harbnger-2 project, this study aimed to discover the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on junior researchers' work-life, career prospects, research and publishing practices and networking.MethodsAn online international survey of 800 early career researchers (ECRs) was conducted in 2022. A questionnaire was developed based on three rounds of interviews and distributed using multiple channels including publishers, social media, and direct email to ECRs.ResultsThe impact of the pandemic on career prospects, morale, job security, productivity, ability to network and collaborate, and quality and speed of peer review has on the whole been more negative than positive. A quarter of ECRs shifted their research focus to pandemic-related topics and half of those who did, benefited largely due to increased productivity and impact. The majority worked remotely/from home and more than two-thirds of those who did so benefitted from it. While virtual or hybrid conferences have been embraced by the majority of ECRs, around a third still preferred face-to-face only conferences. The use of library online platforms, Sci-Hub, ResearchGate, Google Scholar and smartphone to search and access full-text papers increased. ECRs prioritised journals with fast submission procedures for the publishing of their papers and spent more time on increasing the visibility of their research. Fees were a problem for publishing open access.ConclusionAlthough, generally, the pandemic negatively impacted many aspects of ECRs' work-life, certain research areas and individuals benefited from being more appreciated and valued, and, in some cases, resulted in increased resources, better productivity and greater impact. Changes, such as the use of digital technologies and remote working created new opportunities for some ECRs. While continuing work flexibility and hybrid conferences might benefit some ECRs, institutions should also take measures to help those ECRs whose career and productivity have been adversely impacted.

Project description:ImportanceInvesting in the next generation of researchers is essential, as recently highlighted in the 21st Century Cures Act. From its inception, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) has supported training and career development to ensure a robust pipeline of investigators who are prepared to lead their respective fields of inquiry. In recent years, the NICHD has emphasized institutional over individual training awards to a greater degree than many other National Institutes of Health institutes of similar size.ObjectiveTo evaluate the success of individuals supported by NICHD career development and training awards, as measured by subsequent application and receipt of independent National Institutes of Health research project grant funding.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study identified 417 physician-scholars who were supported by NICHD career development awards between October 1, 1999, and September 30, 2001. This period was selected to allow adequate follow-up of research project grant applications and funding. Among these physician-scholars, 355 met inclusion criteria.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were the numbers of research project grant applications submitted and, of these, the numbers that were successfully funded.ResultsAmong 355 physician-scientists, scholars who had an MD degree only and received a K award or both an individual K award and institutional K12 support were more likely than those who received only K12 support (individual K only vs institutional K12 only: odds ratio [OR], 4.86; 95% CI, 1.83-13.62; both K and K12 vs K12 only: OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.46-7.10) to apply for subsequent project grant funding (88.0% vs 82.8% vs 60.1%, respectively; P < .001) and to receive it (60.0% vs 60.9% vs 32.9%, respectively; P < .001). For physicians with both MD and PhD degrees, neither application nor funding rates were statistically significantly different whether their career development was supported by individual or institutional awards.Conclusions and relevancePhysician-scholars are more likely to apply for and receive a National Institutes of Health research grant if they are trained on an individual career development award, with or without an institutional training award. Based on the data, the NICHD intends to provide a greater proportion of its career development fund allocation to individual awards. The NICHD recognizes the importance of institutional awards and will continue to support them. The NICHD remains committed to training and intends to maintain its investment in training and career development awards going forward.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To develop effective interventions to prevent publishing in presumed predatory journals (ie, journals that display deceptive characteristics, markers or data that cannot be verified), it is helpful to understand the motivations and experiences of those who have published in these journals. DESIGN:An online survey delivered to two sets of corresponding authors containing demographic information, and questions about researchers' perceptions of publishing in the presumed predatory journal, type of article processing fees paid and the quality of peer review received. The survey also asked six open-ended items about researchers' motivations and experiences. PARTICIPANTS:Using Beall's lists, we identified two groups of individuals who had published empirical articles in biomedical journals that were presumed to be predatory. RESULTS:Eighty-two authors partially responded (~14%?response rate (11.4%[44/386] from the initial sample, 19.3%[38/197] from second sample) to our survey. The top three countries represented were India (n=21, 25.9%), USA (n=17, 21.0%) and Ethiopia (n=5, 6.2%). Three participants (3.9%) thought the journal they published in was predatory at the time of article submission. The majority of participants first encountered the journal via an email invitation to submit an article (n=32, 41.0%), or through an online search to find a journal with relevant scope (n=22, 28.2%). Most participants indicated their study received peer review (n=65, 83.3%) and that this was helpful and substantive (n=51, 79.7%). More than a third (n=32, 45.1%) indicated they did not pay fees to publish. CONCLUSIONS:This work provides some evidence to inform policy to prevent future research from being published in predatory journals. Our research suggests that common views about predatory journals (eg, no peer review) may not always be true, and that a grey zone between legitimate and presumed predatory journals exists. These results are based on self-reports and may be biased thus limiting their interpretation.

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the financial costs paid by individual medical researchers from meeting the article processing charges (APCs) levied by open access journals in 2019.DesignCross-sectional analysis.Data sourcesScopus was used to generate two random samples of researchers, the first with a senior author article indexed in the 'Medicine' subject area (general researchers) and the second with an article published in the ten highest-impact factor general clinical medicine journals (high-impact researchers) in 2019. For each researcher, Scopus was used to identify all first and senior author original research or review articles published in 2019. Data were obtained from Scopus, institutional profiles, Journal Citation Reports, publisher databases, the Directory of Open Access Journals, and individual journal websites.Main outcome measuresMedian APCs paid by general and high-impact researchers for all first and senior author research and review articles published in 2019.ResultsThere were 241 general and 246 high-impact researchers identified as eligible for our study. In 2019, the general and high-impact researchers published a total of 914 (median 2, IQR 1-5) and 1471 (4, 2-8) first or senior author research or review articles, respectively. 42% (384/914) of the articles from the general researchers and 29% (428/1471) of the articles from the high-impact medical researchers were published in fully open access journals. The median total APCs paid by general researchers in 2019 was US$191 (US$0-US$2500) and the median total paid by high-impact researchers was US$2900 (US$0-US$5465); the maximum paid by a single researcher in total APCs was US$30115 and US$34676, respectively.ConclusionsMedical researchers in 2019 were found to have paid between US$0 and US$34676 in total APCs. As journals with APCs become more common, it is important to continue to evaluate the potential cost to researchers, especially on individuals who may not have the funding or institutional resources to cover these costs.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets