An analysis of invitations for article submission received via emails

Abstract

Predatory journals charge publication fees from authors and publish without an adequate peer review, and often do not provide editorial and/or publishing services. Our objective was to evaluate e-mail solicitations received by authors in a defined time period to identify attributes of these solicitations as a metric to identify legitimacy of the journal. All e-mails seeking article submission received between January 1 and September 30, 2019, were evaluated. Each e-mail along with its respective webpage was evaluated for the journal's and publisher's names, mention of peer review, any assurance of publication, a mention of article processing charges (APC), composite invites [in the e-mail] and mention of peer review, the presence and functionality of archives, presence of manuscript management tab, mention of APC [on the webpage]. Descriptive statistics were used for the analysis. Of the 135 e-mails screened, 100 were finally included in the analysis. We found that 72% of the journals and/ or publishers were included in Beall's list. According to our criteria, a total of 85% of the solicitations were from journals that we identified as "presumed predatory". Our study has identified assurance of publication, rapid turnaround time, ambiguous information in the email and webpage, false claims of indexing as some descriptors which may help young authors and researchers assess a journal's legitimacy.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.