Abstract
INTRODUCTION Open access (OA) journals have proliferated in recent years. Many journals are highly reputable, delivering on the promise of open access to research as an alternative to traditional, subscription-based journals. Yet some OA journals border on, or clearly fall within, the realm of so-called “predatory journals.” Most discussion of such journals has focused on the quality of articles published within them. Considerably less attention has been paid to the marketing practices of predatory journals—primarily their mass e-mailing—and to the impact that this practice may have on recipients’ perception of OA journals as a whole. METHODS This study analyzed a subset of the 1,816 e-mails received by a single university biology faculty member during a 24-month period (2015 and 2016) with an update from December 2017 and January 2018. RESULTS Of those e-mails sent in 2015, approximately 37% were copies or near-copies of previous e-mail messages sent to the recipient, less than 25% of e-mails from predatory journals mentioned publication fees, only about 30% of soliciting journals were listed in DOAJ, and only about 4% had an identifiable impact factor. While most e-mails indicated a purported familiarity with, and respect for, the recipient, more than two thirds of the e-mails did not, implying use of mass-e-mailing methodologies. Almost 80% of the e-mail solicitations had grammar and/or spelling mistakes. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, only a staggeringly small 4% of e-mails were judged highly relevant to the recipient’s area of expertise. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION In light of the marketing practices of many predatory journals, we advocate specific instructions for librarians, faculty mentors, and administrators of legitimate OA journals as they interact with new researchers, junior faculty, and other professionals learning how to discern the quality of journals that send direct e-mail solicitations.
Highlights
Open access (OA) journals have proliferated in recent years
Open access (OA) journals have proliferated at a breathtaking rate over the last several years
E-mail messages sent to the first author of this paper, a biology professor inviting him to submit a manuscript to a journal and/or join an editorial board were preserved and analyzed according to criteria described in the Evaluation Criteria section below
Summary
Open access (OA) journals have proliferated in recent years. Many journals are highly reputable, delivering on the promise of open access to research as an alternative to traditional, subscriptionbased journals. Open access (OA) journals have proliferated at a breathtaking rate over the last several years Many of these journals are highly reputable and have delivered on the promise of providing OA to research as an alternative to subscription-based journals. Large numbers are bordering on, if not clearly within, the domain of lower-quality journals that solicit manuscripts, sometimes with a false sense of urgency, through e-mail solicitations, collect article-processing charges (APCs) and publish the manuscripts without proper (or any) peer review. These are perhaps the most salient features of what are commonly referred to as “predatory journals” These are perhaps the most salient features of what are commonly referred to as “predatory journals” (K. Anderson, 2012; R. Anderson, 2015; Beall, 2016b; Berger & Cirasella, 2015; Hansoti, Langdorf, & Murphy, 2016; Sorokowski, Kulczycki, Sorokowska, & Pisanski, 2017; Stratford, 2012), though the appropriateness of this term has 2 | eP2246
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
