Justin Grant A, Huang Charles, Nguyen Michael K, Lee Jessica, Seddon Ian, Wesley Treven A, Bakri Sophie J, Peter Campbell J, Cavuoto Kara, Collins Megan, Gedde Steven J, Kossler Andrea L, Milman Tatyana, Shukla Aakriti, Sridhar Jayanth, Syed Zeba A, Williams Jr Basil K, Woreta Fasika A, Patel Samir N, Yonekawa Yoshihiro
From the Duke Eye Center (G.A.J.), Duke University Health System, Durham, North Carolina, USA; Department of Surgery (G.A.J.), Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Sidney Kimmel Medical College (C.H., M.K.N., J.L.), Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; Wills Eye Hospital (C.H., M.K.N., J.L., S.N.P., Y.Y.), Mid Atlantic Retina, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Am J Ophthalmol. 2024 Aug;264:216-223. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2024.02.030. Epub 2024 Mar 13.
To evaluate trends associated with email communication from potentially predatory publishers to faculty in ophthalmology.
Cross-sectional study METHODS: Ophthalmologists (n = 14) from various subspecialties and institutions were recruited to participate. Participants identified unsolicited emails that they had received originating from publishers in May 2021. Information collected included details on email contents and publisher organizations. Trends in communications from predatory publishers were evaluated.
Over a 30-day study period, a total of 1813 emails were received from 383 unique publishers and 696 unique journals, with a mean (SD) of 4.73 (2.46) emails received per day per participant. Of the 1813 emails identified, 242 (13%) emails were invitations to conferences, whereas 1440 (80%) were solicitations for article submissions to open-access, pay-to-publish journals. A total of 522 (29.0%) emails were related to ophthalmology, and reference to a prior publication of the participant occurred in 262 emails (14%). Of the 696 unique journals identified, 174 (25%) journals were indexed on PubMed and 426 (61%) were listed on Beall's list. When comparing journals that were listed on PubMed vs those that were not, PubMed indexed journals had a higher impact factor (2.1 vs 1.5, P = .002), were less likely to use "greetings" (76% vs 91%, P < .001), had fewer spelling/grammar errors (40% vs 51%, P = .01), and were less likely to offer rapid publication (16% vs 25%, P = .02).
Unsolicited requests to publish occur frequently and may diminish the quality of the scientific literature. We encourage individuals in ophthalmology to be aware of these trends in predatory publishing.
评估潜在掠夺性出版商与眼科教职人员之间电子邮件通信的相关趋势。
横断面研究
招募了来自不同亚专业和机构的眼科医生（n = 14）参与。参与者识别出他们在2021年5月收到的来自出版商的主动发送的电子邮件。收集的信息包括电子邮件内容和出版商组织的详细信息。对掠夺性出版商的通信趋势进行了评估。
在为期30天的研究期间，共收到来自383个独特出版商和696种独特期刊的1813封电子邮件，每位参与者每天平均收到4.73封（标准差为2.46封）电子邮件。在识别出的1813封电子邮件中，242封（13%）是会议邀请，而1440封（80%）是向开放获取、付费出版期刊提交文章的邀约。共有522封（29.0%）电子邮件与眼科相关，262封（14%）电子邮件提及了参与者之前的出版物。在识别出的696种独特期刊中，174种（25%）期刊被收录在PubMed上，426种（61%）被列入Beall名单。比较在PubMed上列出的期刊和未列出的期刊时，PubMed收录的期刊具有更高的影响因子（2.1对1.5，P = 0.002），使用“问候语”的可能性较小（76%对91%，P < 0.001），拼写/语法错误较少（40%对51%，P = 0.01），提供快速出版的可能性较小（16%对25%，P = 0.02）。
主动要求发表的情况频繁发生，可能会降低科学文献的质量。我们鼓励眼科领域的人员了解掠夺性出版的这些趋势。
