{"title":"来自掠夺性期刊的不请自来的电子邮件：一个早期职业外科实习生的观点。","authors":"Andrew Keane","doi":"10.1016/j.surge.2025.07.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The proliferation of open access (OA) publishing has been accompanied by a rise in unsolicited academic correspondence, often originating from so-called \"predatory\" publishers. Early-career surgeons may be particularly vulnerable to predatory journals due to pressure to publish in order to enter and advance through training. This observational study aims to characterize the nature and volume of unsolicited emails received by a surgical trainee following the publication of a single paper.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All unsolicited emails received by the author between September 10th 2024 and December 31st 2024, were collated and analysed. Emails were assessed for their origin, journal/publisher, structure, requested contribution, relevance and associated Article Processing Charges (APCs). Where emails lacked this information, it was sought from journal and publisher websites. Publication legitimacy was assessed by the journal or publisher's presence on Beall's list of potential predatory journals, inclusion in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 264 emails were received, 227 of which were soliciting journal articles. These represented 109 individual journals, comprising 44 publishers and 10 standalone journals. High levels of flattery (92.95 %) and poor grammar (91.19 %) were noted in the emails. In terms of legitimacy, 87.15 % (n = 95) were on Beall's list whereas 8 (7.3 %) were members of COPE and 2 (1.8 %) listed in DOAJ. APCs were mentioned in 36.56 % of emails and clearly stated in 11.45 %. The mean APC was 2006.18 USD, median APC was 1988.5 USD. Withdrawal fees were charged by 58.7 % (n = 64) of journals with a mean cost of 1039.68 USD and median cost of 680.25 USD. The remaining emails included conference invites (n = 28), editorial board invites (n = 6) and book chapter requests (n = 3).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlights the high volume and typical characteristics of predatory journal solicitations following a single publication. With increasing pressure on surgical trainees to publish, awareness of predatory practices is essential. Transparent vetting tools and guidance from training bodies are needed to safeguard academic standards in surgical training.</p>","PeriodicalId":49463,"journal":{"name":"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unsolicited emails from presumed predatory journals: An early-career surgical trainee's perspective.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Keane\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.surge.2025.07.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The proliferation of open access (OA) publishing has been accompanied by a rise in unsolicited academic correspondence, often originating from so-called \\\"predatory\\\" publishers. Early-career surgeons may be particularly vulnerable to predatory journals due to pressure to publish in order to enter and advance through training. This observational study aims to characterize the nature and volume of unsolicited emails received by a surgical trainee following the publication of a single paper.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All unsolicited emails received by the author between September 10th 2024 and December 31st 2024, were collated and analysed. Emails were assessed for their origin, journal/publisher, structure, requested contribution, relevance and associated Article Processing Charges (APCs). Where emails lacked this information, it was sought from journal and publisher websites. Publication legitimacy was assessed by the journal or publisher's presence on Beall's list of potential predatory journals, inclusion in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 264 emails were received, 227 of which were soliciting journal articles. These represented 109 individual journals, comprising 44 publishers and 10 standalone journals. High levels of flattery (92.95 %) and poor grammar (91.19 %) were noted in the emails. In terms of legitimacy, 87.15 % (n = 95) were on Beall's list whereas 8 (7.3 %) were members of COPE and 2 (1.8 %) listed in DOAJ. APCs were mentioned in 36.56 % of emails and clearly stated in 11.45 %. The mean APC was 2006.18 USD, median APC was 1988.5 USD. Withdrawal fees were charged by 58.7 % (n = 64) of journals with a mean cost of 1039.68 USD and median cost of 680.25 USD. The remaining emails included conference invites (n = 28), editorial board invites (n = 6) and book chapter requests (n = 3).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlights the high volume and typical characteristics of predatory journal solicitations following a single publication. With increasing pressure on surgical trainees to publish, awareness of predatory practices is essential. Transparent vetting tools and guidance from training bodies are needed to safeguard academic standards in surgical training.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2025.07.002\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgeon-Journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2025.07.002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Unsolicited emails from presumed predatory journals: An early-career surgical trainee's perspective.
Background: The proliferation of open access (OA) publishing has been accompanied by a rise in unsolicited academic correspondence, often originating from so-called "predatory" publishers. Early-career surgeons may be particularly vulnerable to predatory journals due to pressure to publish in order to enter and advance through training. This observational study aims to characterize the nature and volume of unsolicited emails received by a surgical trainee following the publication of a single paper.
Methods: All unsolicited emails received by the author between September 10th 2024 and December 31st 2024, were collated and analysed. Emails were assessed for their origin, journal/publisher, structure, requested contribution, relevance and associated Article Processing Charges (APCs). Where emails lacked this information, it was sought from journal and publisher websites. Publication legitimacy was assessed by the journal or publisher's presence on Beall's list of potential predatory journals, inclusion in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Results: A total of 264 emails were received, 227 of which were soliciting journal articles. These represented 109 individual journals, comprising 44 publishers and 10 standalone journals. High levels of flattery (92.95 %) and poor grammar (91.19 %) were noted in the emails. In terms of legitimacy, 87.15 % (n = 95) were on Beall's list whereas 8 (7.3 %) were members of COPE and 2 (1.8 %) listed in DOAJ. APCs were mentioned in 36.56 % of emails and clearly stated in 11.45 %. The mean APC was 2006.18 USD, median APC was 1988.5 USD. Withdrawal fees were charged by 58.7 % (n = 64) of journals with a mean cost of 1039.68 USD and median cost of 680.25 USD. The remaining emails included conference invites (n = 28), editorial board invites (n = 6) and book chapter requests (n = 3).
Conclusion: This study highlights the high volume and typical characteristics of predatory journal solicitations following a single publication. With increasing pressure on surgical trainees to publish, awareness of predatory practices is essential. Transparent vetting tools and guidance from training bodies are needed to safeguard academic standards in surgical training.
期刊介绍：
Since its establishment in 2003, The Surgeon has established itself as one of the leading multidisciplinary surgical titles, both in print and online. The Surgeon is published for the worldwide surgical and dental communities. The goal of the Journal is to achieve wider national and international recognition, through a commitment to excellence in original research. In addition, both Colleges see the Journal as an important educational service, and consequently there is a particular focus on post-graduate development. Much of our educational role will continue to be achieved through publishing expanded review articles by leaders in their field.
Articles in related areas to surgery and dentistry, such as healthcare management and education, are also welcomed. We aim to educate, entertain, give insight into new surgical techniques and technology, and provide a forum for debate and discussion.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
