An Analysis of Spam from Predatory Publications in Library and Information Science

An Analysis of Spam from Predatory Publications in Library and Information Science Brady D. Lund and Ting Wang Lund, B. D., & Wang, T. (2020). An analysis of spam from predatory publications in library and information science. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 52(1), 35-45. Abstract Predatory journal publications pose a significant threat to the quality of scholarly publications across disciplines, including in library and information science. These publications have been known to disproportionately target researchers in developing countries and for whom English is not their primary language and threaten the legitimacy of researchers who often already face an uphill battle to establish a name for themselves within their field of study. Given a lack of knowledge about what predatory publications target researchers in library and information science and the nature of how they target them through spam invitations, this research serves as a partial replication of Clemons and colleagues’ 2017 study of predatory publication invitations, with the focus shifted to researchers in ontology to those in library and information science. Spam invitations received by two researchers from predatory publications over a six-week period (n = 98) were analyzed. Reported in the findings of this preliminary study are the predatory publishers from whom the most spam invitations were received as well as the occurrence of specific problematic elements within the content of these spam invitations. Future directions for further study are discussed. Keywords: Predatory Publishers; Scholarly Publishing; Research Quality; Library and Information Science Brady D. Lund is a doctoral student at Emporia State University’s School of Library and Information Management. He has published dozens of articles in NON-predatory library and information science publications. He can be reached at [email protected]. Ting Wang is a doctoral student at Emporia State University’s School of Library and Information Management. Her work can be found in several top library and information science publications, particularly in the area of medical librarianship. She can be reached at [email protected]. Predatory publications, defined by Seadle in 2018 as any publication ‘that takes money from authors (usually via an APC [article processing charge]) and publishes without any serious peer review process,’ 1 pose a significant threat to the quality and integrity of scholarly research and researchers. Researchers are tricked or incentivized into publishing in these journals by the ‘publish or perish’ pressures of the modern academy, while research of questionable quality or significance is pushed into the scholarly arena through indexes like Google Scholar. The extent to which the discipline of library and information science is affected by predatory publications is not well understood presently, though librarians like Jeffrey Beall have traditionally taken a leading role in identifying and warning about predatory publications in other disciplines. Following the methods of prior studies of predatory publications in medical and natural science fields by Mark Clemons and colleagues, this study examines the infiltration of predatory publication invitations in library and information science through email solicitations received by two researchers in the discipline, with major features of these emails measured. Literature Review According to Perlin, Imasato, and Borenstein, in a 2018 study of the effect of predatory publishers on research in Brazil, predatory publications represent a small, but exponentially growing, proportion of overall research publications. 2 In a 2018 panel presentation at the Association for Information Science and Technology conference, predatory journals were identified as a point of concern within information science research publishing. 3 Predatory publications are also found to heavily target researchers in developing countries, where financial resources are often already scarce and researchers often battle uphill to establish a name for themselves on the global stage of their academic fields. 4 A 2017 study by Derek Pyne suggested that most faculty at his small Canadian business school had published in a predatory journal. 5 Surprisingly, publishing in predatory journals was found to relate to increased compensation and prestige for the faculty. Generally, however, predatory publications have a negative effect for the researchers as well as the field within which they publish. Predatory publications may undermine the credibility of a research field and can lead to unsubstantiated and potentially harmful information seeping into medical and engineering professions. 6 These publications may also be unfairly used by faculty, or applicants to faculty positions, to inflate their CVs, resulting in undeserved hirings, promotions, and financial benefits, while those who create rigorous work that has undergone quality, but time-consuming, peer review are left disadvantaged. 7 Beall’s list was a well-known list of predatory open-access publishers developed by Jeffrey Beall, a librarian of the University of Colorado, in 2008. By mid-2010, the list had gained considerable interest among researchers. Following the growth of popularity in the list, many of the predatory publishers on the list threatened to file a libel suit against Beall and lodged official complaints against the University of Colorado. 8 Beall deactivated the list in 2017 (available in the Internet Archive). Similar lists have been created since then, such as an anonymous group at Stop Predatory Journals, and a blacklist and a whitelist for subscription provided by Cabell’s International. Beall used varied sets of criteria before adding a publisher or journal into his list, including two or more journals have duplicate editorial boards, little geographical diversity on the editorial board (especially journals claim to be international scope), inconsistency between the name and mission of the journal, and the like. Subsequent lists have inherited and expanded Beall’s criteria, such as targeting academics through mass spam in an attempt to get them to publish papers or serve on editorial boards, accept low-quality papers quickly (including hoax papers), and fraudulent or improper use of ISSN. 9 Nonetheless, most of these indexes of predatory journals are, by no means, complete and researchers, particularly those early in their careers who may not be aware of the top journals in their fields, are left at risk. Clemons et al., in 2017, analyzed the content of 191 predatory journals invitations received by a medical researcher, reporting, among other findings, that 35% had flawed grammatical content, 65% were from a journal in an area unrelated to the researcher’s field of study (oncology), 57% included the ability to unsubscribe from receiving emails, and 44% mentioned a peer review process in their emails. 10 Though only 8% of journals reported an article submission or processing charge, all required a fee be paid, with the average amount being $983. Subsequently, several researchers from fields within the natural and medical sciences have performed variations of the Clemons study, finding similar concerning results. 11 The researchers in the Clemons study suggest that the fundamental problem caused by predatory invitations is that they waste the time of researchers who must sort through these spam messages, however the researchers in this present study understand from experiences of colleagues that predatory journals may have any even more deleterious effect on one’s career than simply a loss of time and productivity. As library and information science (LIS) professionals and researchers, it is necessary that efforts to understand the nature of these predatory invitations and journals be made so that colleagues and individuals we serve do not fall prey to the unethical and harmful practices of these publications. Methods The methods for this preliminary study are informed by the work of Clemons et al. 12 In this study a group of physicians and medical researchers utilized a cross-sectional case study design to analyze emails received over a three-month period from predatory publishers/organizations by a single researcher to his professional (university) email. In the Clemons study, 300 predatory invitations to publish in a journal or present at a conference were received by the researcher. The journal invitations (n = 191) were analyzed by the members of the research team. In this study, invitations sent by predatory journals over a six-week period in JanuaryFebruary, 2020 to two doctoral students/research in a U.S.-based library and information science program at their university emails were collected for analysis (n=98). Table 1 presents the list of the journals in which one or both researchers’ work has been published. As most predatory invitations originate from the predatory journal identifying researchers’ publications in legitimate journals, it is important that the researchers’ work represent a broad range of LIS publications (and only LIS publications) in order to be representative of spam received by researchers in this discipline. This table demonstrates that this is the case with the two researchers in this study. These 20 journals account for a total of 24 publications, six of which were co-authored by the two researchers, and all but three of which (one of two Information Technology and Libraries articles, one of two in Journal of Library Administration, and one in International Information and Library Review) has one of the two researchers as the lead author. Table 1. LIS Journals in Which the Researchers have Published Library and Information Science Research, Journal of the Medical Library Association, Journal of Library Administration, Knowledge Organization, Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, Education for Information, Technical Services Quarterly, Information Technology and Libraries, IFLA Journal, Scientometrics, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Public Services Quarterly, Information and Learning Sciences, American Archivist, Journal of Web Librarianship, Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet, Library Journal, Public Library Quarterly, International Information and Library Review, Journal of Documentation, Library Quarterly The information collected from the predatory emails in the analysis are displayed in Table 2. Many of these categories of information are similar to those in the Clemons et al. study, however, several others were developed to reflect trends that the two researchers in the present study noticed in their data (e.g., the assumption that they had earned doctorates in prefacing emails, ‘Dear Dr...,’ and the use of ‘journal’ websites with clear WordPress branding). One trend particularly is how the researcher’s name is written in the email. It was evident to the researchers that some journals simply copy the researchers’ name from the journal’s website (e.g., ‘Dear Smith, John D. J. D., I am writing...’) and others may take the time to write the name as a legitimate journal might do when soliciting article proposals (e.g., ‘Dear John Smith,’ or ‘Dear Mr. Smith.’). Table 2. Information Collected About Predatory Invitations Category Description/Examples Publisher ‘International Science Society of the World’ Overly formal greeting ‘Greetings most honorable professor…’ Assumption of completed doctorate ‘Dear Dr. (researcher's name)…’ How researcher's name is cited Last, First Initial Middle Initial; Last, First; First Last; First Middle Last Flattery used ‘We are pleased to say that one of our editors recommended your most excellent work…’ Grammatical flaws? ‘If you do not intend to receive your emails, please reply unsubscribe’ Citation of the recipient's actual work included in invitation? ‘We have read with great interest your study, (researcher's study)’ Invitation from journal relevant to LIS? ‘Journal of International Library and Information Science Research’ or ‘Journal of Nutrition and Diet’? Does Invitation include unsubscribe option? ‘If you wish to stop receiving these emails, you can opt out by sending a reply email with subject “UNSUBSCRIBE” and we assure you will not receive any such mails.’ Is Journal editor's name provided in email? ‘John Smith’ OR just ‘Editor-in-Chief’ Does Inviter provide full contact information? NAME; Organization; Address; City, State/Country; Email; Phone Does journal's name indicate a global context? ‘International Journal of Engineering Research and Development (IJERD)’ Was peer review process mentioned? ‘… is an open access peer-reviewed journal…’ Was an APC cited in email? ‘To support our open access, we do require that accept manuscript authors pay a nominal article processing charge.’ Functioning Website (YES or NO) What amount for APC (USD)? From email or website $1395 Is Impact Factor of Journal listed? International Journal of Computer Engineering - Impact Factor 3.712 Is invitation emailed directly to recipient, or part of a mass mailing? to: (researcher's email ONLY) OR to: (many researchers) OR BCC: (researcher's email) Each of the 98 predatory journal invitations received by the researchers was analyzed separately by each researcher. After both researchers had analyzed the emails based on the criteria in Table 2, the lists were compared for agreement. In the few cases were disagreement existed, the researchers referred back to the email together and decided between them how it should be categorized. Analyses for this preliminary study are report as frequencies and percentages. Displayed in the following section are the percentages of yes responses for the items in Table 2 and a table to display the various ways in which the author/s names were cited in the email. Results . In total, 61 unique publishers sent at least one spam message over the six-week period. In addition to these 98 journal solicitations by 61 publishers, 42 conference presentation solicitations received over the same period. These presentation solicitations are not the focus of this paper but are an equally problematic facet of the scholarly community that requires further attention. Table 3 displays the percentage of predatory invitations that included each element from Table 2 (‘details collected for analysis of predatory journals,’ modified from Clemons et al., 2017, p. 237). Comparatively, there was a significantly large percentage of invitations identified by the researchers in this study as having problematic grammar. Most common among these grammatical errors was verb tense, article-noun agreement, and subject-verb agreement, such as in the phrases ‘We would like to invite you to contribute a unpublished Research articles for publication,’ and ‘it will be great if you making your submission soon.’ Like with the Clemons study, many of the invitations received by the researchers were not actually relevant to their field of study (library and information science). The most common fields from which invitations were received were neurology, diet science, immunology, nanotechnology, and chemistry. The average APC for the predatory publications was $705, with a minimum of $75 and a maximum of $1750. Comparatively, in the Clemons et al. (2017) study, the average APC was $983. 22 of the 98 journals in this study offered sliding-scale APC, designed to target researchers in developing countries by offering ‘special reduced rates.’ Table 3. Percentage of Predatory Invitations that Included Each Element Category Percent ‘YES’ Overly Formal Greeting 50% Assumption of Completed Doctorate 53% Flattery Used 50% Grammatical Flaws 80% Citation of the Recipient’s Actual Work 34% Journal Relevant to LIS 28% Invitation Include Unsubscribe Option 38% Journal Editor’s Name Provided 65% Editor’s Contact Info Provided 22% Journal Indicate Global Context 65% Peer Review Process Mentioned 46% APC Cited in Email 6% Functioning Website 91% Wordpress/Wix/etc. Website 26% Impact Factor Listed in Email 17% Invitation Sent Directly to Researcher 64% Average Amount for Article Processing Charge $705 USD One of the clearest ways to identify a spam predatory invitation email was to examine how the researcher’s name was addressed in the very first line. Common professional decorum would suggest that using one’s first and last name (or just last name) preceded by a person’s title is appropriate. However, it was evident that many of these predatory publishers simply copied one of the researcher’s name directly from a publication without any editing. As such, many emails were addressed as (e.g.) ‘Dear Smith, John D.,’ or ‘Dear Smith JD,’ or ‘Dear Smith, John