Unsolicited emails from presumed predatory journals: An early-career surgical trainee's perspective

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.

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).

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).

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.