Predatory Publishers using Spamming Strategies for Call for Papers and Review Requests : A Case Study

Abstract

Spam e-mail and calls from the predatory publishers are very similar in purpose: they are deceptive and produce material losses. Moreover, the predatory publishers show evolving strategies to lure potential victims, as their number increases. In an effort to help researchers defending against their constant menace, this article aims to identify a set of common features of spam e-mail and calls from predatory publishers. The methodology consisted of a comparative analysis of data found on the Internet and e-mails received at several addresses during December 2017 -January 2018. The results indicate that concealed, fake or disguised identity of the sender and/or of the message, mass mailing, missing or useless opt-out option and an obvious commercial character are the most prominent common features. Moreover, the location of predatory publishers is well disguised; the analysis of the real location, found using web-based tools, suggests a joint management or at least a concerted action of several publishers, and raises additional questions related to the reasons of masking the true location. From a theoretical standpoint, the results show, once again, that predatory publishers are a part of the worldwide scam, and should be 'convicted' in a similar way, including the means of legal actions. From a practical perspective, distinct recommendations were phrased for researchers, policy makers, libraries, and future research.

Unexpected Emails to Submit Your Work: Spam or Legitimate Offers? The Implications for Novice English L2 Writers

“…In no instance in our corpus, however, does the email sender's name match with the signatory in the email text. This might indicate an awareness of the importance of remaining anonymous by the senders, as previous research has already noted [11,35].…”

“…Although spam is a recent phenomenon, previous work has already looked into the communicative forms and functions of such emails [11][12][13][14]. Our paper adds to the contribution of these initial studies, complementing the discussion from a sociolinguistic angle.…”

“…As we summarize in Table 2, the level of IT skills of email authors seems undeniable, with a capacity to generate personalized emails beyond the salutation line to potentially a very large number of recipients. Senders sometimes use different servers and generic free email providers (e.g., Yahoo, Hotmail) in addition to employing concealed or fake message senders and signers [11]. Indeed, those emails following letter format conventions are 'signed' in the sense that they feature a name and contact details after the main body text.…”

Peer review under the ethical lens: possible questions

“…Čini se da je 355 godina bilo dovoljno stručnom recenziranju za usavršavanje mehanizama za uklanjanje svih mogućih problema. I pored toga, nedavni pritisak "objaviti ili propasti" (Memon 2018), povezan s transformacijom istraživanja u biznis (Corlan 2005) i posljedični rast publikacija s otvorenim pristupom (Beall 2013; Dizdar 2019), rezultirali su pojavom i širenjem grabežljivih časopisa (Petrişor 2016(Petrişor , 2018. Napori da ih se razazna od legitimnih časopisa te eksperimenti poput Bohannonove "zamke" (2013), pokazuju da čak i legitimni časopisi možda neće moći kontrolirati naučnu kvalitetu pomoću stručnog recenziranja, što je izazvalo zabrinutost, pozivajući na ponovno postavljanje pitanja koje je ponavljano više od desetljeća, barem izravno s naslovom članka (Mulli-2005) or a section of an article (Baldwin 2017) and indirectly by others (Kangas and Hujala 2015), i.e., Is peer review in crisis?…”

“…For the authors at the beginning of their career or from countries unfamiliar with the process, such arguments are not helpful. Moreover, it is very likely that the rejection due to language reasons favored the predatory journals (Soler and Cooper 2019), and even their transformation of predatory publishers into proofreading services (Petrişor 2017). At the same time, the assessment of the revised manuscript by a reviewer asks for the decision whether to consider it as a new article, assess whether the initial comments were properly and fully addressed, or a combination of the two (Lovejoy et al 2011).…”