Predatory publishing solicitation: A review of a single surgeon's inbox and implications for information technology resources at an organizational level

20Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Over a 6-month period, roughly one-third of emails received in a single surgeon's email inbox were predatory in nature (i.e., soliciting material for nonexistent journals or conferences). While existing databases (e.g., Beall's list and The CalTech Library list of questionable conferences) catalogue many fraudulent senders, the list is ever-expanding. The overall cost to health care organizations in terms of wasted bandwidth and financial diversion is extensive, as is confusion for trainees and colleagues. For the sake of fiscal responsibility and the maintenance of scholarly standards, it is incumbent upon organizational information technology departments to continually refine strategies to reduce this adverse impact.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

McKenzie, M., Nickerson, D., & Ball, C. G. (2021). Predatory publishing solicitation: A review of a single surgeon’s inbox and implications for information technology resources at an organizational level. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 64(3), E351–E357. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.003020

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free