Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Aug 4:13:180.
doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0423-3.

You are invited to submit…

Affiliations

You are invited to submit…

David Moher et al. BMC Med. .

Abstract

The academic community is under great pressure to publish. This pressure is compounded by high rejection rates at many journals. A more recent trend is for some journals to send invitations directly to researchers inviting them to submit a manuscript to their journals. Many researchers find these invitations annoying and unsure how best to respond to them. We collected electronic invitations to submit a manuscript to a journal between April 1, 2014, and March 31, 2015. We analyzed their content and cross-tabulated them against journals listed in Beall's list of potential predatory journals. During this time period, 311 invitations were received for 204 journals, the majority of which were in Beall's list (n = 244; 79%). The invitations came throughout the calendar year and some journals sent up to six invitations. The majority of journals claimed to provide peer review (n = 179; 57.6%) although no mention was made of expedited review process. Similarly, more than half of the journals claimed to be open access (n = 186; 59.8%). The majority of invitations included an unsubscribe link (n = 187; 60.1%). About half of the invitations came from biomedical journals (n = 179). We discuss strategies researchers and institutions can consider to reduce the number of invitations received and strategies to handle those invitations that make it to the recipients' inbox, thus helping to maintain the credibility and reputation of researchers and institutions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Histogram of invitations by month

References

    1. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383:267–76. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Collins FS, Tabak LA. Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature. 2014;505:612–3. doi: 10.1038/505612a. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Begley CG, Ioannidis JPA. Reproducibility in science: improving the standard for basic and pre-clinical research. Circ Res. 2015;116:116–26. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303819. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kleinert S, Horton R. How should medical science change? Lancet. 2014;383:197–8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62678-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, Turner L, Barbour V, Burch R, et al. Comparison of characteristics potential predatory journals with subscription and open access journals. A cross sectional study. REWARD EQUATOR Conference, Edinburgh. September 28–30, 2015.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources