ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2016
We read spam a lot: prospective cohort study of unsolicited and unwanted academic invitations.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The burden of unwanted e-mails in academic surgery: a cross-sectional study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
- Predatory conferences: a systematic scoping review.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Review
- Invitations received from potential predatory publishers and fraudulent conferences: a 12-month early-career researcher experience.Postgraduate medical journal · 2018Article
- Improving email strategies to target stress and productivity in clinical practice.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2017Article
- Predatory conferences in biomedical streams: An invitation for academic upliftment or predator's looking for prey.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaReview
- Academic E-Mail Overload and the Burden of "Academic Spam".Academic pathologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the amount, relevance, content, and suppressibility of academic electronic spam invitations to attend conferences or submit manuscripts.
designProspective cohort study.
settingEmail accounts of participating academics.
participantsFive intrepid academics and a great many publishers, editors, and conference organisers.
interventionUnsubscribing from sender's distribution lists.
main outcome measuresNumber of spam invitations received before, immediately after, and one year after unsubscribing from senders' distribution lists. The proportion of duplicate invitations was also assessed and the relevance of each invitation graded to the recipient's research interests. A qualitative assessment of the content of spam invitations was conducted.
resultsAt baseline, recipients received an average of 312 spam invitations each month. Unsubscribing reduced the frequency of the invitations by 39% after one month but by only 19% after one year. Overall, 16% of spam invitations were duplicates and 83% had little or no relevance to the recipients' research interests. Spam invitations were characterised by inventive language, flattery, and exuberance, and they were sometimes baffling and amusing.
conclusionsAcademic spam is common, repetitive, often irrelevant, and difficult to avoid or prevent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.