ReviewAcademic pathology
Academic E-Mail Overload and the Burden of "Academic Spam".
Review in Academic pathology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physicians' and Pharmacists' Awareness, Exposure, and Perception Regarding Predatory Solicitations at a Mother-Child Teaching Hospital.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2026Article
- Unsolicited Email and Predatory Solicitations: A Retrospective Case Study of a Canadian Hospital Pharmacist and the Tip of a Larger Iceberg.The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy · 2026Article
- The burden of unwanted e-mails in academic surgery: a cross-sectional study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
- Email invitations to publish: Academically sound (such as SAFP) versus potentially predatory journals.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2024Article
- Practical Strategies to Retain Radiologists.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2024Article
- Referring patients with suspected lung cancer: a qualitative study with primary healthcare professionals in Ireland.Health promotion international · 2022Article
- Thinking Outside the Inbox: Use of Slack in Clinical Groups as a Collaborative Team Communication Platform.AEM education and training · 2021Article
- Periodic Refresher Emails for Emergency Department Mass Casualty Incident Plans.Journal of education & teaching in emergency medicine · 2020Article
- Paying to publish: A cross-sectional analysis of article processing charges and journal characteristics among 87 pathology journals.Academic pathologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article presents an editorial perspective on the challenges associated with e-mail management for academic physicians. We include 2-week analysis of our own e-mails as illustrations of the e-mail volume and content. We discuss the contributors to high e-mail volumes, focusing especially on unsolicited e-mails from medical/scientific conferences and open-access journals (sometimes termed "academic spam emails"), as these e-mails comprise a significant volume and are targeted to physicians and scientists. Our 2-person sample is consistent with studies showing that journals that use mass e-mail advertising have low rates of inclusion in recognized journal databases/resources. Strategies for managing e-mail are discussed and include unsubscribing, blocking senders or domains, filtering e-mails, managing one's inbox, limiting e-mail access, and e-mail etiquette. Academic institutions should focus on decreasing the volume of unsolicited e-mails, fostering tools to manage e-mail overload, and educating physicians including trainees about e-mail practices, predatory journals, and scholarly database/resources.
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.