Open-access publishing promotes accessibility to scholarly research at no cost to the reader. The emergence of predatory publishers, which exploit the author-pay model by charging substantial publication fees for publication in journals with questionable publishing processes, is on the rise. Authors are solicited through aggressive marketing tactics, though who is targeted is not well described. The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics associated with critical care pharmacists that make them targets of unsolicited invitations to publish. A prospective, observational study of critical care pharmacists was performed. Participants archived emails received by their professional email that were unsolicited invitations to submit their original work for publication in a journal (unsolicited journals). Variables were evaluated to determine which were associated with unsolicited invitations; these were compared to legitimate journals, defined as all PubMed-indexed journals in which the participants were previously published. Twenty-three pharmacist participants were included, all of whom were residency and/or fellowship trained and practicing in an academic medical center. Participants had a median of 7 years of experience since their post-graduate training, 6 years since their last change in professional email address, and 2 years since their first PubMed-indexed publication. From these participants, 136 unsolicited and 59 legitimate journals were included. The average number of invitations increased 1.04 (95% CI, 1.02–1.05) times for every additional PubMed-indexed publication (P < .001). Most unsolicited journals were considered predatory. Legitimate and unsolicited journals differed significantly. The number of previous PubMed-indexed publications strongly correlates with the likelihood of critical care pharmacists receiving unsolicited publication invitations, often from predatory journal.

1. Bowman, JD . Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. Am J Pharmaceut Educ. 2014;78(10):176.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline2. Seber, P . Open access overview (definition, introduction). https://legacy.earlham.edu/∼peters/fos/overview.htm. https://legacy.earlham.edu/∼peters/fos/overview.htm Accessed February 21, 2019.
Google Scholar3. Beall, J . Pharmacy research and predatory journals: Authors beware. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2016;73(19):1548-1550.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline4. Beall, J . Medical publishing triage - Chronicling predatory open access publishers. Ann Med Surg. 2013;2(2):47-49.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline5. Gonzalez, J, Bridgeman, MB, Hermes-DeSantis, ER. Differentiating predatory scholarship: best practices in scholarly publication. Int J Pharm Pract. 2018;26(1):73-76.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline6. Cortegiani, A, Sanfilippo, F, Tramarin, J, Giarratano, A. Predatory open-access publishing in critical care medicine. J Crit Care. 2019;50:247-249.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline7. Beall, J . Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. 2012;489:179.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI8. Greenblatt, DJ, Bertino, JS. Opportunistic journals in the clinical pharmacology space. J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;58(5):567-571.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline9. Tsuyuki, RT, Al Hamarneh, YN, Bermingham, M, Duong, E, Okada, H, Beall, J. Predatory publishers: implications for pharmacy practice and practitioners. Can Pharm J. 2017;150(5):274-275.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals10. Shamseer, L, Moher, D, Maduekwe, O, et al. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):28.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline11. Grudniewicz, A, Moher, D, Cobey, KD, et al. Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature. 209;57:201-212.
Google Scholar12. National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine . List of All Journals Cited in PubMed. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/serfile_addedinfo.html Accessed January 22, 2019.
Google Scholar13. Journal Citations Report Database. https://www.mcw.edu/Libraries/Resources/Databases.htm Accessed January 22, 2019.
Google Scholar14. Bolshete, P . Analysis of thirteen predatory publishers: a trap for eager-to-publish researchers. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018;34(1):157-162.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline15. Oermann, MH, Conklin, JL, Nicoll, LH, et al. Study of predatory open access nursing journals. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2016;48(6):624-632.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI16. Kokol, P, Završnik, J, Žlahtič, B, Blažun Vošner, H. Bibliometric characteristics of predatory journals in pediatrics. Pediatr Res. 2018;83(6):1093-1094.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline17. Creative Commons. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Accessed April 21, 2020.
Google Scholar18. Statement on Article Publication Resulting from NIH Funded Research. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-18-011.html Accessed January 22, 2019.
Google Scholar