Aguillo, I. F., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Ortega, J. L. (2010). Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics,85(1), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0190-z.
Al-Khatib, A., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017a). Threats to the survival of the author-pays-journal to publish model. Publishing Research Quarterly,33(1), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9486-z.
Al-Khatib, A., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017b). What rights do authors have? Science and Engineering Ethics,23(3), 947–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9808-8.
Almaatouq, A., Shmueli, E., Nouh, M., Alabdulkareem, A., Singh, V. K., Alsaleh, M., et al. (2016). If it looks like a spammer and behaves like a spammer, it must be a spammer: analysis and detection of microblogging spam accounts. International Journal of Information Security,15(5), 475–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-016-0321-5.
Almomani, A., Gupta, B. B., Atawneh, S., Meulenberg, A., & Almomani, E. (2013a). A survey of phishing email filtering techniques. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials,15(4), 2070–2090. https://doi.org/10.1109/SURV.2013.030713.00020.
Almomani, A., Gupta, B.B., Wan, T.C., Altaher, A., & Manickam, S. (2013b). Phishing dynamic evolving neural fuzzy framework for online detection zero-day phishing email. arXiv arXiv:1302.0629 (preprint)
Beall, J. (2016a). Best practices for scholarly authors in the age of predatory journals. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England,98(2), 77–79. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2016.0056.
Beall, J. (2016b). Dangerous predatory publishers threaten medical research. Journal of Korean Medical Science,31(10), 1511–1513. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.10.1511.
Bilge, L., & Dumitraş, T. (2012). Before we knew it: An empirical study of zero-day attacks in the real world. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on computer and communications security, October 16–18, 2012, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA (pp. 833–844). New York, NY: ACM.
Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,66(11), 2215–2222. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23329.
Bose, I., & Leung, A. C. M. (2014). Do phishing alerts impact global corporations? A firm value analysis. Decision Support Systems,64, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2014.04.006.
Broadhurst, R., & Alazab, M. (2017). Spam and crime. In P. Drahos (Ed.), Regulatory theory: Foundations and applications (pp. 517–532). Canberra: ANU Press.
Bugeja, J., & Grech, V. (2015). Email solicitation for scholarly work—a single researcher’s perspective. Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine,38(3–4), 231–233. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453054.2015.1108294.
Clarivate Analytics. (2017). Email marketing top 5 do’s and don’ts. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from https://clarivate.com/blog/science-research-connect/top-5-email-dos-and-donts/.
Clemons, M., de Costa e Silva, M., Joy, A. A., Cobey, K. D., Mazzarello, S., Stober, C., et al. (2017). Predatory invitations from journals: More than just a nuisance? The Oncologist,22(2), 236–240. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0371.
Cobey, K. D., de Costa e Silva, M., Mazzarello, S., Stober, C., Hutton, B., Moher, D., et al. (2017). Is this conference for real? Navigating presumed predatory conference invitations. Journal of Oncology Practice,13(7), 410–413. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2017.021469.
Cuschieri, S., & Grech, V. (2018). WASP (Write a Scientific Paper): Open access unsolicited emails for scholarly work—Young and senior researchers perspectives. Early Human Development,122, 64–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.04.006.
Dadkhah, M., Maliszewski, T., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Hijacked journals, hijacked web-sites, journal phishing, misleading metrics, and predatory publishing: Actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics. Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology,12(3), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-016-9785-x.
Erfanmanesh, M., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2019). Is the soundness-only quality control policy of open access mega journals linked to a higher rate of published errors? Scientometrics,120(2), 917–923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03153-5.
Fenner, M. (2011). Did you receive spam because you published a paper? Retrieved November 22, 2019, from http://blogs.plos.org/mfenner/2011/07/13/did-you-receive-spam-because-you-published-a-paper/.
Frantsvåg, J. E. (2019). The DOAJ spring cleaning 2016 and what was removed—Tragic loss or good riddance? Publications,7(3), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030045.
Grey, A., Bolland, M. J., Dalbeth, N., Gamble, G., & Sadler, L. (2016). We read spam a lot: Prospective cohort study of unsolicited and unwanted academic invitations. BMJ,355, i5383. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5383.
Gupta, B., Agrawal, D. P., & Yamaguchi, S. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of research on modern cryptographic solutions for computer and cyber security. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0105-3.
Gupta, B. B., Arachchilage, N. A., & Psannis, K. E. (2018). Defending against phishing attacks: Taxonomy of methods, current issues and future directions. Telecommunication Systems,67(2), 247–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-017-0334-z.
Gupta, B. B., Tewari, A., Jain, A. K., & Agrawal, D. P. (2017). Fighting against phishing attacks: State of the art and future challenges. Neural Computing and Applications,28(12), 3629–3654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2275-y.
Haug, C. J. (2015). Peer-review fraud—Hacking the scientific publication process. The New England Journal of Medicine,373, 2393–2395. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1512330.
Hedding, D. W. (2019). Payouts push professors towards predatory journals. Nature,565(7739), 267. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00120-1.
Houghton, J. W., & Oppenheim, C. (2010). The economic implications of alternative publishing models. Prometheus,28(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/08109021003676359.
Jain, A. K., & Gupta, B. B. (2017). Phishing detection: Analysis of visual similarity based approaches. Security and Communication Networks,2017, 5421046. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5421046.
Jawaid, S. A., & Sherin, A. (2015). Professionalism, role of editors, regional editors organizations, predatory journals, publishers and indexing highlighted at WAME conference in India. Pulse International,16(20), 1–2.
Jerejian, A. C., Reid, C., & Rees, C. S. (2013). The contribution of email volume, email management strategies and propensity to worry in predicting email stress among academics. Computers in Human Behavior,29(3), 991–996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.037.
Johnson, R., Watkinson, A., & Mabe, M. (2018). The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly publishing, October, 5th edition, by the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands, 213 pp. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from https://www.stm-assoc.org/2018_10_04_STM_Report_2018.pdf.
Kebede, M., Schmaus-Klughammer, A. E., & Tekle, B. T. (2017). Manuscript submission invitations from ‘predatory journals’: What should authors do? Journal of Korean Medical Science,32(5), 709–712. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.5.709.
Kelly, B., & Delasalle, J. (2012). Can LinkedIn and Academia.edu enhance access to open repositories? In OR2012: The 7th international conference on open repositories. University of Bath. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from http://opus.bath.ac.uk/30227/1/or12-136-final.pdf.
Kozak, M., Iefremova, O., & Hartley, J. (2016). Spamming in scholarly publishing: A case study. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,67(8), 2009–2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23521.
Kuacharoen, P. (2017). An anti-phishing password authentication protocol. International Journal of Network Security,19(5), 711–719. https://doi.org/10.6633/IJNS.201709.19(5).08.
Larsen, P., & Von Ins, M. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics,84(3), 575–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z.
Lewinski, A. A., & Oermann, M. H. (2018). Characteristics of e-mail solicitations from predatory nursing journals and publishers. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing,49(4), 171–177. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20180320-07.
Loder, T., Van Alstyne, M., & Wash, R. (2004). An economic answer to unsolicited communication. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on electronic commerce (pp. 40–50). ACM. TPRC 2005. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from at SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119659.
Lucey, B. M. (2013). Ten tips from an editor on undertaking academic peer review for journals. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2331281. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2331281.
Makkar, A., & Kumar, N. (2019). Cognitive spammer: A framework for pagerank analysis with split by over-sampling and train by under-fitting. Future Generation Computer Systems,90, 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.07.046.
Manley, S. (2019). Predatory journals on trial. Allegations, responses, and lessons for scholarly publishing from FTC v. OMICS. Journal of Scholarly Publishing,50(3), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.50.3.02.
Mazzarello, S., Fralick, M., & Clemons, M. (2016). A simple approach for eliminating spam. Current Oncology,23(1), 75–76. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.23.2860.
Mehmood, K., Essam, D., Shafi, K., & Malik, M. K. (2019). Discriminative feature spamming technique for Roman Urdu sentiment analysis. IEEE Access,7, 47991–48002. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2908420.
Mercier, E., Tardif, P. A., Moore, L., Le Sage, N., & Cameron, P. A. (2018). Invitations received from potential predatory publishers and fraudulent conferences: A 12-month early-career researcher experience. Postgraduate Medical Journal,94(1108), 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2017-135097.
Michels, C., & Schmoch, U. (2012). The growth of science and database coverage. Scientometrics,93(3), 831–846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0732-7.
Mohebzada, J. G., El Zarka, A., Bhojani, A. H. & Darwish, A. (2012). Phishing in a university community: Two large scale phishing experiments. In 2012 international conference on innovations in information technology (IIT) (pp. 249–254). IEEE. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/INNOVATIONS.2012.6207742.
Moher, D., & Srivastava, A. (2015). You are invited to submit…. BMC Medicine,13, 180. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0423-3.
Nagamalai, D., Dhinakaran, B. C., & Lee, J. K. (2008). An in-depth analysis of spam and spammers. International Journal of Security and its Applications,2(2), 9–22. arXiv:1302.0629.
Nguyen, V., Marmor, R. A., Ramamoorthy, S. L., Costantini, T. W., Baumgartner, J. M., Berumen, J., et al. (2018). The use of solicited publishing by academic surgeons. Surgery,164(2), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2018.01.027.
Nicholas, D., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Watkinson, A., Świgon, M., Xu, J., et al. (2019). Early career researchers: Observing how the new wave of researchers is changing the scholarly communications market. Revue Française des Sciences de l’Information et de la Communication,15, 4635. https://doi.org/10.4000/rfsic.4635.
Oermann, M. H., Conklin, J. L., Nicoll, L. H., Chinn, P. L., Ashton, K. S., Edie, A. H., et al. (2016). Study of predatory open access nursing journals: Predatory nursing journals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship,48(6), 624–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12248.
Oermann, M. H., Nicoll, L. H., & Chinn, P. L. (2018a). Response to letter to the editor from Simpson re: Quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals. Nursing Outlook,66(4), 350–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2018.04.007.
Oermann, M. H., Nicoll, L. H., Chinn, P. L., Ashton, K. S., Conklin, J. L., Edie, A. H., et al. (2018b). Quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals. Nursing Outlook,66(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.005.
Patwardhan, B., Nagarkar, S., Gadre, S. R., Lakhotia, S. C., Katoch, V. M., & Moher, D. (2018). A critical analysis of the ‘UGC-approved list of journals’. Current Science,114(6), 1299–1303. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v114/i06/1299-1303.
Pignata, S., Lushington, K., Sloan, J., & Buchanan, F. (2015). Employees’ perceptions of email communication, volume and management strategies in an Australian university. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,37(2), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2015.1019121.
Quan, W., Chen, B.-K., & Shu, F. (2017). Publish or impoverish. Aslib Journal of Information Management,69(5), 486–502. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0014.
Rao, J. M., & Reiley, D. H. (2012). The economics of spam. Journal of Economic Perspectives,26(3), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.3.87.
Ren, Y.-F., & Ji, D.-H. (2019). Learning to detect deceptive opinion spam: A survey. IEEE Access,7, 42934–42945. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2908495.
RIN (Research Information Network). (2008). Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system in the UK. Report commissioned by the Research Information Network (RIN). Retrieved November 22, 2019, from http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Activities-costs-flows-summary.pdf.
Soler, J., & Cooper, A. (2019). Unexpected emails to submit your work: Spam or legitimate offers? The implications for novice English L2 writers. Publications,7(2), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7010007.
Spinello, R. A. (1999). Ethical reflections on the problem of spam. Ethics and Information Technology,1(3), 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010064007816.
Strinzel, M., Severin, A., Milzow, K., & Egger, M. (2019). Blacklists and whitelists to tackle predatory publishing: A cross-sectional comparison and thematic analysis. mBio,10, e00411-19. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00411-19.
Sunder, S., Kraut, R.E., Morris, J., Telang, R., Filer, D., & Cronin, M.A. (2002). Markets for attention: Will postage for email help? In: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 206–215). ACM. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.325961
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013a). Predatory publishing: A quantitative assessment, the Predatory Score. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology,7(Special issue 1), 21–34. Retrieved November 29, 2019, from http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/Online/GSBOnline/images/2013/AAJPSB_7(SI1)/AAJPSB_7(SI1)21-34o.pdf.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013b). The Global Science Factor v. 1.1: A new system for measuring and quantifying quality in science. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology,7(Special issue 1), 92–101. Retrieved November 29, 2019, from http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/Online/GSBOnline/images/2013/AAJPSB_7(SI1)/AAJPSB_7(SI1)92-101o.pdf.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). On the abuse of online submission systems, fake peer reviews and editor-created accounts. Persona y Bioética,20(2), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.5294/PEBI.2016.20.2.3.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017a). Fake peer reviews, fake identities, fake accounts, fake data: Beware! AME Medical Journal,2, 28. https://doi.org/10.21037/amj.2017.02.10.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017b). Ethical exceptionalism: Can publishing rules be manipulated to give the impression of ethical publishing? Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science,16(4), 610–614. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjms.v16i4.33623.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Dobránszki, J., Al-Khatib, A., & Tsigaris, P. (2018). Challenges facing the DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) as a reliable source of open access publishing venues. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences,55(3), 349–358. https://doi.org/10.6120/JoEMLS.201811_55(3).e001.BC.BE.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Dobránszki, J., Tsigaris, P., & Al-Khatib, A. (2019a). Predatory and exploitative behaviour in academic publishing: An assessment. The Journal of Academic Librarianship,45(6), 102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102071.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Katavić, V., Dobránszki, J., Al-Khatib, A., & Bornemann-Cimenti, H. (2019b). Establishing rules for ethicists and ethics organizations in academic publishing to avoid conflicts of interest, favoritism, cronyism and nepotism. KOME,7(1), 110–125. https://doi.org/10.17646/KOME.75698.87.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Shaughnessy, M. F. (2017). An interview with Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva: Insight into improving the efficiency of the publication process. North American Journal of Psychology,19(2), 325–338.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Sorooshian, S., & Al-Khatib, A. (2017). Cost–benefit assessment of congresses, meetings or symposia, and selection criteria to determine if they are predatory. Walailak Journal of Science and Technology,14(4), 259–265.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Tsigaris, P. (2018). What value do whitelists and blacklists have in academia? The Journal of Academic Librarianship,44(6), 781–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.09.017.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Tsigaris, P. (2019). Issues with criteria to evaluate blacklists: An epidemiological approach. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102070.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Tsigaris, P., & Al-Khatib, A. (2019c). Open access mega-journals: Quality, economics and post-publication peer review infrastructure. Publishing Research Quarterly,35(3), 418–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-019-09654-8.
Tennant, J. P., Crane, H., Crick, T., Davila, J., Enkhbayar, A., Havemann, J., et al. (2019). Ten hot topics around scholarly publishing. Publications,7, 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020034.
Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,66(5), 876–889. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23236.
Thomas, B. (2011). E-mail address harvesting on PubMed—A call for responsible handling of e-mail addresses. Mayo Clinic Proceedings,86(4), 362. https://doi.org/10.4065/mcp.2010.0817.
Torp, S., Lysfjord, L., & Midje, H. H. (2018). Workaholism and work–family conflict among university academics. Higher Education,76(6), 1071–1090. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0247-0.
Trivedi, S. K., & Panigrahi, P. K. (2018). Spam classification: a comparative analysis of different boosted decision tree approaches. Journal of Systems and Information Technology,20(3), 298-105. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSIT-11-2017-0105.
Watkinson, A., Nicholas, D., Thornley, C., Herman, E., Jamali, H. R., Volentine, R., et al. (2016). Changes in the digital scholarly environment and issues of trust: An exploratory, qualitative analysis. Information Processing and Management,52(3), 446–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2015.10.002.
Wilkinson, T. A., Russell, C. J., Bennett, W. E., Cheng, E. R., & Carroll, A. E. (2019). A cross-sectional study of predatory publishing emails received by career development grant awardees. British Medical Journal Open,9, e027928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027928.
Yu, M. C., Wu, Y. C. J., Alhalabi, W., Kao, H. Y., & Wu, W. H. (2016). ResearchGate: An effective altmetric indicator for active researchers? Computers in Human Behavior,55(B), 1001–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.007.
Zhang, J., Huang, M. L., & Hoang, D. (2013). Visual analytics for intrusion detection in spam emails. International Journal of Grid and Utility Computing,4(2/3), 178–186.