V. Nguyen1, R. A. Marmor1,2, S. L. Ramamoorthy1,3, T. W. Costantini1,4, J. M. Baumgartner1,5, J. Berumen1,6, G. R. Jacobsen1,7, J. K. Sicklick1,5 1University Of California – San Diego,School Of Medicine,San Diego, CA, USA 2University Of California – San Diego,Department Of Surgery,San Diego, CA, USA 3University Of California – San Diego,Division Of Colorectal Surgery, Department Of Surgery,San Diego, CA, USA 4University Of California – San Diego,Division Of Trauma, Surgical Critical Care, Burns And Acute Care Surgery, Department Of Surgery,San Diego, CA, USA 5University Of California – San Diego,Division Of Surgical Oncology, Department Of Surgery,San Diego, CA, USA 6University Of California – San Diego,Division Of Hepatobiliary Surgery And Abdominal Transplantation, Department Of Surgery,San Diego, CA, USA 7University Of California – San Diego,Division Of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department Of Surgery,San Diego, CA, USA
Introduction:
Despite the exponential increase in open access surgical journals that actively solicit manuscripts via email, little is known about them. Because surgeons frequently review the literature for research and evidence-based practice, it is critical to understand how these journals compare to more traditional journals and who comprises their authorship. We hypothesized that U.S. academic surgeons do not publish in these journals. Thus, the primary objectives of this cross-sectional study are: (1) to characterize the practices of solicitant surgical journals; (2) to compare solicitant surgical journals to non-solicitant journals; and (3) to assess authorship by U.S. surgeons.
Methods:
We identified publishers who contacted the senior author and compared their surgical journals’ publication fees, PubMed indexing, and impact factors to 10 top-tier surgical journals and 10 top-tier open access medical journals. In a validation study, we tallied email solicitations received by 5 additional academic surgeons in various subspecialties. We then assessed the senior authorship of articles published by solicitant surgical journals from Jan-Mar 2017.
Results:
Over a 6-wk period, 1 surgeon received 110 email solicitations from 29 publishers distributing 113 surgical journals. Over a 2-wk period, 5 additional surgeons each received a mean of 3.0±1.4 emails/day, suggesting generalizability across subspecialties. The median year of journal inauguration was 2016. Only 12 journals (11%) were indexed in PubMed and 9 journals (8%) reported an impact factor (median: 0.24; range: 0.08-0.60). The median reported publication fee was $755. Google Maps satellite images revealed that 30% of these journals' U.S. editorial offices operated from personal residences. Compared to non-solicitant journals, solicitant journals were characterized by lower open access publication fees (p<0.001), but also lower PubMed indexing rates (p<0.001) and impact factors (p<0.001). We then assessed the 649 articles published by these 113 journals from Jan-Mar 2017. Contrary to our hypothesis, 23% of these articles’ senior authors were from U.S. institutions, of whom 78% were academic faculty. Over 3 months, academics published 117 articles in 36 journals with a median impact factor of 0.12 and 26% PubMed indexing rate, costing an estimated $82,560.
Conclusion:
This is the first report describing surgical journals who strategically utilize email solicitations to acquire academic contributions. Despite their sparse PubMed indexing and low impact factors, many academic surgeons in the U.S. publish their work in these journals. With the constant pressure to ‘publish or perish’ in academic surgery, this study highlights the importance for trainees and academic surgeons of all ranks to be cognizant of the quantity and quality of these journals when considering manuscript submissions or critical literature review for evidence-based clinical practice.