Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0041524656 = product of:
  0.008304931 = sum of:
    0.008304931 = product of:
      0.016609862 = sum of:
        0.016609862 = weight(_text_:e in 2226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016609862 = score(doc=2226,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.25109822 = fieldWeight in 2226, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Whether one should use a public e-mail account (e.g., Gmail, Yahoo!) or an institutional one (e.g., @wsiz.rzeszow.pl, @medicine.ox.ac.uk) as an address for correspondence is an important aspect of scientific communication. Some authors consider that public e-mail services are unprofessional and insecure, whereas others say that, in a dynamically changing working environment, public e-mail addresses allow readers to contact authors long after they have changed their workplace. To shed light on this issue, we analyzed how often authors of scientific papers provided e-mail addresses that were either public or institution based. We selected from the Web of Science database 1,000 frequently cited and 1,000 infrequently cited articles (all of the latter were noncited articles) published in 2000, 2005, and 2010, and from these we analyzed 26,937 e-mail addresses. The results showed that approximately three fourths of these addresses were institutional, but there was an increasing trend toward using public e-mail addresses over the period studied. No significant differences were found between frequently and infrequently cited papers in this respect. Further research is now needed to access the motivations and perceptions of scholars when it comes to their use of either public or institutional e-mail accounts.

Language

e

0.0026262498 = product of:
  0.0052524996 = sum of:
    0.0052524996 = product of:
      0.010504999 = sum of:
        0.010504999 = weight(_text_:e in 3058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010504999 = score(doc=3058,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06614887 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04602077 = queryNorm
            0.15880844 = fieldWeight in 3058, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3058)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Spam has become an issue of concern in almost all areas where the Internet is involved, and many people today have become victims of spam from publishers and individual journals. We studied this phenomenon in the field of scholarly publishing from the perspective of a single author. We examined 1,024 such spam e-mails received by Marcin Kozak from publishers and journals over a period of 391 days, asking him to submit an article to their journal. We collected the following information: where the request came from; publishing model applied; fees charged; inclusion or not in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ); and presence or not in Beall's (2014) listing of dubious journals. Our research showed that most of the publishers that sent e-mails inviting manuscripts were (i) using the open access model, (ii) using article-processing charges to fund their journal's operations; (iii) offering very short peer-review times, (iv) on Beall's list, and (v) misrepresenting the location of their headquarters. Some years ago, a letter of invitation to submit an article to a particular journal was considered a kind of distinction. Today, e-mails inviting submissions are generally spam, something that misleads young researchers and irritates experienced ones.

Language

e