Decoding Correlations in Predatory Business Practices and Physicians' Strategies Against Daily Predatory Emails

Introduction Predatory journals are marked by inadequate editorial practices and peer review processes, diverging from established global standards in scientific publishing. This article, as a component of the ASGLOS Study, aims to explore the relationship between participant demographics and their experiences with targeted predatory business activities, including their approaches to managing daily predatory emails. Methods To collect the personal experiences of physicians' mailboxes on predatory publishing, a Google Form® survey was designed and disseminated from September 2021 to April 2022. Results A total of 978 responses were analyzed from 58 countries around the world. Data underscores a statistically significant association between academic level and email influx (p<0.001). Participants holding a PhD are disproportionately targeted, receiving more than 10 emails/week compared of those without a PhD (p<0.001). Participants with a more prolific publication record, indicated by higher numbers of overall publications, are inclined to directly delete emails. Also, individuals with a higher H Index (p<0.001) are more prone to occasionally responding to these emails. Conclusion Our results not only highlight patterns in predatory email reception based on age and academic status but also emphasize the importance of considering academic productivity in understanding the prevalence of predatory solicitations.