Andrew Grey, associate professor1, Mark J Bolland, associate professor1, Nicola Dalbeth, professor1, Greg Gamble, statistician1, Lynn Sadler, epidemiologist

Abstract

Objectives To assess the amount, relevance, content, and suppressibility of academic electronic spam invitations to attend conferences or submit manuscripts.

Design Prospective cohort study.

Setting Email accounts of participating academics.

Participants Five intrepid academics and a great many publishers, editors, and conference organisers.

Intervention Unsubscribing from sender’s distribution lists.

Main outcome measures Number of spam invitations received before, immediately after, and one year after unsubscribing from senders’ distribution lists. The proportion of duplicate invitations was also assessed and the relevance of each invitation graded to the recipient’s research interests. A qualitative assessment of the content of spam invitations was conducted.

Results At baseline, recipients received an average of 312 spam invitations each month. Unsubscribing reduced the frequency of the invitations by 39% after one month but by only 19% after one year. Overall, 16% of spam invitations were duplicates and 83% had little or no relevance to the recipients’ research interests. Spam invitations were characterised by inventive language, flattery, and exuberance, and they were sometimes baffling and amusing.

Conclusions Academic spam is common, repetitive, often irrelevant, and difficult to avoid or prevent.

BMJ