Skip to content
 

It’s . . . spam-tastic!

We’ll celebrate Christmas today with a scam that almost fooled me. OK, not quite: I was about two steps from getting caught.

Here’s the email:

Dear Dr. Gelman,

I hope you do not mind me emailing you directly, I thought it would be the easiest way to make first contact. If you have time for a short discussion I was hoping to speak with you about your studies and our interest to feature your work in a special STEM issue of our publication, Scientia.

I will run you through this in more detail when we talk. But to give you a very quick insight into Scientia and the style in which we publish, I have attached a few example articles from research groups we have recently worked with. I have attached these as HTML files to reduce the file size, but I can send PDF versions if you would prefer. As you can see, our style is very different to the traditional science publishing format and we are very much aimed at connecting science in society.

You may also view one of our exciting full editions of Scientia here: [link redacted so I don’t give these spammers any free SEO]

Please let me know if you might have 15 minutes for a short phone call and advise when would be a good time and day for you to discuss further?

I look forward to talking soon.

Kind regards,

Marie Serrano

Publication manager
Science Diffusion

T: +44 7437 *** ***
E: **@***.***
W: www.***.***
W: www.***.***

Hmmm, it sounds like some sort of science publication or newsletter. I get requests like this from time to time, and if I have something to write, I’ll send it off. For example, I’ve recently written articles for these publications that I’d never previously heard of:

Socius

Brazilian Journal of Probability and Statistics

Clinical Neuropsychologist

Journal of Quantitative Criminology

Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology

You get the idea. Some of these outlets are pretty obscure, I’d probably be better off focusing my literary efforts elsewhere, but I get asked, it’s easier to say yes than to say no, and it’s always good to reach new audiences.

“Scientia” sounded like something of that ilk—actually, it sounded a lot like “Socius,” for which I recently wrote an article. (Actually, my Socius experience was annoying: they told me they wanted the article in a hurry, so I quickly whipped it off, but since then I’ve been waiting forever; apparently it wasn’t in any hurry at all! But that’s another story.)

So I clicked the link to check out the “exciting full edition of Scientia” and . . . ummm, it looked kinda amateurish, but that’s ok. I’ve published in Kwantitative Methoden and in European Science Editing and neither of these looks so professional—heck, for years I had a regular column in Chance, a magazine that has the production values of a high school yearbook, circa 1980—so that’s not enough for me to say no.

But then, scrolling down, I see this:

Wait a minute . . . where have I heard this name before? I did a Paul Alper and searched my blog and found this story of a series of emails from “Nick Bagnall” who at the time had an outfit called “Research Media” that would publish my article for a low low price of “$2,980 USD for the full three page development, this is a required contribution.”

The price is going down, though! I scrolled through their webpage and found this:

OK, 375*4 is 1500, and converting the exchange rates gives us $1912. So their price has gone down by 36%! I think I’ll wait until the price goes negative before considering it.

Now that I realized this was a scam, I looked at “Marie Serrano”‘s email more carefully, and I noticed the subject line: “Solving Difficult Bayesian Computation Problems in Education Research Using STAN – Science Diffusion.” All they did was take the title of our Institute for Education Sciences grant. Too lazy to even realize that this would be a ludicrously inappropriate topic for any magazine that anyone would want to read. And, by the way, it’s Stan, not STAN.

P.S. As I wrote before, this sort of thing really does hurt my feelings. I do all this research because I think it’s important. So it hurts when these people come along and think of me as nothing more than a mark.

P.P.S. I wonder if Nick and Marie are two different people? I guess it’s possible. If so, I guess they’re doing pretty well, spamming scientists who’ve received NSF and IES grants. I guess I should count myself lucky that they’ve only hit me twice so far.

“Scientia,” indeed.

38 Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    I recently started to wonder why tenured professors would still even care about 1) publishing, and more specifically 2) publishing in “official” journals (possibly with as high of an impact factor as possible).

    What would happen if all tenured professors would only publish pre-prints on things like (psy)arxiv?

    1) I think their work could receive much more attention, and possibly impact, compared to publishing in an “official” journal.

    2) They wouldn’t be participating in all that might be wrong with current publishing (e.g. making publishing companies very rich, closing access to sientific information to the general public, counting on “peer-review” to decide whether someting is a valid/useful scientific contribution, etc.) and perhaps would even help to change the publishing system to one wich is more in line with scientific values, principles, and responsibilities.

    3) No more annoying formatting and other rules to follow when writing up your paper, no more annoying discussions with peer-reviewers, and no more annoying time-delay.

    If i were a tenured professor, and given the information i currently have, i would only publish my work on a pre-print server like (psy)arxiv and not even bother with “offical” journals anymore.

    • Andrew says:

      Anon:

      I haven’t really worked it all out. I post most things online at my website, but I also publish journal articles and books. That seems like a way to reach more people.

      • Anonymous says:

        “I post most things online at my website”

        I think that’s commendable, thank you.

        (I also reason that that’s very useful from a scientific perspective, and it fits with the perspective that science perhaps does not belong to only scientists and scientific journals but to everyone)

    • Dan Riley says:

      Publication in high impact journals is like a peacock’s plumage, the point is to attract the most selective graduate students and post-docs.

    • Ethan Bolker says:

      To earn tenure you have to do some scholarship. Many of us tenured professors got into the business because we wanted to do the scholarship for its own sake, not just as a ticket to punch for tenure. That desire continues even when we’ve gotten there.

      Having found out new good things we want to contribute that knowledge to the community. Postings on arXiv are a good way to spread the preliminary word, but publishing in appropriate journals (independent of impact factor) with good refereeing is the best way to make the results part of the record.

      • This is the explanation I always give everyone for why tenured professors keep working. I still remember the terms of my tenure—only gross negligence, vaguely defined moral turpitude, or insolvency of the university were grounds for being fired. I read that as a license for everyday negligence. I quit and went into industry the year I got tenure, so I never got to test the limits of my new contract.

        • KJA says:

          I was tenured at an “elite” Australian university. While carrying out routine administrative duties I stumbled across multiple cases where the Head of Research in my department “gifted” entire degrees to her research students. I reported this to the University and I was made redundant. The students kept their unearned degrees, and one student got a full PhD scholarship based on the high quality of her non-existent honors thesis. So reporting fraud is also grounds for terminating a tenured academic’s employment.

      • Martha (Smith) says:

        Ethan said: “Having found out new good things we want to contribute that knowledge to the community. Postings on arXiv are a good way to spread the preliminary word, but publishing in appropriate journals (independent of impact factor) with good refereeing is the best way to make the results part of the record.”

        I agree — both the “initial availability” and the “long-term availability” are important.

        In response to Bob’s comment: Having tenure has allowed me to do things that I think are worthwhile that are not part of the usual “job description”, expectations, or career path for a mathematician. In my case, I’ve spent a lot of time working with future and current secondary math teachers, and I was able to take on the job of keeping a small statistics program alive while trying to work for a statistics department. (In fact, the first was what got me involved in the second.) I think both of these have been important contributions to my university, the state of Texas, and society in general — but I would not have been able to do them if I did not have tenure. So, yes, there are people who take tenure as license for everyday negligence, but many who do not, but rather as an opportunity to do things off the beaten path.

        • Phil says:

          Martha (Smith), this is as good a place as any to say: I really appreciate your contributions on this blog. It does not surprise me that you contribute to society in other ways too.

        • Allan C says:

          To me this is how tenure is supposed to work.

          The beneficial externalities of rewarding good, productive intellectuals with tenure can be far reaching. In general, I am a huge fan of giving good people freedom to pursue their own goals/desires free from the immediate economics. Lots of amazing things can come from this. In academia, as well as industry.

          Unfortunately, there is a selection bias problem in who is awarded tenure and it seems to be less than ideal at the moment.

      • Anonymous says:

        “To earn tenure you have to do some scholarship. Many of us tenured professors got into the business because we wanted to do the scholarship for its own sake, not just as a ticket to punch for tenure. That desire continues even when we’ve gotten there. “

        Yes, i understand this. Just to be perhaps more clear: with “publishing” i meant publishing in an “official” journal (compared to only posting a paper on a pre-print server like arxiv).

        “Postings on arXiv are a good way to spread the preliminary word, but publishing in appropriate journals (independent of impact factor) with good refereeing is the best way to make the results part of the record.”

        This is (part of) what i questioned: why would tenured professors not simply only publish on pre-print servers. You provide some possible reasons why publishing in an “official” journal might still make sense for tenured professors. I question all 3 parts of your sentence:

        1) “Postings on arXiv are a good way to spread the preliminary word”

        I reason it’s just “preliminary” beacause it is being used/seen that way: a lot of the time a (slightly different?) version of the pre-print is later published in an “official” journal, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Furthermore, if i am not mistaken psyarxiv let’s you post updated versions, while keeping the same url/doi/citation.

        2) “but publishing in appropriate journals (independent of impact factor) with good refereeing”

        Good refereeing is dependend on the referees, which you can’t choose a lot of the time, and with no way of knowing and/or validating whether they are “good”. If you can choose the referees, you can just as well ask these people to read your paper before you post it on arxiv.

        3) “is the best way to make the results part of the record”

        I reason pre-print servers like arxiv have some sort of mechanism in place to make sure the content is safe and will be preserved. I reason this is similar to “official” journals’ online content. Pre-print papers are being read, and cited, just like papers published in “official” journals, and are part of the record in the same way i reason. I don’t see a difference between papers posted on pre-print servers and papers published in “official” journals concerning being “part of the record”.

        I think peer-review as is used by “official” journals does not make any sense whatsoever. This is mostly because of 2 things:

        1) it seems rather arbitrary to let 2-3 people provide comments, and/or decide whether the paper is worth publishing. Perhaps this makes even less sense when you think about the role and number of co-authors on the average paper (i.c. there are your 2-3 people already who provided feedback and have decided that the paper is worth publishing)

        2) if you value comments, you can just as well ask some colleagues for feedback before posting it on arxiv. Perhaps you could even make them co-authors if they provide substantially useful feedback (imagine what that would do to improve feedback and/or concerning the discussion about academics doing “peer-review for free”)

        • Anonymous says:

          “I think peer-review as is used by “official” journals does not make any sense whatsoever”

          What i also find interesting to think about is the following. I reason “peer-reviewers” are the same people who write and submit papers themselves. If this is the case, why should someone give more weight to their view/writing based on whether they are presently working via the role of “author” or “peer-reviewer”?

          The only way for this to make sense to me, is to reason that the role they have would somehow influence their reasoning/writing/etc. This can both be “good” and “bad” from a scientific perspective i reason, but more importantly i reason scientists should hone the “good” things that might come from viewing the paper from the perspective of a reviewer, and not rely on “peer-review” for that.

          I also wonder what percentage of papers that get rejected, eventually get published elsewhere. If that’s a very large percentage, i reason that’s another reason why “peer-review” does not make any sense. The only way for this to make sense to me, is to reason that the feedback resulted in an improved paper, which i highly doubt is the case and i highly doubt can be objectively verified.

          I tried to find some information on this, and this is what i found after about 5 seconds of searching:

          “Studies suggest that a high percentage of articles rejected by prestigious journals are published elsewhere. For instance, 72 percent of the articles rejected by the American Journal of Public Health were subsequently published in other journals.”

          https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2009/04/27/when-journal-says-no

          The more i read and think about “peer-review”, the more it doesn’t make any sense to me. To me, it’s actually super un-scientific, as it (sort of) assumes, and results in, 1) some “authority” deciding what is good/useful/etc. science, and 2) some “authority” possibly stifling progress/criticism/etc.

          Also see this:

          https://www.sciencealert.com/these-8-papers-were-rejected-before-going-on-to-win-the-nobel-prize

          I thought the following quote might be relevant concerning “peer-review” in general, and concerning the above link to rejected papers that went on to win the nobel prize:

          “I’m not in this world to live up to your expectations and you’re not in this world to live up to mine.” – Bruce Lee

          • Ethan Bolker says:

            I haven’t read all your links.

            From personal experience as a mathematician I have found peer reviewing extraordinarily valuable. Reviewers have improved my papers. Reviews of two of my submissions correctly recommended against publication (with reasons) – I shelved them. As a reviewer I have rejected papers as inappropriate for the journal to which they were submitted (perhaps they ended up elsewhere) and improved others, both by checking for correctness and improving exposition.

            • Anonymous says:

              “Reviewers have improved my papers. Reviews of two of my submissions correctly recommended against publication (with reasons) – I shelved them.”

              I wonder if it can be objectively determined whether papers have indeed been improved, and to what extent (i.c. is it really worth all the effort/time/resources), and whether submissions were indeed correctly declined and possibly subsequently shelved by “peer-review”.

              I sincerely doubt this is even possible. And i sincerely doubt this is even worth all the effort/time/resources. If you post a pre-print and it contains mistakes, that’s no problem from a scientific perspective i reason. Perhaps your shelved papers could still contain something useful from a scientific perspective.

              Regardless, if papers have been improved, and if submissions were correctly (declined and subsequently) shelved as a result of “peer-review”, i reason this can/will also happen with just 1) having co-authors (which i reason do similar work “peer-reviewers” do) and/or 2) having some colleagues take a look at the paper.

            • Martha (Smith) says:

              Ethan,

              I am also a mathematician. My experience with peer reviewing in mathematics is similar to yours. But my experience is that in many other fields, the peer review system does not work as well as in mathematics.

    • Clyde Schechter says:

      Well, those of us who got into research because we like doing research, like to keep doing it even after we get tenure. And to do many kinds of research, certainly in my field, requires getting funding. Grant reviewers expect to see continuing evidence of productivity–and the currency of that realm is the peer-reviewed journals, with the high-impact journals counting for more. So to keep doing what we love to do, that is a price we pay.

      It also varies a lot by specialty. In physics, arxiv seems to be widely recognized and accepted. But in health care it is not, nor is anything analogous to it available.

      • Martha (Smith) says:

        “… with the high-impact journals counting for more.”

        Sad. In math (in my experience), it’s the quality of the work that is the most important, not the journal it’s published in.

  2. Larry Raffalovich says:

    In some universities the point is to get promoted &/or a salary increase.

  3. Paul Alper says:

    For more on a, but not necessarily the, Nick Bagnall, go to The Academic’s Guide to Publishing
    By Rob Kitchin, Duncan Fuller

    https://books.google.com/books?id=BecDA6mgUCgC&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=nick+bagnall+research+media&source=bl&ots=Q9k8v_rnAr&sig=J0eHqdvrsQWwazibFvWNXsKtoSo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnqv7L1abYAhWNxIMKHXWQCkk4ChDoAQgmMAA#v=onepage&q=nick%20bagnall%20research%20media&f=false

    “If their intended story is a critique of your research, it is usually best to try to cooperate in some way – especially if they are going to run the story regardless. … As such, writing for newspapers entails translating your message into what former journalist Nicholas Bagnall (1993: 2) terms ‘newspaper language’: The …”

    From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/12142774/Nicholas-Bagnall-journalist-obituary.html we learn that a Nick Bagnall died in 2016.

  4. Smut Clyde says:

    Jeffrey Beall covered Sciencediffusion / Scientia a while ago, and fortunately the thread was Waybacked:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20161222222004/https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/11/15/spammers-invite-researchers-to-pay-to-advertise-their-research
    In Jeff’s words, Scientia is “not a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal. Instead, it’s an aggregation of paid advertisements for research and researchers — scientific puffery.”
    The business model, essentially, is to exploit the desperation of academics to get research grants (or extend the grants they have received already).

    It appears that the letter you received is their standard template.
    “Research Media” was sold to Emerald Publishing Group in 2013, and may have gone legit, leaving its original directors and staff to seek new openings for their talents — hence the appearance of Scientia in the same market niche.

  5. Smut Clyde says:

    People who did pay Nick Bagnall $$$$ to have their work promoted in his old “International Innovation” outlet will be shocked and surprised to find that the website vanished with all its content in 2016.

  6. Anon Junior Prof says:

    I just got the Scientia email. It seemed more legit on the surface than most of the obvious spam submission requests I get. But, I Googled it and found this post, so into the trash it goes. Thanks, Andrew!

  7. Sara says:

    Like Anon Junior Prof, I also received the Scientia email today. Agreed, seems more legit, but this post was helpful, thank you, Andrew! Text of email below:

    “I hope you do not mind me emailing you directly, I thought it would be the easiest way to make first contact. If you have time for a short discussion I was hoping to speak with you about your studies and our interest to feature your work in our 2020 Education and STEM edition of our publication, Scientia.

    I will run you through this in more detail when we talk. But to give you a very quick insight into Scientia and the style in which we publish, I have attached a few example articles from groups we have recently worked with. I have attached these as HTML files to reduce the file size, but I can send PDF versions if you would prefer. As you can see, our style is very different to the traditional scholarly publishing format and we are very much aimed at communicating, and connecting science and society.

    You may also view further information and one of our recent full publications on our website, here: **

    Please let me know if you might have 10 minutes for a short phone call and advise when would be a good time and day for you to discuss further?

    I look forward to talking soon.

    Kind regards,

    Mike King
    Publication Manager

    T: **
    E: **
    W: **”

  8. GW says:

    Thanks Andrew! Very interesting discussions here.

    First, I will thank you for your detailed description of the magazine. One of my close colleagues wrote for them so it seemed legit…

    I basically told them I charge $2,500 a page + $500 per hour spent.

    I think we should do that. We all have a job; I don’t like working extra for free :>

    I’ll send you a long rant I wrote about the scientific publishing process, which is completely messed up and needs some urgent fixing. I also publish in my webpage + open archives. But the system obliges us to publish in “high quality” venues, which is also a problem. Luckily I don’t have problems publishing but I’ve seen many young researchers doing anything in their hands to get published. Including the submission to journals of low quality that just take their money.

  9. GW says:

    So, a follow up on the nice discussions above. I have learned a lot; thanks! Here’s my opinion piece that I wrote in my own social media, but of course who cares… :>

    A long rant about the Scientific Publishing Process
    ===================================================

    I have been voicing these ideas in person, but I want to put them in writing. Besides the problems that
    everybody has already identified about the Scientific Publishing process, there are new things from
    recent years I find ridiculous and despicable. This is a long one.

    We are paid from public funds (most of the time ;> ) to conduct research to benefit the public; but the
    research results are published by private companies, which benefit from it directly. Who conducts the
    research? Publicly paid researchers. Who checks the quality? The same researchers. Who manages the
    Journals? Not professional editors: the same researchers, paid by taxpayers, acting as volunteers. Who
    buys the results of the research? Mostly, publicly funded libraries, with, yet again, public funds that paid
    the research in the first place. However, in between, the companies profit.

    We are mostly OK with these practices, which allow the companies to profit, while making the research
    easily available.

    Unfortunately, the next step in the story resulted in that these companies ended up bending the
    research agendas of full countries. Unbelievable. I have been a reviewer of numerous grants in the EU,
    and I have seen, in writing, that the papers must be published on SCOPUS. Universities do not count
    them for promotion unless they are on SCOPUS either.

    Well, let me tell you.

    Some of my worst papers are in SCOPUS. Absolute pieces of crap written by low quality students who
    managed to write a work-in-progress conference paper that, somehow, ended up in SCOPUS. How?
    Easy. Someone paid the fee. There is a fee to publish on SCOPUS. SCOPUS is not a guarantee of
    anything. Nor the Citation Index. Not to talk about Google Scholar or similar indexes. Some of our best
    research has been published in not-indexed journals, or smaller conferences. However, SCOPUS now
    decides who gets a grant. That is, a major corporation now decides who gets a grant, a position or a
    promotion. Based on fees paid to make it happen. Unbelievable.

    Now, there is something new. Automated “plagiarism” systems. These are the cherry on the cake. They
    check similarity of papers with other things found online. These tools are useful for one case only: for
    when a paper has been already published in another journal. Another archival. That is unacceptable.
    However, the reality of scientific discovery, supervising students, and making projects advance is
    completely different. If you have a research project, you want to communicate interesting ideas as
    quickly as possible at conferences; then another, then another. Eventually, you will write the final
    findings to be published in archival form (i.e., a Journal).

    Nevertheless, these tools will now tell you that a paper should be rejected for “self-plagiarism” when
    the automated tools find similarities with the conference papers, which have a completely different
    intention than the archival. Conference papers are basically written support (“Proceedings”) useful for
    the discussion that should happen at a conference. They tell a small part of the story and they are there
    just printed support to help following up a person-to-person discussion, and to allow those who
    attended to remember what the research was about.

    A Journal is something different: it is an archival of the research conducted. A typical Journal paper I
    write is 30 pages long, and tells a whole story. A conference paper is a small part of it, incomplete and in
    progress. Sometimes as short as six pages. However, I have been told that there are journals now that
    reject a paper because the automated system says it has 10% of overlap. Now, if your paper is in a
    digital library, the automated software will tell is “self-plagiarism”. This is absolutely different than
    submitting the same article to two different journals.

    This system even lets lazy reviewers to simply say, “this paper must be rejected because the automated
    system tells it has similarity with previous research”. We have enough problems to try to get good
    reviews sometimes, and this system does not help.

    Why are now the big publishers introducing this?

    Trivial: copyright issues.

    Money.

    If they own the copyright, they can sell the paper. However, if the paper is partially owned by a different
    publisher, they do not profit.

    In addition, they only care about the digital libraries, where they make the money. If the conference
    paper has been published in a USB or in print, they do not spend the time to look for “plagiarism”. Their
    money is in the selling of the digital libraries, and they do not care if you sign a copyright release to a
    second organization that does not profit from it (even if the paper is a journal paper fully plagiarized!).
    Nonetheless, when there is money involved (i.e., they find them automatically on a digital library), then
    they care, because those are their “assets” in the hands of another company.

    So, now, access to the digital libraries (their business, not the quality of science) is used to prevent
    serious researchers to do their job properly. We need to publish quickly new findings and discuss them
    at a conference, to get insight and improve the research, so it is eventually good enough to submit to a
    journal (or to decide that it is not worth to pursue that line of work because your colleagues showed you
    things you did not see). We also need our students to publish quickly during their research programs,
    and to mingle with the experts that will share their insights.

    The physical support for that is called a conference paper.

    Now, if we have three students working on different parts of a project, each writes a paper to present it
    at a conference, and in the end, the students write the whole story in a joint Journal submission, the
    automated system will say it is “self-plagiarism”. A team of 4-5 people showing the end results of
    something major for the first time, as a whole package with a single story to tell is not “self-plagiarism”.

    Self-plagiarism is a direct copy of an archival into another.

    Now, a solution to this is to “trick the system”, and “rewrite” those sections. THAT would be real
    plagiarism. It would be cheating. The research will not change if I disguise the text of the conference
    paper so that the automated system has more difficulties in finding the similarities.

    I support their old business model. I pay students with public funds; I understand and support the fact
    that the libraries pay and the companies make their money like that. I volunteer as a reviewer. And as an
    Associate Editor of five different Journals.

    But bending research programs as they do with SCOPUS, or introducing these new practices so they can
    guarantee that every word we write belongs to them and them only, is beyond acceptable.

    I know nothing will ever happen, but if you are in a position to do something about it, do it. I voice these
    opinions every time I can. I decline to complete the box in the EU research grants that say, “Did you
    check that the research is published on SCOPUS?”. And I put it in writing in my evaluation. Shame on
    those research agencies! In fact, whenever I find a company bending a research program, I tell it to them
    out loud. And every time I have evaluated a PhD thesis, a Professorship position or a Promotion file and
    the slightest mention of an Index (like h-Index or Citation Index), or “quality” databases that are handled
    by companies for profit, I have said: “NO”.

    Companies want to profit. And it is OK. But we cannot play games.

    Do it in writing. Tell them that this practice is not acceptable, and do not do it.

    Say it out loud. And tell the Research Agencies that this is not acceptable.

    Ask your reviewers to ignore the automated tools (which, who knows how are built and what are the
    objectives, after all?) and user their expertise to do their job, which they do amazingly without a
    machine giving them orders.

    At least, I plan to continue doing so.

    Gabriel

    P.S.: if someone thinks (and gets back to me) saying that this is a due process to ensure the quality of
    the articles, I am going to call BS on them. You can get back to me if all of this is done FOR FREE. I am
    involved in a couple of conferences in which no one profits. I know exactly what the profit is. Zero. Nil.
    Zip. No one is benefiting from the volunteer work we do. If someone with absolute no profit is using
    these methods or tools for increasing quality, I will accept it. As soon as it ends in the hands of a Digital
    Library for sale, all arguments are void. I only accept the use of complex tools for quality when the
    benefit is for everybody. I am ready to start a free on-line journal with the same processes used by the
    for-profit editing companies. It is not that difficult or impossible. The open source tools are there. The
    hosting services are almost free, in particular if you host it in a publicly funded entity like a University
    lab. I just need a bit of time, but it will happen, sooner than later, and I hope you do the same in your
    field. Then, we can talk.

  10. Chizari says:

    5 years later (from the post above) and they still use the exact same email:

    Dear Dr ….

    I hope you do not mind me emailing you directly, I thought it would be the easiest way to make first contact. If you have time for a short discussion I was hoping to speak with you about your studies and our interest to feature your work in the annual research and innovation edition of our science communication publication, Scientia.

    I will run you through this in more detail when we talk. But to give you a very quick insight into Scientia and the style in which we publish, I have attached an example article from a group we have recently worked with. I have attached this as a HTML files to reduce the file size, but I can send the PDF version if you would prefer. As you can see, our style is very different to the traditional scholarly publishing format and we are very much aimed at communicating, and connecting science and society.

    You may also view further information and one of our recent full publications on our website, here: **

    Please let me know if you might have 10 minutes for a short phone call and advise what day would be suitable for you to discuss further?

    Kind regards,

    James Phillips
    Publication Manager

  11. LGH says:

    A slightly fluffier version of the same email, received today. Thanks so much for these posts; very helpful.

    Dear Dr. …,

    I don’t think we’ve corresponded before, and I hope you do not mind me emailing you directly. If you have time for a short discussion I was hoping to speak with you about your studies and our interest to feature your work in the annual healthcare and medical edition of our science communication publication, Scientia.

    Scientia offers stakeholders in the academic research and publication arena a dissemination channel to enable science to be made more understandable, enjoyable, and accessible and help scientists with the responsibility to build trust and communicate their research to the public and wider science communities. Moreover, given the significant change in the way information is disseminated and accessed, people want more from academics, institutions and industry than ever before. It is now widely accepted that outreach is a fundamental aspect of a scientist’s career. While many do recognize this, we know it can be a challenge to find the time to do it effectively.

    I have attached an example article from a group we have recently worked with to give you a very quick insight into Scientia and the style in which we publish. I have attached this as a HTML files to reduce the file size, but I can send the PDF version on request. As you can see, our style is very different to the traditional scholarly publishing format and we are very much aimed at connecting science and society.

    You may also view further information and one of our recent full publications on our website, here: **

    Please let me know if you might have 10 minutes for a short phone call and advise what day would be suitable for you to discuss further?

    Kind regards,

    James Phillips
    Publication Manager

Leave a Reply