IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jinfst/v73y2022i1p136-139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revisiting the decay of scientific email addresses

Author

Listed:
  • Raul Rodriguez‐Esteban
  • Dina Vishnyakova
  • Fabio Rinaldi

Abstract

Email is the primary method of communication with authors of scientific publications. This study sought to measure the reliability, over time, of contact email addresses from biomedical publications, particularly depending on email type. Emails were written to randomly selected email addresses from publications in MEDLINE, and email bounce rates were modeled probabilistically. The use of personal email addresses was quantified and compared to the use of other types of email addresses. Eighteen percent of authors' contact email addresses in MEDLINE were estimated to be invalid. A steadily growing share of email addresses was personal: 32% of all new email addresses in MEDLINE in 2018 were of this kind. These email addresses were less likely to be invalid than email addresses from other types of providers. While the percentage of invalid email addresses was significant, it was lower than previously estimated. Personal email addresses are taking an increasingly more important role by supplying more reliable email addresses to scientists. To mitigate the problem of invalid email addresses, institutions should provide email forwarding, scientific directories should offer the possibility of contacting authors, or scientific authors should use more stable email addresses.

Suggested Citation

  • Raul Rodriguez‐Esteban & Dina Vishnyakova & Fabio Rinaldi, 2022. "Revisiting the decay of scientific email addresses," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(1), pages 136-139, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:73:y:2022:i:1:p:136-139
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.24545
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24545
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.24545?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Si Shen & Ronald Rousseau & Dongbo Wang, 2018. "Do papers with an institutional e-mail address receive more citations than those with a non-institutional one?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1039-1050, May.
    2. Monya Baker, 2016. "1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility," Nature, Nature, vol. 533(7604), pages 452-454, May.
    3. Marcin Kozak & Olesia Iefremova & Jarosław Szkoła & Daniel Sas, 2015. "Do researchers provide public or institutional E-mail accounts as correspondence E-mails in scientific articles?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 2149-2154, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carlo Galli & Roberto Sala & Maria Teresa Colangelo & Stefano Guizzardi, 2022. "Tamquam alter idem: formal similarities in a subset of reports on anti-inflammatory compounds in the years 2008–2019," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 3879-3910, July.
    2. Xiaomei Liu & Xiaotian Chen, 2021. "Authors' noninstitutional emails and their correlation with retraction," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(4), pages 473-477, April.
    3. Dennis Bontempi & Leonard Nuernberg & Suraj Pai & Deepa Krishnaswamy & Vamsi Thiriveedhi & Ahmed Hosny & Raymond H. Mak & Keyvan Farahani & Ron Kikinis & Andrey Fedorov & Hugo J. W. L. Aerts, 2024. "End-to-end reproducible AI pipelines in radiology using the cloud," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-9, December.
    4. Chris H. J. Hartgerink & Marino Van Zelst, 2018. "“As-You-Go” Instead of “After-the-Fact”: A Network Approach to Scholarly Communication and Evaluation," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-10, April.
    5. Giulio Giacomo Cantone, 2024. "How to measure interdisciplinary research? A systemic design for the model of measurement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 4937-4982, August.
    6. Lingjing Jiang & Niina Haiminen & Anna‐Paola Carrieri & Shi Huang & Yoshiki Vázquez‐Baeza & Laxmi Parida & Ho‐Cheol Kim & Austin D. Swafford & Rob Knight & Loki Natarajan, 2022. "Utilizing stability criteria in choosing feature selection methods yields reproducible results in microbiome data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(3), pages 1155-1167, September.
    7. Chai, Daniel & Ali, Searat & Brosnan, Mark & Hasso, Tim, 2024. "Understanding researchers' perceptions and experiences in finance research replication studies: A pre-registered report," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    8. Roberto Savona & Cristina Maria Alberini & Lucia Alessi & Iacopo Baussano & Petros Dellaportas & Ranieri Guerra & Sean Khozin & Andrea Modena & Sergio Pecorelli & Guido Rasi & Paolo Daniele Siviero & , 2023. "Towards a Framework for a New Research Ecosystem," Papers 2312.07065, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    9. Joshua Borycz & Robert Olendorf & Alison Specht & Bruce Grant & Kevin Crowston & Carol Tenopir & Suzie Allard & Natalie M. Rice & Rachael Hu & Robert J. Sandusky, 2023. "Perceived benefits of open data are improving but scientists still lack resources, skills, and rewards," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    10. Morgan Taschuk & Greg Wilson, 2017. "Ten simple rules for making research software more robust," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-10, April.
    11. , 2021. "Bayesian Mindsponge Framework," OSF Preprints b4uny_v1, Center for Open Science.
    12. Peter Harremoës, 2019. "Replication Papers," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-8, July.
    13. Fernando Hoces de la Guardia & Sean Grant & Edward Miguel, 2021. "A framework for open policy analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 154-163.
    14. Antonella Lanati & Marinella Marzano & Caterina Manzari & Bruno Fosso & Graziano Pesole & Francesca De Leo, 2019. "Management at the service of research: ReOmicS, a quality management system for omics sciences," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    15. Hadassah Littman-Ovadia & Pavel Freidlin, 2023. "Positive Psychopathology: Manic Behavior and Depression Through Character Strengths Under and Overuse Communities," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 18(6), pages 3199-3228, December.
    16. Joel Ferguson & Rebecca Littman & Garret Christensen & Elizabeth Levy Paluck & Nicholas Swanson & Zenan Wang & Edward Miguel & David Birke & John-Henry Pezzuto, 2023. "Survey of open science practices and attitudes in the social sciences," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    17. Thomas F. Heston, 2024. "Redefining Significance: Robustness and Percent Fragility Indices in Biomedical Research," Stats, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-12, June.
    18. Erastus Karanja & Aditya Sharma & Ibrahim Salama, 2020. "What does MIS survey research reveal about diversity and representativeness in the MIS field? A content analysis approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1583-1628, March.
    19. Petr Praus, 2024. "Analysis of journal rankings confirms that more cited articles contain more references," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(11), pages 7153-7160, November.
    20. Lydia Teboul & James Amos-Landgraf & Fernando J. Benavides & Marie-Christine Birling & Steve D. M. Brown & Elizabeth Bryda & Rosie Bunton-Stasyshyn & Hsian-Jean Chin & Martina Crispo & Fabien Delerue , 2024. "Improving laboratory animal genetic reporting: LAG-R guidelines," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-8, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:73:y:2022:i:1:p:136-139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.