Abstract
Abstract
Are some preprint platforms more attractive to predatory publishers than others? To explore this question, we analyze unsolicited messages received for a research paper spanning the social and health sciences. The paper was posted on two major preprint platforms: Research Square, which primarily serves the natural and health sciences, and the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), the leading platform for social sciences. Using an identification strategy that attributes differences in solicitation volume to platform-specific factors rather than the study’s characteristics, authors, or institutions, we find significant differences in the volume of predatory solicitations. Research Square received considerably more solicitations, mostly from non-social science disciplines such as clinical medicine and psychiatry. This suggests that predatory publishers not only target Research Square more frequently but are also attracted to disciplines with higher publication pressure and greater commercial potential. These findings provide researchers with a clearer understanding of the risks associated with different platforms and offer insights into avoiding predatory publishers.