Predatory conferences: a systematic scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically map the scholarly literature on predatory conferences and describe the present state of research and the prevalent attitudes about these conferences.

METHODS

This scoping review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Four databases were searched (PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Scopus and ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection). In addition, the included studies' reference lists were scanned for additional papers not found in the searches. Peer-reviewed publications were included irrespective of study design. Letters and commentary were included if they were peer reviewed. Editorials and literature reviews were excluded.

RESULTS

From 809 initial publications, 20 papers were included in the review, from 12 countries and covered a wide range of science disciplines, from nursing/medicine to energy/technology and computer science. More than half were empirical and published after 2017. In most papers, a definition of the term predatory conferences was put forward. Spam email invitations with flattering language were the most common characteristics, and the conferences were often hosted by unknown organisations that used copied pictures without permission. High fees, lack of peer review, and a multidisciplinary scope were signal features. All papers explicitly or implicitly suggested possible reasons for participating in predatory conferences. Some reasons were related to the overall context of academic work, the nature of predatory conferences (eg, researchers falling prey to misleading information about a conference or choosing a conference based on an attractive location) and the personal characteristics of researchers. Only one paper reported empirically identified reasons for participating in predatory conferences. The three countermeasures proposed most frequently to deal with predatory conferences were increasing education, emphasising responsibilities of universities and funders, and publishing lists of predatory publishers associated with conferences.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified a scarcity of research concerning predatory conferences. Future empirical as well as fully analytical research should be encouraged by funders, journals and research institutions.

To Decline or Accept: A Guide for Determining the Legitimacy of Academic Conference Invitations

IMPORTANCE

After the rise of predatory journals characterized by false claims of legitimacy and a pay-to-publish model, similar "predatory conferences" have become increasingly common. The email inbox of an academic physician can be filled with daily announcements encouraging conference attendance, abstract submission, and often panel or keynote speaker invitations. It therefore becomes important for the plastic surgeon to be able to discern whether these invitations are from "predatory" conferences or legitimate career advancement opportunities, especially early in practice.

OBJECTIVE

To aid the invited physician in determining the legitimacy of a conference, we aimed to characterize objective features of conferences for which email invitations have been received and use this information to build a decision-making guide.

DESIGN

We analyzed all conference invitations received by the email of one academic plastic surgeon in a 4-month period. These conferences were organized into 3 groups based on affiliation with known professional societies. The following information was collected if available: affiliation with a professional society, type of invitation, conference location, conference format (in-person, virtual, or hybrid), conference title, conference fees, conference organizer, associated journals or publishers, abstract journal submission, grammar, headshots, time to abstract review, and acceptance.

RESULTS

There were 56 unique conference invitations. These were categorized into 15 affiliated conferences, 28 unaffiliated conferences, and 17 conferences of undetermined affiliation. Unaffiliated conferences were more likely to solicit speaker invitations ( P < 0.001), claim to be "international" ( P = 0.001), send emails with grammatical errors ( P < 0.001), use unprofessional headshots on the conference Web site ( P < 0.001), and have reduced virtual conference fees ( P = 0.0032) as compared with conferences affiliated with known professional societies. When comparing the attendance and presenter fees of in-person venues, there was no significant difference between affiliated and unaffiliated conferences ( P = 0.973, P = 0.604). Affiliated conferences were more likely to take place in the United States ( P = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

We present a method to quickly assess the legitimacy of an academic meeting by way of a few important questions. Based on our findings, emails soliciting conference speakers, claims of international presence, grammatical errors, unprofessional headshots, and reduced virtual conference fees are all characteristics that should raise red flags.

Predatory journals and meetings in forensic sciences: what every expert needs to know about this “parasitic” publishing model

The emergence of the Internet has transformed all areas of society. This includes the universe of scientific publications, with several publishers now exclusively focusing on the electronic format and open access model while expanding to a megajournal scope. In this context, the pandemic of predatory open access journals (POAJs) and meetings are of grave concern to the academic and research community. This new shift within academia produces a variety of new victims; namely, the authors themselves. In turn, scientific knowledge is often discredited, with the public placing less trust in science. Now more than ever, performing research with integrity and selecting a journal in which to publish requires close attention and expertise. The “predatory movement” has developed increasingly sophisticated techniques for misleading people into believing what seem to be credible professional layouts and legitimate invitations. Initiatives such as the Jeffrey Beall’s list, the Cabell’s Scholarly Analytics and Think.Check.Submit offer some guidance to uncover the “parasitic” intervention of predatory journals and meetings, but specific education in this field is sorely needed. This work aims to review the main characteristics of predatory journals and meetings and to analyze this topic in the context of forensic and legal medicine research.

Predatory Conferences: Calling for Vigilance From Ophthalmologists and Vision Scientists

PURPOSE

To describe the newer predatory movement within academia: predatory conferences and its associated characteristics.

DESIGN

Perspective METHODS: Literature review of currently published literature regarding the topic RESULTS: Although ophthalmology and vision science are often spared from falling prey to predatory organizations, it is important for scientists of all levels, from trainees to senior faculty, to be aware of the existence of for-profit conferences and their characteristics.

CONCLUSION

We discuss the details of predatory conferences and provide resources to help identify such meetings for all scientists and professionals.

How are academic libraries in Spanish-speaking Latin America responding to new models of scholarly communication and predatory publishing?

The topic of predatory publishing and ways to combat it is garnering considerable attention in many parts of the developed world, where academic librarians are emerging as leaders in this regard. However, less is known about how this phenomenon is playing out in developing regions, including Spanish-speaking Latin America. This study presents the results of a survey of 104 academic librarians in this region, along with follow-up interviews with seven respondents. The findings reveal that scholarly publishing literacy in general, and predatory publishing in particular, currently has low visibility in this part of the world, although there is growing recognition of and increasing concern about the issue. Although there is some debate about whether scholarly publishing literacy should be the sole responsibility of the library, many participants agree that the library has a role to play. Moreover, while most of the librarians who participated perceive that they have a solid knowledge of open access, they are less confident in their understanding of predatory practices and are seeking to increase their skills and knowledge in this regard to better support researchers at their institutions. To address this shortcoming, academic librarians in the region have expressed an interest in receiving training and in participating in international collaborations with other libraries that have already developed resources or programming in this area.

Use of Twitter in Neurology: Boon or Bane?

Twitter is a free, open access social media platform that is widely used in medicine by physicians, scientists, and patients. It provides an opportunity for advocacy, education, and collaboration. However, it is likely not utilized to its full advantage by many disciplines in medicine, and pitfalls exist in its use. In particular, there has not been a review of Twitter use and its applications in the field of neurology. This review seeks to provide an understanding of the current use of Twitter in the field of neurology to assist neurologists in engaging with this potentially powerful application to support their work.

Conference Accreditation and Need of a Bibliometric Measure to Distinguish Predatory Conferences

Academic conferences offer scientists the opportunity to share their findings and knowledge with other researchers. However, the number of conferences is rapidly increasing globally and many unsolicited e-mails are received from conference organizers. These e-mails take time for researchers to read and ascertain their legitimacy. Because not every conference is of high quality, there is a need for young researchers and scholars to recognize the so-called “predatory conferences” which make a profit from unsuspecting researchers without the core purpose of advancing science or collaboration. Unlike journals that possess accreditation indices, there is no appropriate accreditation for international conferences. Here, a bibliometric measure is proposed that enables scholars to evaluate conference quality before attending.

One year of unsolicited e-mails: The modus operandi of predatory journals and publishers

OBJECTIVES

To quantify, characterize and analyze e-mail from predatory journals (PJ) received by an academic in dentistry.

METHODS

E-mails received in 2019 and suspected of being potentially predatory were pre-selected. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI) checklist was applied to identify the suspected biomedical PJ, including the following criteria: article processing charge (APC), fake impact factor, the journal being listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We also extracted information on the lack of an impact factor on Journal Citations Reports, non-journal affiliated contact e-mail address, flattering language, article and/or personal citation, unsubscribe link, being listed in the National Library of Medicine (NLM) current catalog and indexed on Medline.

RESULTS

A total of 2812 unsolicited suspected e-mails were received, and 1837 requested some sort of manuscript; among these, 1751 met some of the OHRI criteria. Less than half (780/1837, 42 %) referred to some area of dentistry. The median APC was US$399. A false impact factor was mentioned in 11 % (201/1837) of the e-mails, and 27 % (504/1837) corresponded to journals currently listed in the NLM catalog. Journals listed in DOAJ and COPE sent 89 e-mails.

CONCLUSIONS

The email campaign from PJ was high and recurrent. Researchers should be well informed about PJ' modus operandi to protect their own reputation as authors and that of science.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Peer review and established academic practices and etiquette contribute to ensuring scientific progress, which is essential to protect the health of patients in particular and of people in general. Predatory journals constitute a threat to peer review and scientific etiquette and, as such, may hinder scientific progress and public health.

Predatory conferences in biomedical streams: An invitation for academic upliftment or predator's looking for prey

Scientific conferences, once deemed essential in scholars' lives, are now converting into a high-profit business. These predatory conferences are often organized by some profit-making predatory publishers or manufacturing companies for marketing their product or luring young researchers and scientists to submit their research manuscripts to these so-called predatory journals. Various tactics are used by these conferences to extract money from the researchers and students such as organizing conferences at attractive tourist places with multidisciplinary scope, invitation to submit a research paper to be published at the earliest or to become part of an editorial board/editor-in-chief. It should be realized that these predatory conferences do not provide any benefit to registering individuals for the development of science. The only remedy to expose and stop the business of all such predatory conference organizers is by creating awareness among young scholars and researchers, regarding these predatory conferences and the demerits of attending them, through the established medical and dental institutions, along with specialized associations and societies. A zero-tolerance policy should be created to ban such conferences with a refusal to provide promotion or funding to scholars or researchers attending these conferences. Hence, this narrative review aims to create awareness regarding these predatory conferences, the tactics used by them to trap researchers and ways which young researchers and academic scholars can use to delineate them from legitimate ones.