Abstract
Like predatory journals, predatory conferences are a growing part of the academic landscape, but unlike their journal counterparts, to date predatory conferences have not been extensively investigated, and many unanswered questions about their workings exist. From a positive ethics perspective, a more complete understanding of predatory conferences is desirable, as it can support researchers in making ethically appropriate choices about conference attendance. Ten predatory conference organisations were the focus of this study. The investigation first set out to identify and document the attributes of such conferences. They were then analysed to understand which attributes can most easily and reliably be used to distinguish them from legitimate conferences. A tool to assist prospective participants is introduced. The implications for positive ethics, in terms of making decisions about conference attendance, are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
All prices are expressed in US dollars.
I am grateful to a reviewer who noted an unexpected pairing of antonyms in the distinction between "predatory" and "legitimate" conferences; the opposite of "legitimate" is usually "illegitimate." Because the term "predatory" is so widely used, I follow many others in adopting it. By engaging in deception, predatory outlets become illegitimate, and in that sense their opposite can be said to be legitimate.
References
Asadi, A. (2019). Invitation to speak at a conference: The tempting technique adopted by predatory conferences’ organizers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(3), 975–979. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0038-0
Asadi, A., Rahbar, N., Rezvani, M. J., & Asadi, F. (2018). Fake/bogus conferences: Their features and some subtle ways to differentiate them from real ones. Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9906-2
Bagues, M., Sylos-Labini, M., & Zinovyeva, N. (2019). A walk on the wild side: ‘Predatory’ journals and information asymmetries in scientific evaluations. Research Policy, 48(2), 462–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.013
Beall, J. (2010). Predatory open-access scholarly publishers. The Charleston Advisor, 11(4), 10–17.
Beall, J. (2013). Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access. Learned Publishing, 26(2), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1087/20130203
Beall, J. (2015). Considering presenting a paper at a scholarly conference? Choose carefully. https://www.editage.com/insights/considering-presenting-a-paper-at-a-scholarly-conference-choose-carefully
Beshyah, S. (2017). Fake academia and bogus conferences are on the rise in the middle east: Time to act. Ibnosina Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, 9(6), 147. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijmbs.ijmbs_61_17
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review: A spoof paper concocted by Science reveals little or no scrutiny at many open-access journals. Science, 342(6154), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60
Bowman, J. D. (2014). Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(10).
Brooks, M. (2009). Red-flag conferences. Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Red-Flag-Conferences/44795/
Buckland, A., Eve, M. P., Steel, G., Gardy, J., & Salo, D. (2013). On the mark? Responses to a sting. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 2(1), 1116. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1116
Byard, R. W. (2016). The forensic implications of predatory publishing. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology, 12(4), 391–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-016-9771-3
Carey, K. (2016). A peek inside the strange world of fake academia. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/upshot/fake-academe-looking-much-like-the-real-thing.html
Cariappa, M. P., Dalal, S. S., & Chatterjee, K. (2016). To publish and perish: A Faustian bargain or a Hobson’s choice. Medical Journal Armed Forces India, 72(2), 168–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.03.005
Christopher, M. M., & Young, K. M. (2015). Awareness of “Predatory” Open-Access Journals among Prospective Veterinary and Medical Authors Attending Scientific Writing Workshops. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2015.00022
Clark, J., & Smith, R. (2015). Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ, 350, h210–h210. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h210
Clark, J. (2015). How to avoid predatory journals: A five-point plan. British Medical Journal blog. Retrieved from https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2015/01/19/jocalyn-clark-how-to-avoid-predatory-journals-a-five-point-plan/
Committee on Publication Ethics Council. (2019). Discussion document: Predatory publishing. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/predatory-publishing
Crawford, W. (2014). Ethics and access 1: The sad case of Jeffrey Beall. Cites & Insights, 14(4), 1–14.
Demir, S. B. (2018). Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why? Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1296–1311.
Eaton, S. E. (2018). Avoiding predatory journals and questionable conferences: A resource guide. Alberta: University of Calgary.
Ebadi, S., Ashtarian, S., & Zamani, G. (2020). Exploring arguments presented in predatory journals using Toulmin’s model of argumentation. Journal of Academic Ethics, 18(4), 435–449.
Erfanmanesh, M., & Pourhossein, R. (2017). Publishing in predatory open access journals: A case of Iran. Publishing Research Quarterly, 33(4), 433–444.
Farrimond, H. (2013). Doing ethical research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Georges, A. (n.d.). https://www.professeur-alexandre-georges.info/dolos-list
Gillis, A. (2018). Poor-quality, predatory conferences prey on academics. University Affairs, 5.
Handelsman, M. M., Knapp, S., & Gottlieb, M. C. (2002). Positive ethics. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 731–744). Oxford University Press.
Kurt, S. (2018). Why do authors publish in predatory journals? Learned Publishing, 31(2), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1150
Lang, R., Mintz, M., Krentz, H. B., & Gill, M. J. (2019). An approach to conference selection and evaluation: Advice to avoid 'predatory' conferences. Scientometrics, 118(2), 687–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2981-6
McCrostie, J. (2017a). Warning: conmen and shameless scholars operate in this area. Times Higher Education Supplement.
McCrostie, J. (2017b). Developing a criteria for identifying predatory conferences. Bulletin of Daito Bunka University, 55, 179–187.
McCrostie, J. (2016). “Predatory conferences” stalk Japan’s groves of academia. The Japan Times. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2016/05/11/issues/predatory-conferences-stalk-japans-groves-academia/
McMillin, D. (2019). When conferences lie. Convene, 50–59.
Mercier, E., Tardif, P.-A., Moore, L., Le Sage, N., & Cameron, P. A. (2018). Invitations received from potential predatory publishers and fraudulent conferences: A 12-month early-career researcher experience. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 94(1108), 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2017-135097
Nicoll, L. H., & Chinn, P. L. (2015). Caught in the trap: The allure of deceptive publishers. Nurse Author and Editor, 25(4), 4.
Oermann, M. H., Nicoll, L. H., Chinn, P. L., Ashton, K. S., Conklin, J. L., Edie, A. H., Amarasekara, S., & Williams, B. L. (2018). Quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals. Nursing Outlook, 66(1), 4–10.
Pawar, M. (2018). Predatory conferences: Caveat emptor! Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 32(8), e308–e309. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.14855
Sekerka, L. E., Comer, D. R., & Godwin, L. N. (2014). Positive organizational ethics: Cultivating and sustaining poral performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(4), 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1911-z
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., Turner, L., Barbour, V., Burch, R., et al. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine, 15(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9
Shen, C., & Björk, B.-C. (2015). ‘Predatory’ open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 230. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2
Soler, J., & Wang, Y. (2019). Linguistic differences between well-established and predatory journals: A keyword analysis of two journals in political science. Learned Publishing, 32, 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1244
Sorokowski, P., Kulczycki, E., Sorokowska, A., & Pisanski, K. (2017). Predatory journals recruit fake editor. Nature, 543(7646), 481–483.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Al-Khatib, A. (2016). Questioning the ethics of John Bohannon’s hoaxes and stings in the context of science publishing. KOME, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.17646/KOME.2016.16
Xia, J., Harmon, J. L., Connolly, K. G., Donnelly, R. M., Anderson, M. R., & Howard, H. A. (2015). Who publishes in 'predatory' journals? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1406–1417. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23265
Zastrow, M. (2019). South Korea clamps down on academics attending ‘weak’ conferences. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03372-z
Think Check Attend. (n.d.). https://thinkcheckattend.org/conference-checker/
Memon, A. R., & Azim, M. E. (2018). Predatory conferences: Addressing researchers from developing countries. Journal of the Pakistani Medical Association, 68(11), 1691–1695.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
This appendix provides two abstracts; others are available from the author.
Abstract 1
Development of a Technology for Causing Surface-breaking Cracks
Ultrasonic techniques have been used for many purposes, including imaging of various sorts. Indeed, it would not be excessive to claim that ultrasound is a leading form of non-destructive evaluation and inspection. However, less known is the role which ultrasonic inspection can play in destructive evaluation. In order to establish the utility of this technique in the destructive testing domain, we conducted an experiment in which the foundations of buildings were placed under strain of different types. In the first condition, the foundations were stressed by the positioning of a large member of the species Gorilla gorilla at roof level. The experimental mammal was repeatedly exposed to irritation in the form of low-flying aircraft. In the second condition, the foundations were directly treated with applications of ultrasound. In a control condition, no direct stresses were applied, but the building was elevated by a large cyclon and dropped from a considerable height on a hard surface (constituents: brick; composition: Au). It was found that the ultrasound condition was more successful that the traditional technique in producing surface-breaking cracks. Implications for civil engineering will be discussed.
Abstract 2
Equine Fetlock Resistence Under Conditions of Stress Performance
The equine fetlock is fragile and constantly subject to stress and strain. This holds particularly true for animals who are used in high-intensity activities such as steeplechasing and flat racing. Many of the treatments which can add strength and endurance to these delicate joints are steroidal in nature and thereby involve an exclusion from competitive activities. Alternative approaches to this problem have therefore been sought. This paper reports an experiment in which thoroughbred horses were provided with betacarotene in varying doses. The two dosage ranges—low and high—were selected based on findings of previous studies. The betacarotene was administered in the form of intact exemplars of Daucus carota (n = 1 and 3, respectively) as previous experience showed that the experimental animals found this palatable and thus the ease of administration was considerably increased. A control group was not given a betacarotene supplement, but was instead administered with a crystalline form of the dried fluid from Saccharum officinarum, presented as a cube. In both control and experimental conditions, the dose was administered by a laboratory technician observing the appropriate protocol of presenting it on the flat of the palm. Findings demonstrated a remarkable increase in the speed with which the animals in the high dosage group returned from pasture, when compared with the low dosage group. It is not unreasonable to suppose that this correlated with increased joint strength, thus demonstrating the effectiveness of this treatment. However, the control group were prompter in their response than the low dosage group. Further research is needed to investigate whether a link can be found between joint strength and chemical compounds found in Saccharum officinarum.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pecorari, D. Predatory Conferences: What Are the Signs?. J Acad Ethics 19, 343–361 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09406-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09406-4