What is it like to attend a predatory conference?

Christine Ro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02358-w

IF: 64.8

2024-07-19

Nature

Abstract:Nature sent a reporter to find out as part of an investigation into dud events. Nature sent a reporter to find out as part of an investigation into dud events.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Research on Predatory Conferences

Ming CHEN

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-1167.2019.08.005

2019-01-01

Abstract:This paper makes a study on predatory conferences on the basis of the unsolicited conference e-mails received by the author. First, a detailed analysis is made of such predatory conferences’ full title, date and place, article submission, organizing committee, schedule, article publication, contact method, and whether they are included and indexed by some key databases or not. Then, based on such an analysis, the reasons of such predatory conferences’ as well as their harms are pointed out, and some countermeasures are put forward.
"I'd like to think I'd be able to spot one if I saw one": How science journalists navigate predatory journals

Alice Fleerackers,Laura L Moorhead,Juan Pablo Alperin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.24.604934

2024-07-26

Abstract:Predatory journals--or journals that prioritize profits over editorial and publication best practices--are becoming more common, raising concerns about the integrity of the scholarly record. Such journals also pose a threat for the integrity of science journalism, as journalists may unwillingly report on low quality or even highly flawed studies published in these venues. This study sheds light on how journalists navigate this challenging publishing landscape through a qualitative analysis of interviews with 23 health, science, and environmental journalists about their perceptions of predatory journals and strategies for ensuring the journals they report on are trustworthy. We find that journalists have relatively limited awareness and/or concern about predatory journals. Much of this attitude is due to confidence in their established practices for avoiding problematic research, which largely centre on perceptions of journal prestige, reputation, and familiarity, as well as writing quality and professionalism. Most express limited awareness of how their trust heuristics may discourage them from reporting on smaller, newer, and open access journals, especially those based in the Global South. We discuss implications for the accuracy and diversity of the science news that reaches the public.

Biology
I'm worried I've been contacted by a predatory publisher — how do I find out?

Nikki Forrester

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01437-2

IF: 64.8

2024-05-15

Nature

Abstract:Researchers frequently receive invitations to publish in journals that they might not have heard of. Nature asked two scientists how they would check whether a publication is legitimate. Researchers frequently receive invitations to publish in journals that they might not have heard of. Nature asked two scientists how they would check whether a publication is legitimate.

multidisciplinary sciences
The Lure of the Podium: The Seductive Appeal of Predatory Conference Speaker Invitations

Manuel B. Garcia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-024-03506-z

IF: 3.8

2024-04-02

Annals of Biomedical Engineering

Abstract:This letter highlights an escalating concern regarding predatory conference speaker invitations that are currently plaguing academia. Such invitations are frequently issued to individuals outside their areas of expertise, for instance, non-healthcare professionals being invited to health-related conferences. This issue poses a substantial threat as it compromises the integrity of legitimate academic discourse and carries the risk of propagating unchecked and potentially detrimental information. To avoid becoming ensnared by these predatory practices, it is paramount to undertake thorough due diligence. Consequently, this letter also outlines the characteristics of predatory speaker invitations. These guidelines underscore the necessity for the academic community to remain vigilant and judicious, thereby recognizing these overtures for what they truly represent: a deceptive temptation that leads away from authentic scholarly engagement toward a facade of recognition and prestige.

engineering, biomedical
What is wrong with MDPI: Is it a predator or a serious competitor?

Pasi Fränti

2024-11-05

Abstract:Hunt for predatory journals is based on binary division of the publishing world to legitime and predatory journals. This leads to difficulties in labeling publishers like MDPI with questionable practices. However, the root cause is not the publisher itself but the problems in the peer review system. These problems have created markets for the for-profit publishers shaking the understanding of conservative researchers and their belief about what is good science. In this paper, we analyze the problems via examples based on our own experience as author, reviewer, guest editor, associate editor, and editor-in-chief. We discuss how MDPI has addressed these problems.

Digital Libraries
So you think you want to run an environmental conservation meeting? Advice on the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that accompany academic conference planning

E. C. M. Parsons

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0327-8

2015-09-19

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences

Abstract:A key component of academia is the meeting. A conference or symposium is a valuable resource for academics in so many ways. However, despite their value, planning an academic meeting can be difficult, partly because of the nature of academics themselves. Planning an environmental meeting adds an extra layer of difficulty, as special attention must be taken with ensuring that the meeting is as environmentally friendly as possible. This article has been written to give those wanting to plan an academic meeting some advice, with some useful tips and warnings about pitfalls that may be encountered. Issues such as location, transportation, accommodation, catering, promotion, social media, funding, and dealing with problem delegates are covered. Importantly, issues related to reducing the environmental impact of the meeting are discussed. It is hoped that the tips contained within this article will take some of the stress out of organizing an academic meeting for those in the environmental and conservation fields.
Greetings from your predatory journal! What they are, why they are a problem, how to spot and avoid them

Florence Cook,Roganie Govender,Peter A Brennan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2023.02.005

Abstract:Predatory publishers, also known as counterfeit, deceptive, or fraudulent, are organisations that exploit the open-access scholarly model by charging hefty article processing charges (APCs), often without the scientific rigour and ethical processes offered by legitimate journals. Their rising prevalence is of concern to the scientific community, as the consequences of falling victim to them can negatively impact academic integrity and reputation, and render an author's work worthless and untrustworthy. Common characteristics include inappropriate marketing and misrepresentation of services by targeting individuals with solicitation emails, inadequate peer-review processes, lack of editorial services and transparency about APCs, and false claims about citation metrics and indexing that cannot be verified. Given the infiltration of predatory publishers, authors are advised to proceed with caution when receiving solicitation emails and if in doubt, to follow the Think, Check, Submit checklist.
Why do authors publish in predatory journals?

Serhat Kurt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1150

2018-01-18

Learned Publishing

Abstract:This study examines the reasons why authors publish in ‘predatory’ OA journals. In total, 50 journals were randomly selected from Beall's list of ‘predatory’ journals. Different methods, including WHOIS tracking, were utilized to query basic information about the selected journals, including location and registrant. Then, 300 articles were randomly selected from within selected journals in various scientific fields. Authors of the selected articles were contacted and sent survey questions to complete. A grounded theory qualitative methods approach was used for data collection and analysis. The results demonstrated that most of these journals were located in the developing world, usually Asia or Africa, even when they claimed they were in the USA or UK . Furthermore, four themes emerged after authors’ survey responses were coded, categorized, and sub‐categorized. The themes were: social identity threat, unawareness, high pressure, and lack of research proficiency . Scholars in the developing world felt that reputable Western journals might be prejudiced against them and sometimes felt more comfortable publishing in journals from the developing world. Other scholars were unaware of the reputation of the journals in which they published and would not have selected them had they known. However, some scholars said they would still have published in the same journals if their institution recognised them. The pressure to ‘publish or perish’ was another factor influencing many scholars’ decisions to publish in these fast‐turnaround journals. In some cases, researchers did not have adequate guidance and felt they lacked the knowledge of research to submit to a more reputable journal. More needs to be done by institutions and reputable journals to make researchers aware of the problem of ‘predatory’ journals.

information science & library science
Awareness of “Predatory” Open-Access Journals among Prospective Veterinary and Medical Authors Attending Scientific Writing Workshops

Mary M. Christopher,Karen M. Young

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2015.00022

IF: 3.471

2015-08-13

Frontiers in Veterinary Science

Abstract:Authors face many choices when selecting a journal for publication. Prospective authors, especially trainees, may be unaware of "predatory" online journals or how to differentiate them from legitimate journals. In this study, we assessed awareness of open-access and predatory journals among prospective authors attending scientific writing workshops; our long-term goal was to inform educational goals for the workshops. We surveyed participants of writing workshops at veterinary and medical schools and an international conference over a 1-year period. The survey included 14 statements for respondents to indicate agreement level on a Likert-like scale and four questions on awareness of resources about predatory journals; respondents also defined "predatory journal." A total of 145 participants completed the survey: 106 (73.1%) from veterinary schools and 86 (59.3%) graduate students or residents. Fewer faculty (vs trainees) agreed that open access was an important factor in deciding where to publish; faculty and postdoctoral researchers were more likely to expect to pay more to publish in an open-access journal. Most respondents (120/145, 82.7%) agreed/strongly agreed that the decision to accept a manuscript should not be influenced by publication charges, but 50% (56/112) indicated that they "didn't know" how publishing costs were supported. Of the 142 respondents who answered, 33 (23.0%) indicated awareness of the term "predatory journal"; 34 (23.9%) were aware of the Directory of Open Access Journals; 24 (16.9%) were aware of the Science "sting" article about predatory journals; and 7 (4.8%) were aware of Beall's list. Most (93/144, 64.5%) definitions of predatory journals described poor but not predatory journal practices, and some respondents misunderstood the term completely. Mentors should help novice authors to be aware of predatory journals and to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate open-access journals, thus selecting the best journal for their work.

veterinary sciences
Investigating academic nurse researchers' knowledge, experience, and attitude toward predatory journals

Ebtsam Aly Abou Hashish,Samira Ahmed Alsenany,Sally Mohammed Farghaly Abdelaliem

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2024.01.003

IF: 2.272

2024-01-25

Journal of Professional Nursing

Abstract:Background Selecting a journal with an appropriate scope and breadth, well-respected by other scholars in the field, and widely indexed and accessible to readers is an integral part of publishing. Academic publishing has recently seen a significant shift away from traditional print publications and toward open access journals and online publications. Objective The aim of this study was to investigate academic nurse researchers' knowledge, experience, and attitudes regarding predatory journals. Methods A descriptive cross-sectional quantitative study design was conducted using Predatory Journals Questionnaire to collect the data from academic nurse educators working at X and XX University. Results Almost two-thirds (68.6 %) of participants had previous knowledge of the term "predatory journal." As well as, the majority of academic educators had previous experience as they had used predatory journals before, as by being asked to publish in their journal (84.3 %) or serve on its editorial board (24.3 %), participants were more likely to receive requests to submit an article to a predatory journal (52.9 %) via email, mail, or phone. In addition, academic nurse researchers had a moderate perspective (mean = 3.87 ± 1.06; mean % score = 71.71) toward predatory journals. Conclusion Publishing in a predatory journal, whether done knowingly or unknowingly, can harm authors' reputations as academics, their capacity to submit to other journals, and the quality of their work. According to the results of our study, many researchers still lacked a thorough understanding of the predatory journal publishing model, which is a phenomenon that demands an increasing amount of research, despite hearing about the phenomenon of a predatory journal and having previously attended training.

nursing
ComSoc Portfolio Conferences: A Journey of Unwavering Strength

Stefano Bregni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/mcom.2024.10550020

IF: 9.03

2024-06-07

IEEE Communications Magazine

Abstract:Most readers of this article are regular conference attendees and authors of conference papers. When we compare our experiences with colleagues, we are all used to hearing or asking "Is this a good conference?" It must be clear to everyone that responding to such a question is not easy, and the answer can be even different depending on who is speaking, whether they are organizers, authors of papers, presenters, commercial sponsors, or simple attendees who go to the conference just to listen and meet people.

telecommunications,engineering, electrical & electronic
Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey

Kelly D Cobey,Agnes Grudniewicz,Manoj M Lalu,Danielle B Rice,Hana Raffoul,David Moher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026516

IF: 3.006

2019-03-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives To develop effective interventions to prevent publishing in presumed predatory journals (ie, journals that display deceptive characteristics, markers or data that cannot be verified), it is helpful to understand the motivations and experiences of those who have published in these journals. Design An online survey delivered to two sets of corresponding authors containing demographic information, and questions about researchers' perceptions of publishing in the presumed predatory journal, type of article processing fees paid and the quality of peer review received. The survey also asked six open-ended items about researchers' motivations and experiences. Participants Using Beall’s lists, we identified two groups of individuals who had published empirical articles in biomedical journals that were presumed to be predatory. Results Eighty-two authors partially responded (~14% response rate (11.4%[44/386] from the initial sample, 19.3%[38/197] from second sample) to our survey. The top three countries represented were India (n=21, 25.9%), USA (n=17, 21.0%) and Ethiopia (n=5, 6.2%). Three participants (3.9%) thought the journal they published in was predatory at the time of article submission. The majority of participants first encountered the journal via an email invitation to submit an article (n=32, 41.0%), or through an online search to find a journal with relevant scope (n=22, 28.2%). Most participants indicated their study received peer review (n=65, 83.3%) and that this was helpful and substantive (n=51, 79.7%). More than a third (n=32, 45.1%) indicated they did not pay fees to publish. Conclusions This work provides some evidence to inform policy to prevent future research from being published in predatory journals. Our research suggests that common views about predatory journals (eg, no peer review) may not always be true, and that a grey zone between legitimate and presumed predatory journals exists. These results are based on self-reports and may be biased thus limiting their interpretation.

medicine, general & internal
Awareness of predatory publishing for Peruvian university professors and lecturers doing research

Carlos Sotomayor-Beltran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1775592

Abstract:Predatory open access journals and predatory conferences' main purpose is to make profit rather than promoting good science. In Peru, the University Law 30220 asks that professors and lecturers undertake research duties at universities. Hence, nowadays part of this academic staff is required to write scientific articles. However, not all of them are experienced on how to write a scholarly paper. Thus, in the rush to comply with the publication requirements that their individual institutions demand from them, a great number of these professors and lecturers are likely to fall prey of predatory publishing, which already is happening in other developing nations. This publishing method is not only unethical because it produces low-quality articles but also is an egregious mismanagement of the resources that universities allocate to fund research. Moreover, the time and effort that the academic staff put to the production of low-quality papers also completely go to waste. Professors and lecturers who follow these bad practices should be penalized; this also avoids the emergence of fraudulent research authorities. Thus, vice-rectorates for research in Peruvian universities should take corrective or preventive measures to promote the production of high-quality papers by part of their academic staff.
Misconduct’s forgotten victims

H Holden Thorp,H. Holden Thorp

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp2165

IF: 56.9

2024-03-22

Science

Abstract:The drumbeat of complaints over the poor treatment of graduate students and postdocs in academic science continues. As explained on this page, there is a seemingly endless “slow-motion crisis” of strikes, failures at collective bargaining, and damaging news stories about the mistreatment of and poor working conditions for graduate students. Meanwhile, a parade of stories about academic fraud and failures to address research integrity undermine public trust in science. These two threads are connected. Although media coverage of research misconduct tends to focus on the motives and actions of high-flying faculty members and their institutions, the casualties of such tumult are hardly mentioned: the trainees who may be traumatized personally and harmed professionally by the clumsy, opaque, and slow way that institutions deal with these incidents.

multidisciplinary sciences
Publishing in potentially predatory journals: Do universities adopt university leaders' dishonest behavior?

Daria Gerashchenko

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2081916

2022-06-03

Accountability in Research

Abstract:With the development of science digitalization, it became possible to detect dishonest behavior. The increasing magnitude of predatory publishing has boosted scientific research on the topic. While studies on university leaders' impact concentrate mainly on its positive effects on organizational performance, to date, little is known about whether academic leaders can negatively influence the organizations they lead depending on their engagement in academic misconduct. Using a sample of Russian universities and their leaders from 2010–2020, I ask whether universities tend to adopt leaders' dishonest behavior. Specifically, I analyzed whether universities increase publications in potentially predatory journals after a leader with such a record enters the office. Relying on a culture theory of academic misconduct, I discuss the role-related factors that contribute to a leader's influence over employees. I focus on whether the leader's influence relates to external incentives for universities to publish more, the leader's career development type, or the leader's and university's research area. The findings demonstrate that the share of publications in potentially predatory journals tends to increase if a leader with such publications assumes office, especially if the university is research-oriented. The results suggest that academic reputation of a leader matters to the university's consequent misconduct.
The Evolving Ecosystem of Predatory Journals: A Case Study in Indian Perspective

Naman Jain,Mayank Singh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1906.06856

2019-06-17

Abstract:Digital advancement in scholarly repositories has led to the emergence of a large number of open access predatory publishers that charge high article processing fees from authors but fail to provide necessary editorial and publishing services. Identifying and blacklisting such publishers has remained a research challenge due to the highly volatile scholarly publishing ecosystem. This paper presents a data-driven approach to study how potential predatory publishers are evolving and bypassing several regularity constraints. We empirically show the close resemblance of predatory publishers against reputed publishing groups. In addition to verifying standard constraints, we also propose distinctive signals gathered from network-centric properties to understand this evolving ecosystem better.

Digital Libraries
Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen

Alonzo Alfaro-Núñez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00659-3

Abstract:Background: Today, scientists and academic researchers experience an enormous pressure to publish innovative and ground-breaking results in prestigious journals. This pressure may blight the general view concept of how scientific research needs to be done in terms of the general rules of transparency; duplication of data, and co-authorship rights might be compromised. As such, misconduct acts may occur more frequently than foreseen, as frequently these experiences are not openly shared or discussed among researchers. Main body: While there are some concerns about the health and the transparency implications of such normalised pressure practices imposed on researchers in scientific research, there is a general acceptance that researchers must take and accept it in order to survive in the competitive world of science. This is even more the case for junior and mid-senior researchers who have recently started their adventure into the universe of independent researchers. Only the slightest fraction manages to endure, after many years of furious and cruel rivalry, to obtain a long-term, and even less probable, permanent position. There is an evil circle; excellent records of good publications are needed in order to obtain research funding, but how to produce pioneering research during these first years without funding? Many may argue this is a necessary process to ensure good quality scientific investigation, possibly, but perseverance and resilience may not be the only values needed when rejection is received consecutively for years. Conclusion: There is a general culture that scientists rarely share previous bad experiences, in particular if they were associated to misconduct, as they may not be seen or considered as a relevant or hot topic to the scientific community readers. On next, a recent misconduct experience is shared, and a few additional reflections and suggestions on this topic were drafted in the hope other researchers might be spared unnecessary and unpleasant times.
Characteristics of scholars who review for predatory and legitimate journals: linkage study of Cabells Scholarly Analytics and Publons data

Anna Severin,Michaela Strinzel,Matthias Egger,Marc Domingo,Tiago Barros

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050270

IF: 3.006

2021-07-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives To describe and compare the characteristics of scholars who reviewed for predatory or legitimate journals in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics and reviewing and publishing behaviour. Design Linkage of random samples of predatory journals and legitimate journals of the Cabells Scholarly Analytics’ journal lists with the Publons database, employing the Jaro-Winkler string metric. Descriptive analysis of sociodemographic characteristics and reviewing and publishing behaviour of scholars for whom reviews were found in the Publons database. Setting Peer review of journal articles. Participants Reviewers who submitted peer review reports to Publons. Measurements Numbers of reviews for predatory journals and legitimate journals per reviewer. Academic age of reviewers, the total number of reviews, number of publications and number of reviews and publications per year. Results Analyses included 183 743 unique reviews submitted to Publons by 19 598 reviewers. Six thousand and seventy-seven reviews were for 1160 predatory journals (3.31% of all reviews) and 177 666 reviews for 6403 legitimate journals (96.69%). Most scholars never submitted reviews for predatory journals (90.0% of all scholars); few scholars (7.6%) reviewed occasionally or rarely (1.9%) for predatory journals. Very few scholars submitted reviews predominantly or exclusively for predatory journals (0.26% and 0.35%, respectively). The latter groups of scholars were of younger academic age and had fewer publications and reviews than the first groups. Regions with the highest shares of predatory reviews were sub-Saharan Africa (21.8% reviews for predatory journals), Middle East and North Africa (13.9%) and South Asia (7.0%), followed by North America (2.1%), Latin America and the Caribbean (2.1%), Europe and Central Asia (1.9%) and East Asia and the Pacific (1.5%). Conclusion To tackle predatory journals, universities, funders and publishers need to consider the entire research workflow and educate reviewers on concepts of quality and legitimacy in scholarly publishing.

medicine, general & internal
Trends in hoaxes of academic communication

Zen Faulkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.11.17.624043

2024-11-19

Abstract:Academic journals use peer review to weed out false information, but peer review and other editorial processes are normally confidential. Therefore, individuals sometimes create hoaxes to test whether editorial processes are as robust as they are claimed, or whether they are done at all. This article tracks the occurrence of hoaxes aimed at scholarly publishers and academic conferences since 2000. Since 2009, successful hoaxes usually appeared at a year of one or more a year, usually motivated by academics or journalists exposing so-called “predatory” journals. The apparent rise in the number of hoaxes reflects a lack of transparency in editorial processes at both legitimate and “predatory” journals. Reaction of academic communities to hoaxes varies widely depending on the perceived intent of the target of the hoaxes and whether the hoax demonstrates what the hoaxer claims.

Biology
Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE): Trainees Report Harassment and Assault

Kathryn B. H. Clancy,Robin G. Nelson,Julienne N. Rutherford,Katie Hinde

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102172

IF: 3.7

2014-07-16

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Little is known about the climate of the scientific fieldwork setting as it relates to gendered experiences, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. We conducted an internet-based survey of field scientists (N = 666) to characterize these experiences. Codes of conduct and sexual harassment policies were not regularly encountered by respondents, while harassment and assault were commonly experienced by respondents during trainee career stages. Women trainees were the primary targets; their perpetrators were predominantly senior to them professionally within the research team. Male trainees were more often targeted by their peers at the research site. Few respondents were aware of mechanisms to report incidents; most who did report were unsatisfied with the outcome. These findings suggest that policies emphasizing safety, inclusivity, and collegiality have the potential to improve field experiences of a diversity of researchers, especially during early career stages. These include better awareness of mechanisms for direct and oblique reporting of harassment and assault and, the implementation of productive response mechanisms when such behaviors are reported. Principal investigators are particularly well positioned to influence workplace culture at their field sites.

multidisciplinary sciences

What is it like to attend a predatory conference?

Research on Predatory Conferences

"I'd like to think I'd be able to spot one if I saw one": How science journalists navigate predatory journals

I'm worried I've been contacted by a predatory publisher — how do I find out?

The Lure of the Podium: The Seductive Appeal of Predatory Conference Speaker Invitations

What is wrong with MDPI: Is it a predator or a serious competitor?

So you think you want to run an environmental conservation meeting? Advice on the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that accompany academic conference planning

Greetings from your predatory journal! What they are, why they are a problem, how to spot and avoid them

Why do authors publish in predatory journals?

Awareness of “Predatory” Open-Access Journals among Prospective Veterinary and Medical Authors Attending Scientific Writing Workshops

Investigating academic nurse researchers' knowledge, experience, and attitude toward predatory journals

ComSoc Portfolio Conferences: A Journey of Unwavering Strength

Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey

Awareness of predatory publishing for Peruvian university professors and lecturers doing research

Misconduct’s forgotten victims

Publishing in potentially predatory journals: Do universities adopt university leaders' dishonest behavior?

The Evolving Ecosystem of Predatory Journals: A Case Study in Indian Perspective

Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen

Characteristics of scholars who review for predatory and legitimate journals: linkage study of Cabells Scholarly Analytics and Publons data

Trends in hoaxes of academic communication

Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE): Trainees Report Harassment and Assault