Cargando…
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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9716922/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36450423 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062425 |
_version_ | 1784842793313632256 |
---|---|
author | Godskesen, Tove Eriksson, Stefan Oermann, Marilyn H Gabrielsson, Sebastian |
author_facet | Godskesen, Tove Eriksson, Stefan Oermann, Marilyn H Gabrielsson, Sebastian |
author_sort | Godskesen, Tove |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9716922 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97169222022-12-03 Predatory conferences: a systematic scoping review Godskesen, Tove Eriksson, Stefan Oermann, Marilyn H Gabrielsson, Sebastian BMJ Open Ethics 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC9716922/ /pubmed/36450423 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062425 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Ethics Godskesen, Tove Eriksson, Stefan Oermann, Marilyn H Gabrielsson, Sebastian Predatory conferences: a systematic scoping review |
title | Predatory conferences: a systematic scoping review |
title_full | Predatory conferences: a systematic scoping review |
title_fullStr | Predatory conferences: a systematic scoping review |
title_full_unstemmed | Predatory conferences: a systematic scoping review |
title_short | Predatory conferences: a systematic scoping review |
title_sort | predatory conferences: a systematic scoping review |
topic | Ethics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9716922/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36450423 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062425 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT godskesentove predatoryconferencesasystematicscopingreview AT erikssonstefan predatoryconferencesasystematicscopingreview AT oermannmarilynh predatoryconferencesasystematicscopingreview AT gabrielssonsebastian predatoryconferencesasystematicscopingreview |