Talk:Predatory conference

Coverage of Predatory Publishing
This version of the article had a substantial description of predatory publishing, which is not only the precursor phenomenon to predatory publishing, but often involves the same organisations. I accept that it needed shortening. In the next edit, replaced the entire section with a transclusion and  then removed the transclusion while rescuing two references. I do not think zero coverage of predatory publishing in the main body of this article on predatory conferences is appropriate. This article will be appearing on the main page at DYK in under 24 hours, and I would like to have some coverage of the publishing area restored. Thoughts / Comments from any and all welcomed. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that it is probably best to merge the two articles, given that the subjects are very closely related and, as you say, indeed involve mostly the same companies. Transcluding almost a complete article into this one is ludicrous, it's the first time ever that I see transclusion used in this way. There is no reason to repeat the same stuff over and over again in different articles, that's what we have links for. If this really must be a separate article, then at most a short paragraph on predatory publishing is justified, with a wikilink to the article on that subject. --Randykitty (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't do the transcluding, and agree it was not the way to go, . I very much don't want to consider any merge until after the DYK.  I'm trying to shorten what was there, and below is what I have presently (with a main article hatnote to predatory open access publishing).  It's not short, but still must shorter than what was there before, and the comparison of characteristics to conferences is clearer with the features of predatory publishing outlined.  Thoughts?  EdChem (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)  PS: The section below is 278 words, the version before the transclusion was 769 words on predatory publishing, just FYI.  EdChem (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Predatory open access publishing involves the creation of academic publications built around an exploitative business model that generally involves charging large publication fees to authors (as high as $2,700 in 2013) without providing the editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate journals (open access or not). Submissions are sometimes held hostage by demanding fees for them to be withdrawn, and thereby preventing the manuscripts being sent to other journals. In 2010, criteria for recognising predatory publications were proposed by the University of Colorado, Denver librarian and researcher Jeffrey Beall when he began maintaining a regularly-updated list of "potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers." Beall's criteria have been updated and a process for a publisher to appeal its inclusion has been introduced and used successfully. The list is "widely read by librarians, researchers, and open-access advocates, many of whom applaud [Beall's] efforts to reveal shady publishing practices" and his views have been published, including in Nature Beall's work has attracted some academic criticism, for adopting a good or bad dichotomy where a spectrum exists, for making unjustified generalisations, and for subjective approaches leading to inconsistency and ambiguity. Ongoing debate and the results of the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? investigation have led to the Directory of Open Access Journals developing a whitelist to complement Beall's blacklist. Early-career academics and scholars from developing countries are said to be especially at risk of victimisation by predatory publishers and all academics are advised to be vigilant in avoiding predatory publishers. Bioethicist Arthur Caplan has warned that predatory publishing, fabricated data, and academic plagiarism erodes public confidence in the medical profession, devaluing legitimate science, and undermines public support for evidence-based policy.


 * My God, you call that brief? With 23 references? Try this:
 * "Predatory open access publishing involves the creation of academic publications built around an exploitative business model that generally involves charging publication fees to authors without providing the editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate journals."
 * That really is all that needs to be said, all the rest belongs in the dedicated article. --Randykitty (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't call it brief, but it is about a third of what was there originally, which I do call substantial shortening. EdChem (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The main article's lead is supposed to be the best overview available. I had tagged the main article such that only the lead would be transcluded. If necessary, please improve the main article's lead rather than creating a better lead here. fgnievinski (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , please do not do this again. The section in this article is not meant to simply repeat the lede of the other article, but to summarise what aspects of the other article are most relevant to this one.  Both  and myself have objected to your use of transclusion here, and I hope none of us want a disagreement to degenerate into an edit war.  If the lede of the publishing article could / should be improved, that is a topic for its talk page.  If what I have added (which is about one-third of what I included originally) is excessive in your opinion, please discuss it or suggest changes.  Thank you.  EdChem (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You originally objected to transcluding the whole article (which never happened). Now you object additionally about transcluding only the article lead, which is the recommended practice when a summary is necessary.  You have explained that the lead is too generic, which for me settles the issue.  Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There's no reason whatsoever to repeat a large chunk of the article on predatory publishing here (let alone transcluding a chunk of that article). I have pruned this article accordingly. I have done some pruning of the rest of the text, too, but more is needed. Also, the references should be checked to see whether they actually support the statements made. There was some SYNTH in this article (for example, the parallels between predatory journals and meetings) and I have removed that, too. The whole story about the fake submission can be condensed to a single sentence, too. --Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Predatory conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161108155947/https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/07/14/another-taiwan-based-mega-scholarly-conference-organizer-emerges/ to https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/07/14/another-taiwan-based-mega-scholarly-conference-organizer-emerges/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161106003123/https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/10/13/bogus-british-company-accredits-omics-conferences/ to https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/10/13/bogus-british-company-accredits-omics-conferences/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160605042104/https://scholarlyoa.com/2013/01/25/omics-predatory-meetings/ to https://scholarlyoa.com/2013/01/25/omics-predatory-meetings/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161224064542/https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/10/06/more-duplication-of-journal-titles-and-conference-names-by-predatory-publishers/ to https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/10/06/more-duplication-of-journal-titles-and-conference-names-by-predatory-publishers/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

A lot of new sources and concerns in the past year
I've raised this as Jimbo's talk page. Here are a number of useful sources, I'm afraid they cover predatory conferences as well.

A study reported in the Japan Times by James McCrostie looks at fake conferences in Japan. McCrostie discusses submitting fake papers generated by SCIgen to fake conferences all of which were accepted. It also discusses both the cost to attendees for these conferences (which are cheap to run) and the damage that can be done to reputations.

The New York Times published an article last month called "Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals". It also discusses aspects of predatory journals such as using names almost identical to prestigious ones, the fact that many or most don't have paper publications or do serious reviews, etc. And the fact that publishing in them is a way for academics to get promoted. "Many faculty members — especially at schools where the teaching load is heavy and resources few — have become eager participants in what experts call academic fraud that wastes taxpayer money, chips away at scientific credibility, and muddies important research." Senior academics publish in them -- 200 McGill University professsors, for instance.

They also run fake conferences where by paying a hefty fee an academic can be listed as a presenter even if they don't attend. It's also easy to become an editor of a fake journal. A fictional academic with ludicrous credentials applied to 360 open-access journals asking to become an editor, with 48 accepting her, 4 making her editor-in-chief. See also this article.

There are now more predatory conferences than scholarly ones. Many of these are run by Waset: "research into Waset, which is registered in the United Arab Emirates, shows that it will hold some 183 events in 2018, although these will cover almost 60,000 individual “conferences” – averaging 320 at each event. Conferences are scheduled almost every day up until the end of 2030." These take place in small rooms with multiple conferences held in each room but few attendees, although many will have paid a large sum to attend.

An article last month in Die Zeit says the ownership of WASET is unknown, and "website of Waset does not give an address anywhere. Interested parties can only fill out an anonymous form or send an SMS - with the United Arab Emirates dialing code." "The purpose of a waset conference is to extend the CV by a conference as well as a contribution in a scientific journal. Because every lecture is published in an online publication, which is also published by Waset. Over 40,000 articles are said to have come together since 1999, according to the website."

There are more sources of course, I could go on and on. And warnings from academics.

This raises serious issues from Wikipedia. The obvious one is that it is now very difficult for most editors to distinguish between reputable journals and predatory ones, especially when the contributor seems "normal". My other issue is whether Wikipedia or the WMF has a role to play in the fight against these. Maybe we don't, I'd like to think there is something we can do. We do have Predatory open access publishing which oddly doesn't linketo Predatory conference. Perhaps one of the relevant wikiprojects should set up a working party to improve all the related articles?

The DeSmogBlog ran an article about them a few months ago in relation to a climate conference. PubMed has banned OMICS, but not very successfully."PubMed may be consciously or unwittingly acting as a facilitator of predatory or unscrupulous publishing." New owner of two Canadian medical journals is publishing fake research for cash, and pretending it's genuine "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Predatory Publishing but Were Afraid to Ask" "Is predatory scientific publishing “becoming an organized industry”?" Doug Weller  talk 14:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion
I propose to merge this article with Predatory open-access publishing. The article predatory open-access publishing already covers conferences, e.g. the lawsuit against OMICS Group and lists quite a lot conferences as predatory publishers. Furthermore, the characteristics of predatory conferences are not very different from predatory journals, so I don't see a reason for a separate article. (i.e. the way in which the "predatoriness" is implemented. Of course, in general conferences are different from journals) --TheRandomIP (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is a good idea. I can imagine good arguments for and against merging, so I would like to see some more explicit argumentation here about this proposal. said: The article predatory open-access publishing already covers conferences, but Predatory open-access publishing merely mentions conferences in passing in a couple of places, and doesn't explain the five Ws about them as this article attempts to do. Biogeographist (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - different concepts both notable. --Kkmurray (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

List of Predatory Conferences
There are by now multiple well established lists of predatory conferences. I assume individuals fear repression from these scam companies, such as Jeffrey Beall from Bealls List, but wouldnt it make sense to create a Wikipedia Page for "Probable Predatory Conferences"? The same could be done for "probable Predatory Publishers". Of course, people would question subjectivity of these lists, but criteria for predatory practices are well established and can be observed onbjectively (missing per review, missing contact information from organizers, conferences organized by companies with a track record of predatory practices, etc.).

Any thoughts on that?

Robi313 (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: BIOL4410 senior seminar
— Assignment last updated by Kitterbitter160 (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)