Nature Reports on Predatory Conferences

Last month, Nature published an informative series of reports on predatory conferences. Journalist Christine Ro collected tales of avarice and incompetence from conference organizers, attendees, and other sources. The reports and their subtitles are

What is it like to attend a predatory conference? 631 Nature 921-923 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02358-w	Nature sent a reporter to find out as part of an investigation into dud events.
How to spot a predatory conference, and what science needs to do about them: a guide 632 Nature 219-220 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02360-2	Researchers who have fallen prey to predatory conferences share the tell-tale signs of a dud event.
Editorial, Predatory conferences are on the rise. Here are five ways to tackle them 632 Nature 7 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02445-y	Early-career researchers are being targeted by organizers of exploitative meetings. There needs to be more awareness and perhaps legal redress over this dangerous development.

The first article details a "shambolic" bait-switch-and-fail-to-deliver London event produced by OMICS (dba Conference Series). After the fiasco, Nature contacted OMICS to ask about the conference, but did not hear back." On the other hand, the pretentious (or should that be "pretend"?) European Society of Medicine (ESMED), which hired a comedian to moderate an alleged "General Assembly" medical conference in Berlin and advertised a dead geneticist as a keynote speaker at other conference, was willing to talk. The second article reports that a representative blamed COVID for a speaker talking to an empty room and said that "the company no longer runs events." I guess the latter is consistent with the fact that the page esmed.org/upcoming-event is populated with events hosted by John Doe, M.D., Jane Doe (sorry, no degree for her), John Doe II, and plain old Host name.

Despite the editorial's subtitle, it is hard to say who are the main targets of predatory conferences advertisers. It does not take much to qualify for their spam, but junior academics may be especially vulnerable. Nature's editor proposes "five potential interventions." Basically, they are (1) gathering more data on "the full extent of the problem and the level of financial losses incurred by attendees"; (2) advising "early-career colleagues about which conferences are genuinely useful"; (3) "publiciz[ing] information on good conference practices ... and provid[ing] links to trusted organizations"; (4) enforcing consumer-protection laws; and (5) having more bona fide conferences that meet "the scholarly and networking requirements of early-career researchers so they don’t feel the need to attend any available conference." Like sales of illicit drugs, these scams will never end, but some combination of supply-side and demand-side measures will affect their equilibrium level.