To Decline or Accept: A Guide for Determining the Legitimacy of Academic Conference Invitations

Abstract

Importance: After the rise of predatory journals characterized by false claims of legitimacy and a pay-to-publish model, similar "predatory conferences" have become increasingly common. The email inbox of an academic physician can be filled with daily announcements encouraging conference attendance, abstract submission, and often panel or keynote speaker invitations. It therefore becomes important for the plastic surgeon to be able to discern whether these invitations are from "predatory" conferences or legitimate career advancement opportunities, especially early in practice.

Objective: To aid the invited physician in determining the legitimacy of a conference, we aimed to characterize objective features of conferences for which email invitations have been received and use this information to build a decision-making guide.

Design: We analyzed all conference invitations received by the email of one academic plastic surgeon in a 4-month period. These conferences were organized into 3 groups based on affiliation with known professional societies. The following information was collected if available: affiliation with a professional society, type of invitation, conference location, conference format (in-person, virtual, or hybrid), conference title, conference fees, conference organizer, associated journals or publishers, abstract journal submission, grammar, headshots, time to abstract review, and acceptance.

Results: There were 56 unique conference invitations. These were categorized into 15 affiliated conferences, 28 unaffiliated conferences, and 17 conferences of undetermined affiliation. Unaffiliated conferences were more likely to solicit speaker invitations ( P < 0.001), claim to be "international" ( P = 0.001), send emails with grammatical errors ( P < 0.001), use unprofessional headshots on the conference Web site ( P < 0.001), and have reduced virtual conference fees ( P = 0.0032) as compared with conferences affiliated with known professional societies. When comparing the attendance and presenter fees of in-person venues, there was no significant difference between affiliated and unaffiliated conferences ( P = 0.973, P = 0.604). Affiliated conferences were more likely to take place in the United States ( P = 0.014).

Conclusions and relevance: We present a method to quickly assess the legitimacy of an academic meeting by way of a few important questions. Based on our findings, emails soliciting conference speakers, claims of international presence, grammatical errors, unprofessional headshots, and reduced virtual conference fees are all characteristics that should raise red flags.