Home > Journals > La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio > Past Issues > La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio 2021 Giugno;17(2) > La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio 2021 Giugno;17(2):67-71



Publishing options
To subscribe PROMO
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as


EDITORIALE   Free accessfree

La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio 2021 Giugno;17(2):67-71

DOI: 10.23736/S1825-859X.21.00106-7


language: Italian

Predatory meetings

Piero CAPPELLETTI 1 , Nicola BIZZARO 2, Romolo M. DORIZZI 3

1 SIPMeL, Castelfranco Veneto, Treviso, Italia; 2 Laboratorio di Patologia Clinica, Ospedale Sant’Antonio, Tolmezzo - Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Integrata di Udine, Udine, Italia; 3 UOC Patologia Clinica, Laboratorio Unico della Romagna, Pievesestina di Cesena, Forlì-Cesena, Italia

Predatory meetings (conferences, congresses, summit) are meetings set up to appear as legitimate scientific conferences, but which are commercially exploitative as they request fees also for active presence (speaker, chairman, committee), do not provide proper editorial control over presentations, and advertising can include claims of involvement of prominent academics who are unaware. Often the organizers of predatory conferences are publishers of predatory journals. It represents two faces of the same coin. The predominant characteristics, taken from the literature, are described. The high number of ways in which these meetings are called and the high number of characteristics they may possess show that the case of predatory conferences is not well defined, is ambiguous in its presentation and elusive in its responsibilities. The “questionable conferences” have been proliferating in the last five years. Most searches attest to at least one e-mail per day with an unsolicited invitation to this type of conference. Young professionals are the most vulnerable to the traps of predatory congresses. Scholars who know or at least suspect that these conferences may not be legitimate but still participate are part of the problem. The basic defense is to increase awareness of the problem and of the professional risks involved. First, the consultation of the blacklist of Caltech (California Institute of Technology) should be encouraged. Second, many organizations also suggest checklists to autonomously assess the security level of an event; particularly interesting and fast that of the “Think. Check. Attend. Initiative.” In conclusion, awareness and knowledge of the phenomenon is necessary in order not to waste money, time and reputation. Institutions and universities should not host predatory conferences and should take the necessary measures against researchers who attend or organize such conferences. Scientific Societies should warn their members of this danger, in no way offer support to these commercial initiatives and promote defenses against them (blacklist and checklist).

KEY WORDS: Peer-review; Checklist; Congress

top of page