| Title |
Fake/Bogus Conferences: Their Features and Some Subtle Ways to Differentiate Them from Real Ones
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-017-9906-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amin Asadi, Nader Rahbar, Mohammad Javad Rezvani, Fahime Asadi |
| Abstract |
The main objective of the present paper is to introduce some features of fake/bogus conferences and some viable approaches to differentiate them from the real ones. These fake/bogus conferences introduce themselves as international conferences, which are multidisciplinary and indexed in major scientific digital libraries. Furthermore, most of the fake/bogus conference holders offer publishing the accepted papers in ISI journals and use other techniques in their advertisement e-mails. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 22% |
| Unknown | 6 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 3 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 11% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 26% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 February 2022.
All research outputs
#15,687,152
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#715
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,472
of 312,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#18
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,975 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.