next »

[oseph]

Or this one:

http://www.intellectbase.org

I wish I could post screen shots here, at the beginning of the graphic loop at the top of their front page, they have intellectual spelled wrong.

Love it!
MP

That's awesome!

[notaprof]

I have a hard time believing that a single bonafide academic exists in the entire world who doesn't know the difference between a real conference and a sham one.  This whole "problem" sounds made-up to me.

I wish it were--part of the reason I am so incensed about these scam conferences (particularly ORT) that so many people are duped by them. One of my best friends from grad school fell for the ORT sham--his uni even put out press releases, his dean gave him $4k to go, they had him give a talk when he returned, etc. He quietly took it off his cv as soon as he got back when he realized what a total scam it was...

We had a candidate for a Dean position fly in for the meet and greet who had the ORT on s/h/it's resume. It made me believe they were very Klassy.

Did d/h/it get the job?  Was the search committee impressed that there was an ORT talk on his CV?  Does it say as much about the candidate as it does about the search committee that this person was flown out?

[profxfiles]

Did d/h/it get the job?  Was the search committee impressed that there was an ORT talk on his CV?  Does it say as much about the candidate as it does about the search committee that this person was flown out?

The sad truth is that we DID give someone a dean's job with ORT on their CV about ten years ago, but I would be surprised if anyone on my campus knew what a scam it was at the time. Now that I at least one person (moi) knows, I guarantee you I will make sure anyone with that on their CV for an administrative job is "outed" immediately....

[qrypt]

Did d/h/it get the job?  Was the search committee impressed that there was an ORT talk on his CV?  Does it say as much about the candidate as it does about the search committee that this person was flown out?

The sad truth is that we DID give someone a dean's job with ORT on their CV about ten years ago, but I would be surprised if anyone on my campus knew what a scam it was at the time. Now that I at least one person (moi) knows, I guarantee you I will make sure anyone with that on their CV for an administrative job is "outed" immediately....

To be fair, ORT was more or less legit 10 years ago.  It didn't start out as a cash cow -- they turned it into one 9 or 10 years ago. 

[medprof]

Did d/h/it get the job?  Was the search committee impressed that there was an ORT talk on his CV?  Does it say as much about the candidate as it does about the search committee that this person was flown out?

The sad truth is that we DID give someone a dean's job with ORT on their CV about ten years ago, but I would be surprised if anyone on my campus knew what a scam it was at the time. Now that I at least one person (moi) knows, I guarantee you I will make sure anyone with that on their CV for an administrative job is "outed" immediately....

To be fair, ORT was more or less legit 10 years ago.  It didn't start out as a cash cow -- they turned it into one 9 or 10 years ago. 

Failed search, so no. That's not for lack of trying. This candidate had recently completed a EdD in higher ed and had that listed as one of her only conference presentations.

At a CC, though, so not that concerned with pubs/presentations.

MP

[socsci]

I think this article actually misses a few points. First of all, the major academic organization-based conferences in fact do have, if not an accounting of their conference, complete financials for their association as a whole: AHA is the example I cited in my post starting the thread "What the Oxford Round Table Website Doesn't Tell You." Second, it could point to some of the conferences with fees higher than the $300-400 range the author lists. Again, the ORT falls in here ($2940!), but there are also some conferences in a few fields (medical and business, for example) where the fees are frequently $300 and sometimes much more, for legitimate, even standard disciplinary conferences. So some distinguishing needs to be made there.

The article is also tepid in that it does not name names. I am sure the Chronicle and probably individual reporters carry professional malpractice insurance, so this kind of chicken behavior is pretty disturbing.

The article does not even hint at the Common Ground series of conferences, based at the School of Education at University of Illinois-Urbana/Champaign, which specializes in high fees, abstentia fees, and apparent pay-for-publication, across a range of discipines. When will we see some reporting on Common Ground?

But the big question remains: when will we see some reporting on the Oxford Round Table? Our 2 1/2 year thread has generated some important research on the organization, has about 200,000 views now, and Times Higher Education has written two unflattering stories while the silence at the Chronicle is deafening. Let's compare the ORT with the red flags in the story:

Fees: Off the charts (effectively $1040 of the $2940 is conference fee, since you can bring a guest for $1900);
Pay-for-publication: Hard to determine;
Frequent extensions of conference deadlines: check;
Lack of direct affiliation with a college or university: check;
Same person runs conferences and the journal: no;
Hotmail vs. .edu email address: neither, it's oxfordroundtable.com;
Excessive reference to the attractions of the location: check;
Awkward or outdated language: a bit (read their disclaimer);
Flags and other junk: no.

It's way past time for the Chronicle to earn back its journalistic credibility on this issue.

[cayenne]

The article does not even hint at the Common Ground series of conferences, based at the School of Education at University of Illinois-Urbana/Champaign, which specializes in high fees, abstentia fees, and apparent pay-for-publication, across a range of discipines. When will we see some reporting on Common Ground?

You probably won't credit what I say here since this is a first time post, but here goes. I've been lurking sporadically on this forum for a few years, for what that's worth.

Although I cannot speak to the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of Common Ground as an organization--and what do we mean by "legitimate" anyway?--my sole experience with one of their conferences was wholly positive. The atmosphere was lively and intimate, and the conference brought together a very international group of scholars with similar interests who were eager to engage each other. Anyway, it was recommended to me by somebody I trust, so I did not approach it suspiciously.

As for their journals, they are probably closer to double-blind refereed conference proceedings in practice. There was a lot of talk from the organizers about wanting to upend hierarchical (non-meritocratic) and big corporate structures of traditional academic journal publishing--and of course they have valid criticisms there. Common Ground seems very ambitious when it comes to new academic publishing models, though I would question how much impact they are ever going to have.

The conference was good for bringing people with interests in common together to exchange ideas and build community between the attendees. Inasmuch as that effect matches the organization name, and this is what conferences of all sorts are for, generally speaking, it was "legitimate." Beyond that, I guess everyone's mileage will vary.

[sibyl]

You probably won't credit what I say here since this is a first time post, but here goes. I've been lurking sporadically on this forum for a few years, for what that's worth.

Rationality, good spelling and grammar, openness to ideas, and new information go a lot further toward establishing credibility than the number of posts.  I think you did fine.

[1233312]

hm... I got a paper accepted at that common ground dubai conference, but then decided not to go. (first I was lazy, then wondering where to get travel funds, then saw other conferences that I'd rather attend with my limited monies.)

but I do think it was good that they're being more geographically inclusive (I mean dubai? cool). Also, I think the fee was not really that high for grad students and the main guest speaker was someone who's pretty well respected in the area of globalization. although I did look at the confirmed papers and I thought it was a pretty odd assortment, and I didn't really recognize any names.

still though, I'm glad that I didn't go through with it, because I can do better networking at a real recognized conference. and if they end up getting better in quality eventually, great, but the way I see it, there's no loss in waiting around to see if that happens... though this is also because in my social sciences discipline, getting into the conference proceedings is of negligible benefit compared to publishing in even a third-tier journal.