Predatory Awards: The New Threat in the Block

The academic field is well aware of the presence of dubious conferences and “pay and publish trash” journals.^1,2 Though it is considered detrimental to the prospects of progress in science, we have gained insights into the complicated dynamics that sustain this apparent shady mechanism. ³ Various steps have been taken to control such journals’ spread, but most have been in vain. ⁴ There has been an advent of another entity in such a scenario, popularly referred to as “predatory awards.” No research exists about the predatory awards, but their existence is acknowledged by comments posted on networking websites and blogs by researchers. The current letter to the editor was conceptualized to gather evidence regarding them using the authors’ own experience and literature review on the topic.

The mode of functioning of predatory awards is very similar to that of other predatory entities. Some characteristics of these awards may help researchers identify them as predatory (Table 1). It is important to note here that the idea behind giving this list is not that any award fulfilling any of the mentioned characteristics is a predatory award. However, the more criteria an award fulfills, the more skeptical and suspicious the researcher should become.

The major issues with these awards are as follows.

Table 1.

Characteristic of a Predatory Award

Award	•  These awards are often newly initiated, as is evident from their name (e.g., first year). Usually, the awards are new, being only a few years in vogue. •  A hefty processing fee is claimed to receive an award. •  The award’s name is usually something like the “Young Researcher” award and not a specific one such as the “Young Psychiatrist” award. •  The award description sounds “too good to be true” to be received by a young researcher. •  The award is received out of nowhere (without applying for it).
Research work chosen	•  The chosen manuscript often may lack research significance and may be published years back. •  The topic for which you receive an award has very little to do with your research field. •  Often the article selected for the award is outdated or is even unrelated to the award being given.
Organization	•  Though the organization usually claims to be global, neither you nor your colleagues from the same field or related fields have heard about it. •  The ceremonies usually contain words like “Global,” “World,” or “Pan” in their name to demonstrate its far-reaching appeal, and a look into the last year’s recipient list may be so long that you may lose interest in finding out about the awardees. •  A look into the award committee may reveal that the experts may be from a different field. •  The organization giving the award has no credibility in the respective field. •  The organization has no proper website, or if it has one, it is usually poorly developed or is not professional. •  There is no accurate contact information (address, phone numbers, and official email addresses of the office bearers) on the organization’s website.
Communication	•  The cascade often starts with an email in your inbox stating that one of your articles has been chosen for a particular award. •  The organization sending an email uses free email accounts such as Google and Yahoo rather than an email address with the organization’s name in the domain name. •  Just like predatory publishers, the email for such award nominations is written poorly with many language issues. •  In some cases, the mail may be soliciting your participation in an upcoming awards ceremony.

1. The disproportionately high number of awardees, by promoting mediocrity, defeats the whole purpose of instituting awards to encourage brilliance.

2. Most of these awards are given in vast fields and not restricted to a particular branch of medicine. This has an inherent problem associated with it. Usually, an award committee is constituted of a certain proportion of experts from the said field. Many of these awards do not have a declared judging committee, or the committee is formed by persons without adequate experience, knowledge, or credibility.

3. The judging process is often shrouded in mystery, as it usually does not involve any floor presentation. These awards often do not have a declared pattern of examining manuscripts (i.e., types of manuscripts, numbers allotted for various areas, etc.). It may be possible that even a letter to the editor may end up bagging an award.

4. The necessary steps of research, like evaluating plagiarism or checking for ethical violations, are circumvented.

5. Many of the reputed awards in vogue have a clause of not awarding if none of the manuscripts are good enough. But, since these awards thrive on the processing fees paid by the authors, such a clause is omitted.

These awards may have a few benefits as well to the researchers. Besides the obvious benefit of adding feathers to the cap, these awards may be attractive for researchers for different reasons. These awards are usually devoid of specific restrictive clauses that are often a feature in the regular honors (like age of the researchers, membership in professional bodies, or exclusion of past winners). These awards usually do not take the ownership of the authors’ manuscripts for publishing them in their journals. As a result, the authors can also resort to submitting their old works for an award. Whether such a practice is ethical or not is undoubtedly debatable, but beyond the scope of this letter.

Some of the steps taken (and might be useful to a certain extent) against predatory publishers can also be taken against organizations involved in predatory awards scams and against researchers involved in receiving such accolades.

1. DNS-based blocklists such as “scientificspam.net” list spammers that target young researchers by retrieving their email addresses from PubMed and other scientific sources.

2. Universities should hold regular academic sessions on such topics so that budding researchers know about such nuisance in the academic field.

3. A list of potential predatory awards organizations should be made public as a go-to resource if a researcher is not sure of an award.

4. Universities should form a strict policy of not considering the predatory awards (just like papers in predatory journals) for promotion, positions, or funding.

5. Universities should blacklist such organizations at regular intervals and inform the researchers about the same.

To conclude, it has always been academicians’ dream to make a mark by excelling in research. Receiving an award is probably the most prestigious way of getting recognized. Over the years, academia has been trying to update itself by revamping its approach to identify the best research to preserve this practice’s sanctity. ⁵ Predatory awards pose a considerable threat to this. Though it has certain benefits, a few academicians may support this “shortcut to success.” It is high time that the predatory awards and the organizations involved are nipped in the bud before more and more researchers fall prey to their deceptive tactics.