Keywords: predatory conferences; “flying sofa” conferences; research evaluation; research integrity
Scientific conferences have traditionally played a central role in the "production" of new ideas, their validation and knowledge/technology transfer. They function not only as platforms for presenting research results but also as spaces for critical discussion, peer feedback, and the formation of scholarly communities. Through formal presentations and informal interactions, conferences enable researchers to test ideas, refine methodologies, and situate their work within broader disciplinary debates. In this sense, conference participation has long been regarded as an essential indicator of active engagement in the academic enterprise. It has consequently been incorporated into national and institutional research evaluation systems. Importantly, high-quality conferences may generate effects that extend far beyond the event itself: they can give rise to durable scholarly networks, collaborative initiatives, and even new institutional structures. ENAI itself may be seen as an example of such conference-based scholarly development, demonstrating that authentic conferences are not merely formal venues of dissemination, but can serve as foundations for long-term academic cooperation and impact. It is precisely this substantive role that contrasts with the pseudo-conference formats that are so analytically important.
In recent years, however, the meaning of conference participation has undergone a profound transformation. Growing pressure to demonstrate continuous research activity under quantitative performance metrics has created a demand for formal, but substantively empty, substitutes for genuine scholarly exchange. One manifestation of this shift is the emergence of so-called "flying sofa" conferences. These are events that reproduce the external attributes of academic conferences while eliminating their core functions. These pseudo-conferences offer a low-cost, low-effort mechanism for fulfilling institutional requirements without legitimate peer review, presentation, or discussion. Examining this phenomenon provides critical insight into how distorted incentive structures influence academic behavior and how governance failures, rather than individual ethical shortcomings, contribute to the normalization of practices that erode research integrity. "Flying sofa" conferences (authors` definition) represent an extreme form of predatory (or "non-recommended," as stated in Tiesenga et al., 2026) academic practice, in which the ritual of scholarly exchange is reduced to a paid administrative transaction. Rather than being driven by individual misconduct, these events emerge as rational responses to distorted institutional evaluation systems. Using the Ukrainian case, this text examines how metric-driven governance unintentionally sustains pseudo-academic markets.
We have three key questions that we tried to answer in this work: 1) What distinguishes "flying sofa" conferences from other forms of predatory or low-quality academic events? 2) Why do such conferences persist despite widespread awareness of predatory publishing practices? 3) How do national and university-level evaluation systems contribute to the demand for pseudo-conference participation? The core message of this work is that "flying sofa" conferences are not an ethical anomaly but a systemic by-product of metric-driven academic governance. These pseudo-conferences emerge not only because researchers fail to recognize quality, but rather because institutional evaluation systems reward formal compliance over substantive scholarly contributions. When conference participation is assessed quantitatively, defined weakly, or detached from peer review and real interaction, the academic market predictably supplies low-cost, low-effort substitutes that satisfy bureaucratic requirements without producing meaningful knowledge.
This work is based on a creative analytical synthesis of an extensive empirical and conceptual body of work on "flying sofa" conferences. A documentary and indicator-based analysis of conference announcements, abstract books, and provider platforms was conducted. More than 700 conferences and over 46,000 abstracts published in 2024 were examined using structured indicators covering organizational design, publication practices, authorship patterns, language use, thematic coherence, and logistical plausibility (Artyukhov, 2025). This study argues that combating such practices cannot rely solely on individual responsibility, awareness campaigns, or detection tools. Instead, the persistence of "flying sofa" conferences signals a deeper governance failure: a misalignment between declared research quality principles at the national level and operational evaluation practices at the institutional level. Until this gap is closed, pseudo-academic markets will continue to thrive regardless of how well scholars understand the risks.
The analysis demonstrates that "flying sofa" conferences constitute a distinct subtype of predatory academic events. Unlike traditional predatory conferences, which at least simulate scholarly activity through online presentations or minimal interaction, "flying sofa" conferences eliminate the conference itself. There are no meetings, no presentations, no discussions, and no peer exchange: only a title, a fee, and a digital book of abstracts. Empirically, the Ukrainian case reveals a highly concentrated and domestically driven ecosystem. Approximately 95% of submissions originate from Ukrainian authors, while claims of international participation remain largely symbolic. Conferences are overwhelmingly multidisciplinary, often covering unrelated fields within a single event, thereby maximizing the potential for submissions while undermining academic coherence. Ukrainian is the dominant language of publication, further contradicting the "international" label frequently used in marketing materials.
The findings also expose a governance gap. While national-level reforms increasingly emphasize research quality, societal impact, and real-world implementation, many universities continue to operate internal evaluation systems that reward formal outputs without substantive verification. This misalignment creates a fertile market for pseudo-academic providers. The analysis also highlights a paradox: conferences historically functioned as spaces of uncertainty, critique, and intellectual risk. "Flying sofa" conferences invert this logic by offering certainty without scrutiny. Nothing can fail because nothing meaningful occurs.
"Flying sofa" conferences are not traditional academic conferences. They are administrative artifacts produced at the intersection of market logic and metric-driven governance. Their persistence reflects not the moral weakness of individual researchers but the structural weakness of evaluation systems that confuse activity with achievement.
So, effective solutions require systemic change. National definitions of research quality must be operationalized at the institutional level. Universities must align internal evaluation criteria with declared policy reforms and explicitly exclude pseudo-conference outputs. Transparent communication and clear negative definitions are as crucial as incentives for excellence. Without such alignment, the academic ecosystem will continue to reward compliance over contribution, and "flying sofa" conferences will remain economically viable. Reforming research assessment is thus not only a matter of integrity but of restoring meaning to academic exchange itself.
References
Artyukhov, A. (2025a). Flying sofa conferences in Ukraine: dataset (2024) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17659157
Tiesenga, F.M., Rodger, D., Saracco, B., Zhong, B., Cortegiani, A., Pouwels, S., et al. (2026). Renaming the Problem: Why `Non-Recommended Journals` Is Preferable To `Predatory` in Academic Publishing. Barw Medical Journal, 4(1), 33-41. https://doi.org/10.58742/bmj.v4i1.213
AI Declaration
We acknowledge the use of ChatGPT (https://chatgpt.com/), Gemini (https://gemini.google.com/) and Grammarly (https://app.grammarly.com/) to refine the academic language, accuracy of the text, and check and improve the quality of English language in this article. After using this tool/service, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and took full responsibility for the publication`s content.