The Conference Laundry: How 'Proceedings' Became the New Dark Alley of Predatory Publishing
Verified Researcher
Mar 25, 2026•3 min read
The Mirage of Oversight: Why Retracting ICEMR 2025 is Just Damming a Waterfall
The academic community is currently patting itself on the back. A publisher, EPJ Web of Conferences, recently announced it would retract an entire volume of conference proceedings, 55 articles in total, after realizing a single editor, H.C. Manjunatha, authored over 60% of them. On the surface, this looks like a win for integrity. In reality, it is a glaring admission of systemic negligence.
Let us be realistic. The conference proceeding has turned into a massive Trojan Horse for the world of research. By letting conference organizers handle the editing, big publishers have built a fast track for paper mills. This allows individuals to skip the hard work of actual peer review. This is not just one guy breaking the rules. It is the natural result of a system that loves high numbers more than high quality.
The Looting of the ISSN
The 'Guest Editor' Fallacy
The case of Manjunatha is a perfect case study in the danger of editorial abdication. When a publisher grants "Editor" status to a conference organizer, they are essentially handing over the keys to the vault. In this instance, Manjunatha acted as the coordinator, the editor, and the primary contributor. This isn't science; it's a vanity press masquerading as a global forum.
According to a report by Avery Orrall for Retraction Watch in early 2026, the publisher sheepishly confessed that these papers didn't trigger any alarms because they looked normal. No weird quotes. No obvious gibberish. That is a terrifying admission. It tells us that as long as a document wears the costume of a scholarly paper, it gets a pass. No one bothered to notice the statistical joke of one man (Manjunatha) churning out 32 world changing discoveries in a single sitting.
Structural Reform: The End of the 'Bulk Upload'
If we want to stop the "Conference Laundry," we must stop treating proceedings as a separate, lesser category of peer review. If a paper is indexed, it must undergo the same rigorous, independent scrutiny as a flagship journal submission.
So, I am calling for two big changes. First, we need a hard cap. No collection of papers should be allowed to have more than 10% of its content come from the same person or group. Second, we need to stop the automatic indexing. Let every paper earn its spot one by one, rather than getting a group discount on credibility.
Manjunatha claims he worked tirelessly for science. But science does not advance through sheer volume; it advances through the gauntlet of criticism. When we allow individuals to peer-review their own empires, we aren't advancing science, we are burying it under a mountain of noise.
Credit: Analysis inspired by Retraction Watch coverage of EPJ Web of Conferences.
Discussion (17)
Join the conversation
Login or create an account to share your thoughts.
Wait, did anyone actually check if the venue existed? Those dates looked very suspicious for a 'global' event.
Reminds me of the Igor Pak guest publishing article. The incentives are skewed toward volume, not value. Glad this is coming to light.
Excellent analysis! This reminds me of the Rigorous Standards we used to have in the seventies. It is a shame to see the field in this state.
To the person above: editing is not the same as being the primary author on 60% of a volume you also managed. That is indefensible.
the system is broken beyond repair
I find it hard to believe that the publisher didn't flag an editor submitting 30+ papers to his own proceedings sooner. Greed is a powerful blindfold.
Is it possible we are being too harsh? What if he was just the only one doing the work? I've seen labs where one person edits everything.
Just another day in the paper mill industry.
In my experience in CS, conferences have high barriers, but this 'laundry' model is clearly targeting fringe fields to pad CVs for promotions.
Retractions aren't enough. There should be a permanent ban from any IEEE or Elsevier indexed events for everyone involved.
The conflict of interest here isn't just a 'bad look,' it is a fundamental breach of the scientific contract. If you edit your own work at this scale, it's not science anymore.
Total scam.
can we get a list of the actual technical errors found in the papers?
Why do we still count proceedings as 'publications' for tenure if this is how easy it is to game them?
im just here for the drama tbh
manjunatha really outdid himself with this speedrun to the retraction leaderboard lol
This is why I refuse to peer review for these pop-up conferences anymore. Waste of time.