Predatory journals: how to recognise one before you submit
A working definition, the warning signs and who documents them, and free tools to test a journal’s claims. Every point is sourced below.
Sources read 16 October 2026
A predatory journal takes a publication fee but does not deliver the editorial and peer-review service it claims. A consensus definition published in Nature in 2019 names four traits: false or misleading information, departure from best editorial and publication practice, lack of transparency, and aggressive, indiscriminate solicitation. No single sign settles it — test what the journal claims against independent lists.
The definition
Grudniewicz, Moher, Cobey and colleagues reached their definition in three consensus rounds covering 18 questions, published as “Predatory journals: no definition, no defence” (Nature 576, 210–212, 11 December 2019). It opens with entities that “prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship”.
The authors also warn against over-reading the signs: a new journal cannot yet be in DOAJ or a member of COPE, and a poorly resourced journal can still be legitimate. COPE’s discussion document on predatory publishing (2019; citation details updated 2024) treats “fake” journals as the same thing and covers predatory conferences too.
Warning signs, and who documents them
| Sign | What it looks like | Documented by |
|---|---|---|
| Aggressive email solicitation | Repeated, flattering emails that cite one of your papers, press for a quick submission or invite papers outside your field. | Nature consensus (2019); COPE |
| Fake or misleading metrics | An “impact factor” that does not come from Journal Citation Reports, or a metric from an unknown provider. | Nature consensus (2019); COPE; Clarivate |
| False indexing or membership claims | Says it is in Scopus, Web of Science, DOAJ or COPE when it is not. | Nature consensus (2019); COPE |
| Very fast review or guaranteed acceptance | Acceptance promised within days, or no description of how peer review works. | COPE; Think. Check. Submit. |
| Unclear or hidden fees | The fee is not stated before submission, or appears only after acceptance. | Nature consensus (2019); COPE; Think. Check. Submit. |
| Editorial board problems | Editors who cannot be verified, or academics listed without having agreed to serve. | Nature consensus (2019); COPE |
| ISSN that does not check out | The ISSN is missing, or belongs to another title in the ISSN Portal. | COPE; ISSN International Centre |
| Licence and copyright contradictions | An open access journal with no Creative Commons licence, or one that asks you to transfer copyright for an open access article. | Nature consensus (2019) |
| Contradictions and sloppy pages | Conflicting statements, wrong addresses, broken or copied web pages. | Nature consensus (2019) |
Check the claims yourself — free
| The journal says | Check it in | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| “Indexed in Scopus” | Scopus Sources | Searchable free; Elsevier also publishes the Scopus source title list, including discontinued titles, updated monthly. How to check |
| “Indexed in Web of Science” or “Impact Factor” | Master Journal List | Free, updated monthly. Clarivate advises that a journal’s JIF claim should link to the real score. How to check |
| “Listed in DOAJ” | DOAJ search | DOAJ also publishes a public list of journals it has removed, with the date and reason. |
| An ISSN | ISSN Portal | Confirms the number belongs to this title. An ISSN identifies a serial; it says nothing about quality. |
Scopus Preview and the Master Journal List need no subscription. CiteScore in Scopus needs a free account.
The Think. Check. Submit. checklist
Think. Check. Submit. is run by publishing organisations including COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, STM, ALPSP and the ISSN International Centre; it launched in 2015. Paraphrased, its journal checklist asks:
- Do you or your colleagues know the journal, and can you find its recent papers easily?
- Is its name distinct from other journals, and does its ISSN check out in the ISSN Portal?
- Is the publisher named, with a telephone number, email and postal address?
- Does it explain its peer review — external reviewers, how many — and does it avoid guaranteeing acceptance or very fast review?
- Is it indexed in services you use, with long-term archiving and persistent identifiers?
- Are its fees explained — what they cover, when they are charged, the amount and currency, and any waivers?
- Are its licensing, copyright, repository-sharing and conflict-of-interest policies clear?
- Is the publisher a member of COPE or OASPA, and is an open access journal listed in DOAJ — or on a regional platform such as SciELO, AJOL or Latindex?
Its advice is to submit only if most or all of the answers are yes.
Lists of predatory journals
Beall’s List — the best-known list — was taken offline by its author, librarian Jeffrey Beall, in January 2017 (reported by Nature on 18 January 2017). Copies still circulate; the archive at beallslist.net shows the original as last updated 31 December 2016 and names no current maintainer, so treat it as historical.
Cabells Predatory Reports is a subscription database, launched in 2017 as the Cabells Blacklist and renamed in 2020. It listed 20,274 journals as of 30 January 2026, assessed against more than 70 criteria.
Where the fee fits in
A legitimate journal states its fee — amount, currency, what it covers, and any waiver — before you submit. For the journals we track, the list price and the date we read it from the publisher are on each journal fee page; publisher waiver rules are on Waivers by country.
Unsure about a specific journal? Free manual check. Ask for the free check →
Questions
What is a predatory journal?
A journal that charges authors but does not provide the editorial and peer-review service it claims. The 2019 consensus definition in Nature names four traits: false or misleading information, poor editorial practice, lack of transparency and aggressive solicitation.
How can I check whether a journal is predatory?
Test its claims: Scopus Sources for Scopus indexing, the Master Journal List for Web of Science and Impact Factor claims, DOAJ for open access listing and the ISSN Portal for the ISSN. Then run the Think. Check. Submit. checklist.
Is Beall’s List still updated?
No. Jeffrey Beall took it offline in January 2017. Copies online show it as last updated 31 December 2016.
Sources for this page
- Definition
- Grudniewicz et al., Nature 576, 210–212 (2019)
- COPE
- Discussion document: Predatory publishing (v1 2019; citation updated 22 April 2024)
- Checklist
- Think. Check. Submit. — journals
- Beall’s List
- Nature news, 18 January 2017; beallslist.net
- Cabells
- Research Information — 20,000-journal milestone
- Metrics
- Clarivate — choosing your publication destination
- Tools
- Scopus content policy, DOAJ removed journals, ISSN.org