An email arrives praising your conference paper and inviting you to publish it “within two weeks” in an “international, high impact, Scopus indexed” journal: how do you know whether to delete it? Most researchers meet predatory journals this way, and many master’s and doctoral students in a hurry to meet a publication requirement are tempted.
This article is part of our guide How to Write a Master’s Thesis by the Mastermind PhD team and relates to our Journal Article support service. Sources last checked: November 2026.
The cost is not only the fee. A paper in a predatory journal may not count for your degree, cannot be resubmitted elsewhere without the risk of duplicate publication, and stays attached to your name. This article lists the red flags that recur across predatory journals and publishers, then gives a verification routine you can run in about twenty minutes with free tools, and a checklist table to keep.
What is a predatory journal? The consensus definition agreed by 43 participants from ten countries and published in Nature in 2019 reads: “Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices.” In practice they accept articles and fees without the quality checks they promise.
Why does the definition matter before the checklists?
The Nature consensus group noted that more than ninety checklists already existed, that only three had been developed from research evidence, and that membership of bodies such as COPE or inclusion in indexes and DOAJ was not sufficient on its own to establish quality, because predatory journals have found ways into those lists. The lesson is to use several independent checks rather than one badge, and to focus on the behaviours in the definition: misleading information, deviation from editorial practice, lack of transparency and aggressive solicitation. The red flags below are observable instances of those four behaviours.
Twelve red flags that recur in predatory journals
| Red flag | Why it matters | What a legitimate journal does instead |
|---|---|---|
| Unsolicited email with personal flattery and a promise of fast publication | Indiscriminate solicitation | Calls for papers describe scope and process, not your brilliance |
| Acceptance promised in advance, or peer review “within days” | Peer review takes weeks to months | States the review model and realistic timelines |
| Fees requested at submission, or “fast track” fees | Payment before review inverts the process | Charges, if any, are explained and due after acceptance |
| Fees not stated, or stated without currency and timing | Lack of transparency | Lists amount, currency, timing and waiver policy |
| Scope covering every discipline in one title | No real editorial community | A defined scope with a matching editorial board |
| Title that imitates a well-known journal with one word changed | Misleading information | A unique title you can cross-check in the ISSN portal |
| Editorial board without affiliations, or with names used without consent | No verifiable governance | Board members with institutional pages that confirm the role |
| Publisher address and contact details missing or untraceable | Lack of transparency | Publisher name, postal address, phone and email displayed |
| Indexing claims with logos but no record in Scopus Sources or the Master Journal List | False information | Indexing you can confirm on the database itself |
| Invented metrics such as a “global impact factor” | Misleading information | Metrics from Scopus, Web of Science or Scimago, or none |
| Many special issues with guest editors and mass invitations | Volume over quality | Special issues announced on the journal site with named academic editors |
| Website errors, broken DOIs, articles with poor language or no dates | Deviation from publication practice | Persistent identifiers, archiving and consistent production quality |
No single row is proof. Three or four together, in a journal nobody in your department has heard of, are enough to treat it as one of the predatory journals and stop.
📱 Ask about journal publication support — Help choosing a suitable journal and meeting author guidelines, with a Turnitin report before submission.
Step 1: Think. Do you or your colleagues know the journal?
The Think. Check. Submit. checklist, run by a cross-industry group that includes COPE, DOAJ, ISSN, OASPA and STM, begins with the simplest questions: have you read articles in this journal; is it easy to find its latest papers; is the name unique and not easily confused with another journal; can you cross-check its details in the ISSN portal? Ask your supervisor and two colleagues. A journal that is invisible to everyone working in your field is not where your field reads.
Step 2: Check the indexing record, not the logo
Open Scopus Sources (free, no login) and search by ISSN. A journal that is indexed shows coverage running to the present, a publisher name that matches the website and a subject classification. If the record is missing, the journal is not in Scopus whatever its website says.
If coverage ends in an earlier year, Elsevier’s Content Selection and Advisory Board has discontinued forward coverage, which is why old articles still appear in the database while new ones never will. The monthly Source title list published on Elsevier’s Scopus content page includes a sheet of discontinued sources with the reason and date; download it and keep a dated copy.
For Web of Science, search the Master Journal List by ISSN and note the collection in which the journal appears. Our article on choosing a journal explains the quartile systems; for screening predatory journals, only the indexing record matters.
Step 3: For open access journals, check DOAJ
The Directory of Open Access Journals accepts only journals that meet published criteria: every article must pass through a quality control system (peer review) before publication; the journal must have at least one registered ISSN displayed on its website; licensing terms for use and re-use must be clearly stated; the editorial board must be listed with names and affiliations, with at least five members; and all fees that may be charged, from submission to publication, must be stated, with the conditions of any waiver.
DOAJ also removes journals that no longer meet its criteria or that show questionable practice, which helps filter out predatory journals. An open access journal that is absent from DOAJ is not automatically predatory, but it should be able to explain why.
Step 4: Check the publisher’s memberships, and know their limits
COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics, describes itself as the global hub for organisations and individuals involved in research publishing integrity, working with more than 15,000 members, including journals, publishers, societies and universities. Its Code of Conduct commits members to safeguard the integrity of the scholarly record, to ensure that business and commercial interests have no influence on editorial decisions, and to act on suspected misconduct before or after publication.
You can search COPE’s member list for the journal or publisher. Membership is a positive signal of intent and accountability, but the Nature group’s warning applies: it does not by itself establish quality, so keep it as one check among six rather than the decisive one.
Step 5: Rule out a hijacked journal
Hijacked journals mimic legitimate journals by adopting their titles, ISSNs and other metadata, usually without the original journal’s permission, and sometimes target old print journals with no online presence. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker, created by the researcher Anna Abalkina in partnership with Retraction Watch, is a dynamic list of journals suspected of being hijacked, with a form to suggest new titles. Because predatory journals often arrive by email, run every journal that reached you through an email or an intermediary through the checker, then compare the website domain with the one recorded in the Scopus record and the ISSN portal. A correct ISSN on the wrong domain is the signature of hijacking.
Step 6: Submit only if most answers are yes, and know what to do if they are not
Think. Check. Submit. ends with a simple rule: complete the checklist and submit only if you can answer yes to most or all of the questions. If the answers are mixed, choose another journal; predatory journals rarely pass every check.
If you have already submitted to a journal that fails the checks, withdraw in writing before acceptance and keep the correspondence; withdrawal before acceptance is not a publication and does not prevent submission elsewhere. If you have been accepted but not paid, do not pay; an unpublished manuscript is not published.
If the article has already appeared, tell your supervisor and your graduate office at once, ask how the regulations treat it, and do not describe it as indexed in your CV or thesis if it was not indexed when it appeared. In many cases the practical remedy is a new article with a different question or analysis, not a copy of the same text.
The checklist table
The table condenses the six steps into one screen you can keep open while you check for predatory journals.
| Check | Where | Pass looks like | Fail looks like |
|---|---|---|---|
| Known in your field | Supervisor, colleagues, recent reading | Named without hesitation | Nobody has heard of it |
| Unique title and ISSN | ISSN portal, journal site | Title, publisher and URL match the ISSN record | Near-copy of a known title, or ISSN registered to another journal |
| Scopus indexing | Scopus Sources, monthly source list | Coverage to present, publisher matches | No record, or coverage ended |
| Web of Science indexing | Master Journal List | Listed in a named collection | Absent while the website claims indexing |
| Open access credentials | DOAJ | Listed, fees and licence stated | Absent, fees hidden |
| Publisher accountability | COPE member list | Member, code of conduct accepted | No memberships, no contact details |
| Not hijacked | Retraction Watch checker, domain comparison | Not listed, domain matches records | Listed, or ISSN on a different domain |
| Editorial board | University pages of three named members | Role confirmed on their pages | Names unverifiable or used without consent |
| Peer review and fees | Journal policies page | Process described, fees after acceptance with waivers | Acceptance promised, fees before review |
Copy the table into your notes and complete it for every journal on your shortlist. A completed table is also the document to show a committee if a journal’s status is ever questioned.
📱 Ask on WhatsApp now — 5 years of experience across all disciplines and 14 academic services. Two-stage payment (80/20); revisions are free until supervisor approval, within 30% of the chapter.
Frequently asked questions
Are all journals that charge fees predatory?
No; fees alone do not mark predatory journals. Article processing charges are a legitimate business model for many open access journals from established publishers. The warning signs are fees requested before peer review, fees that are not stated with currency and timing, and acceptance tied to payment. A legitimate journal explains its fees and waivers on its website and charges after acceptance.
I published in a journal that was later discontinued by Scopus. Does it count?
It depends on your regulations and on the dates. Many institutions count articles published while the journal was indexed and not those published after discontinuation. Bring the dated source list showing the journal’s status at publication and the Scopus record of your article, if it exists, to your graduate office.
Is the old Beall’s list still useful?
Only as a historical signal. The list stopped being updated in 2017, other blacklists use different criteria, and the Nature consensus group found the proliferation of checklists overwhelming. Use the six checks above, which rely on current records in Scopus, the Master Journal List, DOAJ, COPE and the hijacked journal checker.
Can a hijacked journal have the correct ISSN?
Yes, that is how hijacking works: the fake site copies the legitimate journal’s title and ISSN. The giveaway is the domain, the publisher name and the contact details, which do not match the ISSN record or the Scopus record. Compare them before you submit, and check the Retraction Watch list.
What if my supervisor recommends a journal that fails the checks?
Show the evidence rather than the conclusion: the missing Scopus record, the DOAJ absence, the hijacked journal listing. Supervisors are often working from a journal’s reputation years ago. If the journal still fails, propose two alternatives from your decision table that meet the regulation.
Sources
- Grudniewicz, A., Moher, D., Cobey, K. D., et al. (2019). Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature, 576, 210-212. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03759-y (accessed October 2026)
- Think. Check. Submit. Journals checklist. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/ (accessed October 2026)
- Elsevier. Scopus content policy and selection. https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/content/content-policy-and-selection (accessed October 2026)
- Elsevier. Scopus content (Source title list including discontinued sources). https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/content (accessed October 2026)
- Directory of Open Access Journals. Guide to applying. https://doaj.org/apply/guide/ (accessed October 2026)
- Committee on Publication Ethics. Membership and Code of Conduct for COPE Members. https://publicationethics.org/membership (accessed October 2026)
- Retraction Watch. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker. https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-hijacked-journal-checker/ (accessed October 2026)
Sources last checked: November 2026. This article is general educational guidance and does not replace your university regulations or your supervisor’s instructions. How we prepare our content.