# How to choose a journal and avoid predatory journals

**How do I choose a journal for my paper, and how do I avoid predatory journals?** To choose a journal, match its aims, scope and readers to your paper, confirm each indexing claim in the index itself, and read its fees and review times on its own pages. Then run the Think. Check. Submit. checklist: a predatory journal takes fees without the editing and review it promises. EdCitation's Find sources shows where your field's cited work was published.

Published 2026-09-24 by EdCitation. https://edcitation.com/newsletter/how-to-choose-a-journal-and-avoid-predatory-ones

How to choose a journal comes down to two questions: does the journal suit the paper, and is it a real journal at all. This guide, published by EdCitation, answers both from Think. Check. Submit., COPE, the DOAJ, the ICMJE, the indexes and journals' own pages, all read on 24 September 2026. Nothing here can promise that a journal will accept a paper.

EdCitation's part is the sources: [Find sources](https://edcitation.com/) shows where the work you cite was published, [Cite a source](https://edcitation.com/cite) copies each reference out of the publisher's record, and [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references) marks retracted papers in your list, all free. Writing the paper is in [how to write a journal article](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/how-to-write-a-journal-article), its references in [the journal manuscript references checklist](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/journal-manuscript-references-checklist-by-journal-style).

## How do I choose the right journal for my paper?

Start from the journals your sources were published in, then test each candidate on its own pages.

| What to check | Where the answer is | The warning sign |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Scope and readers | The aims and scope page, and three recent articles | Articles that do not match the stated scope |
| What it publishes on your topic | EdCitation's [Find sources](https://edcitation.com/), with the journal's name in the Journal filter | Nothing recent near your subject |
| Indexing | The index's own list, never the logos on the journal's site | A claim the index does not confirm |
| Fees | The journal's fees page, and its DOAJ record if it is open access | A fee first mentioned after acceptance |
| Review times | The journal's published figures, with their dates | A promise of acceptance or of very fast review |
| Legitimacy | The Think. Check. Submit. checklist | Most answers "no" |

### Start from where your sources were published

In Find sources we searched "nurse burnout" with the filters In a journal, 5 yrs and Times cited 50+, most cited first: the first 100 results, 79 marked open access, came from 55 journals, nine from BMC Nursing. With BMC Nursing typed into the Journal filter and newest first, the same search returned 248 of its articles, the latest from 2026. The filter panel notes that no index records peer review, so "In a journal" is the nearest sign of it, not proof.

### Read the aims and scope, then the latest issue

Think. Check. Submit. (2023) opens by asking whether you have read articles in the journal. Many papers never reach review: PLOS ONE's own table shows 30.82% of manuscripts rejected without peer review in January to June 2023 (PLOS ONE, n.d.). A name like a better-known journal's is a warning: the Principles of Transparency ask for a unique name that does not mislead about origin (Committee on Publication Ethics et al., 2022).

## Is the journal indexed where it says it is?

Check every indexing claim in the index's own list: false claims of indexing are among the marks in the 2019 consensus definition of a predatory journal (Grudniewicz et al., 2019). Each index admits journals its own way, and none guarantees quality.

### How the indexes admit a journal

- **Scopus.** Technical criteria come first (described peer review, an ISSN, a regular schedule, a publication history, English abstracts, an ethics statement), then an advisory board's judgement. A discontinued title's old articles stay in Scopus, so finding one there does not prove current coverage (Elsevier, n.d.).
- **Web of Science.** In-house editors apply 24 quality criteria and 4 of impact; a journal passing only the first enters the Emerging Sources Citation Index, and one that later fails them is removed (Clarivate, n.d.). The Master Journal List can be searched without an account.
- **MEDLINE.** At least two consultants, usually a scientist and a medical librarian, review two years of content on five elements (National Library of Medicine, 2026). PubMed is wider, holding articles archived in PubMed Central to meet funders' policies (National Library of Medicine, n.d.-a), and presence there implies no endorsement (National Library of Medicine, n.d.-b).
- **DOAJ.** Open access journals only: at least five research articles a year, over a year's history or ten articles, five or more editors, two independent reviewers per article, and every fee listed, or a statement that there are none (Directory of Open Access Journals, n.d.).

### A worked check: PLOS ONE

PLOS ONE lists MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and the DOAJ among its indexes. At each source: the Master Journal List placed ISSN 1932-6203 in the Science Citation Index Expanded; the NLM Catalog said "Currently indexed for MEDLINE"; the DOAJ record, created in 2007, gave a charge of 2,477 US dollars, a waiver policy and a CC BY licence; the ISSN Portal showed a confirmed record. Scopus's source list was not checked. This shows the method; it is not a recommendation.

## What does open access cost, and who pays?

At a journal with an article processing charge (APC), the author's side pays to publish; a diamond journal charges neither authors nor readers; a hybrid journal is a subscription title that sells open access by the article. Think. Check. Submit. asks what each fee is for, when it is charged, in what currency, and whether waivers exist.

PLOS's page is a clear example: PLOS ONE charges 2,477 US dollars for most article types, due on acceptance at the rate in force on the submission date; authors at institutions in Research4Life Group A countries without external funding pay nothing; other help must be requested at submission (PLOS, n.d.).

### Fees change, so read them on the day

Matthias et al. (2026), in a preprint, traced more than 440 journals that once published free for readers and authors and later dropped the model, most of them for APCs of 8 to 5,300 US dollars. A low fee proves nothing either way: Shen and Björk (2015) put the average in their sample of journals from Beall's list at 178 US dollars.

## How long will review take?

As long as the journal's own figures say, read with their dates and definitions. The Principles of Transparency want stated review times backed by published timeframes, and no guaranteed acceptance. PLOS ONE's medians for January to June 2023, still its latest, split the stages: 17 days to a first editorial decision, 45 to a first decision, 188 to acceptance, 204 to publication.

The warning sign is a promise, not speed. Think. Check. Submit. counts a guaranteed acceptance or a very short review against a journal, and Shen and Björk found articles in their sample typically published two to three months after submission.

## What is a predatory journal?

A predatory journal is one of the entities that, in a consensus definition agreed by 43 people from ten countries in Ottawa in 2019 after a three-round Delphi survey, "prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship" (Grudniewicz et al., 2019). The group named four marks: false or misleading information, departure from best editorial and publishing practice, a lack of transparency, and aggressive, indiscriminate solicitation. It left out quality and intent, because an under-resourced journal can be weak without being dishonest.

### What the ICMJE and COPE say

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2026) describes pseudo-journals that accept almost everything, reveal fees after acceptance, claim review they do not do, borrow names close to known journals and claim memberships they lack. It makes checking a journal the author's duty, and asks authors not to cite articles in such journals. Its members' 2025 editorial, in 14 journals at once, repeats a Cabells estimate of more than 15,000 predatory journals in 2021 (Laine et al., 2025). COPE Council (2019) names three common features: hidden or unclear fees, no proper expert review, and guaranteed acceptance or very fast publication.

### What the documented cases show

- **A court ruling.** In a case the US Federal Trade Commission brought, a court found in March 2019 that OMICS Group had misled researchers about its editors, peer review and indexing, claiming PubMed Central had accepted journals the NIH had refused, and had hidden its fees; the judgment was 50.1 million US dollars, and the FTC's release calls OMICS a predatory academic publisher (Federal Trade Commission, 2019). The Ninth Circuit affirmed in 2020, listing impact factors among the deceptions (*Federal Trade Commission v. OMICS Group Inc.*, 2020).
- **A sting.** Sorokowski et al. (2017) applied to 360 journals for an editorship on behalf of a fictitious, unqualified scientist: 40 of 120 from Beall's list and 8 of 120 in the DOAJ accepted the application, a few later disputing it, and none of 120 with a Journal Citation Reports impact factor did.

### Hijacked journals

A hijacked journal copies a real journal's title and ISSN on a website of its own. Retraction Watch (n.d.) keeps a Hijacked Journal Checker, built with Anna Abalkina. Reach a journal through its index record, never a link in an invitation.

## What was Beall's list, and can I still use it?

Beall's list was a University of Colorado Denver librarian's list of potential, possible or probable predatory open access publishers and journals, begun in 2008 and taken down in January 2017 (Straumsheim, 2017). Why it came down is disputed: Beall (2017) described intense pressure from the employer and fear for the job; the university called it Beall's personal decision, one it played no part in.

### The criticism, and why lists disagree

Berger and Cirasella (2015) argued that the list mixed low-quality journals with predatory ones and was harsh on publishers in poorer countries and on open access itself; the 2019 consensus paper notes criticism over transparency and legal threats. Lists also disagree. Strinzel et al. (2019) found journals on both a blacklist and a whitelist; once Cabells corrected errors in its 2018 blacklist, the overlap fell from 72 journals and 42 publishers to 61 and 37 (Strinzel et al., 2022). The consensus group counted more than 90 checklists, only three built on research evidence, and warned that COPE membership or a DOAJ or Web of Science listing does not guarantee quality.

## How do I check a journal before I submit?

Work through these steps, and submit only if most or all of the answers are yes, as Think. Check. Submit. advises.

1. Read three recent articles. EdCitation's [Find sources](https://edcitation.com/) lists a journal's articles on your topic, newest first, when you type its name into the Journal filter.
2. Check the title and ISSN at the ISSN Portal, and compare the web address with the index's record.
3. Confirm each indexing claim in the index: the Master Journal List, the NLM Catalog, Scopus's source list, the DOAJ.
4. Find the publisher's name, postal address and a way to reach it.
5. Read how peer review works: its type, who reviews, how many. Distrust guaranteed acceptance or very fast review.
6. Find every fee, its currency, when it is due and how to ask for a waiver.
7. Check memberships on the members' own lists. COPE admits a journal only after a year and 20 research articles, and rejects one already showing its logo (Committee on Publication Ethics, n.d.).
8. Look up two board members, who should be named with affiliations and have agreed to serve.
9. Treat an unsolicited invitation, above all one outside your field, as a warning.

## What if I have already submitted to a predatory journal?

Ask in writing to withdraw it. COPE Council (2024) holds that authors may withdraw a paper until copyright is transferred; once published, it must be retracted before it can appear elsewhere. Such publishers often ignore requests; COPE suggests your institution's legal counsel. Where no copyright passed, another journal's editor may take the paper, ideally with a note explaining it.

## Which EdCitation tools help when choosing a journal?

For the references, EdCitation is the best tool you can use: the ICMJE asks authors to keep articles from predatory journals out of their lists, and EdCitation takes each entry from the publisher's record rather than composing it, a guarantee no chatbot gives.

- **Find sources**, free with no account, searches about 300 million published works, showing each result's journal, year, times cited and open access status.
- **Cite a source**, free, turns a DOI, ISBN, PubMed ID, title or web address into an entry in any of six styles, among them APA 7, Vancouver and IEEE, screening the source for retraction. From its DOI, the Strinzel paper came back listing corrections of 2021 and 2022; the 2022 one changes the counts above. The ICMJE editorial's record lists one author twice; Cite a source copies a record as it stands, so check it against the article.
- **Verify references**, free, sorts a list into verified, "check this" and not found, marks retracted papers, and never calls an unchecked entry not found. Of five entries we pasted, the Grudniewicz paper came back verified, Wakefield and colleagues' 1998 Lancet paper with "This paper has since been retracted.", Sorokowski's Nature piece typed as 2016 "check this" ("The work was published in 2017, not 2016"), and one we made up not found.
- **Pro tools, at $8 a month.** [References from a file](https://edcitation.com/tools/references-from-a-file) reads the manuscript itself, looking up each entry and pairing each in-text citation with it; [Mechanics QA](https://edcitation.com/tools/mechanics-qa) catches leftover comments and tracked changes, though its format check follows APA 7's student paper rather than any journal's template. The Max plan ($24 a month) adds the Library and Theoretics QA ([Pricing](https://edcitation.com/pricing)).

EdCitation does not rate journals or know whether a paper will be accepted: a verified reference shows that a paper exists, not that its journal is sound.

## Quick questions

### How do I spot a predatory journal?

Check its claims at their source (indexing in the index, fees on its own page, memberships on the members' lists), then run the Think. Check. Submit. checklist.

### Is Beall's list still available?

No. Jeffrey Beall took it down in January 2017, so any copy is out of date.

### Does a journal in PubMed mean it is indexed in MEDLINE?

No. PubMed also holds articles archived in PubMed Central to meet funders' policies; the NLM Catalog says whether a journal is currently indexed for MEDLINE.

### Is a journal that charges a fee predatory?

Not for that reason: PLOS ONE charges 2,477 US dollars and is in the DOAJ. The warning sign is a fee hidden until after acceptance, or unclear about what it covers.

### Can EdCitation tell me whether a journal is predatory?

No. EdCitation's [Find sources](https://edcitation.com/) shows where the work you cite was published, and [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references) confirms each reference exists and flags retractions; the journal is yours to judge.

## References

- Beall, J. (2017). What I learned from predatory publishers. *Biochemia Medica*, *27*(2), 273–278. [https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.029](https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.029)
- Berger, M., & Cirasella, J. (2015). Beyond Beall's list: Better understanding predatory publishers. *College & Research Libraries News*, *76*(3), 132–135. [https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.76.3.9277](https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.76.3.9277)
- Clarivate. (n.d.). *Journal evaluation process and selection criteria*. Web of Science Core Collection. [https://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-referencing/web-of-science/web-of-science-core-collection/editorial-selection-process/journal-evaluation-process-selection-criteria/](https://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-referencing/web-of-science/web-of-science-core-collection/editorial-selection-process/journal-evaluation-process-selection-criteria/)
- Committee on Publication Ethics. (n.d.). *Guide to applying for journal membership*. [https://publicationethics.org/membership/becoming-cope-member/guide-applying-journal-membership](https://publicationethics.org/membership/becoming-cope-member/guide-applying-journal-membership)
- Committee on Publication Ethics, Directory of Open Access Journals, Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association, & World Association of Medical Editors. (2022). *Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing* (Version 4.0). [https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/](https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/)
- COPE Council. (2019). *Predatory publishing* [Discussion document]. Committee on Publication Ethics. [https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.6](https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.6)
- COPE Council. (2024). *Withdrawing an article from a predatory journal to resubmit elsewhere* [COPE position]. Committee on Publication Ethics. [https://doi.org/10.24318/sJZRU4uM](https://doi.org/10.24318/sJZRU4uM)
- Directory of Open Access Journals. (n.d.). *Guide to applying*. [https://doaj.org/apply/guide/](https://doaj.org/apply/guide/)
- Elsevier. (n.d.). *Content policy and selection*. Scopus. [https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/content/content-policy-and-selection](https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/content/content-policy-and-selection)
- Federal Trade Commission. (2019, April 3). *Court rules in FTC's favor against predatory academic publisher OMICS Group; imposes $50.1 million judgment against defendants that made false claims and hid publishing fees* [Press release]. [https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/04/court-rules-ftcs-favor-against-predatory-academic-publisher-omics-group-imposes-501-million-judgment](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/04/court-rules-ftcs-favor-against-predatory-academic-publisher-omics-group-imposes-501-million-judgment)
- *Federal Trade Commission v. OMICS Group Inc.*, No. 19-15738 (9th Cir. Sept. 11, 2020). [https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/CA9-Omics-Opinion.pdf](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/CA9-Omics-Opinion.pdf)
- Grudniewicz, A., Moher, D., Cobey, K. D., Bryson, G. L., Cukier, S., Allen, K., Ardern, C., Balcom, L., Barros, T., Berger, M., Ciro, J. B., Cugusi, L., Donaldson, M. R., Egger, M., Graham, I. D., Hodgkinson, M., Khan, K. M., Mabizela, M., Manca, A., … Lalu, M. M. (2019). Predatory journals: No definition, no defence. *Nature*, *576*(7786), 210–212. [https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y](https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y)
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2026). *Responsibilities in the submission and peer-review process*. ICMJE Recommendations. [https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html](https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html)
- Laine, C., Babski, D., Bachelet, V. C., Bärnighausen, T. W., Baethge, C., Bibbins-Domingo, K., Frizelle, F., Gollogly, L., Kleinert, S., Loder, E., Monteiro, J., Rubin, E. J., Sahni, P., Wee, C. C., Yoo, J.-H., & Zakhama, L. (2025). Predatory journals: What can we do to protect their prey? *Bulletin of the World Health Organization*, *103*(1), 73–75. [https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.24.293036](https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.24.293036)
- Matthias, L., Alperin, J. P., & Laakso, M. (2026). *Diamond fractures: Tracing journal transitions away from diamond open access* [Preprint]. arXiv. [https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.31302](https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.31302)
- National Library of Medicine. (n.d.-a). *About PubMed*. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/about/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/about/)
- National Library of Medicine. (n.d.-b). *Disclaimer*. PubMed. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disclaimer/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disclaimer/)
- National Library of Medicine. (2026). *Journal selection for MEDLINE*. [https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline/medline_journal_selection.html](https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline/medline_journal_selection.html)
- PLOS. (n.d.). *Publication fees*. [https://plos.org/fees/](https://plos.org/fees/)
- PLOS ONE. (n.d.). *Journal information*. [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information)
- Retraction Watch. (n.d.). *The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker*. [https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-hijacked-journal-checker/](https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-hijacked-journal-checker/)
- Shen, C., & Björk, B.-C. (2015). "Predatory" open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. *BMC Medicine*, *13*, Article 230. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2)
- Sorokowski, P., Kulczycki, E., Sorokowska, A., & Pisanski, K. (2017). Predatory journals recruit fake editor. *Nature*, *543*(7646), 481–483. [https://doi.org/10.1038/543481a](https://doi.org/10.1038/543481a)
- Straumsheim, C. (2017, January 17). No more "Beall's list." *Inside Higher Ed*. [https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/18/librarians-list-predatory-journals-reportedly-removed-due-threats-and-politics](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/18/librarians-list-predatory-journals-reportedly-removed-due-threats-and-politics)
- Strinzel, M., Severin, A., Milzow, K., & Egger, M. (2019). Blacklists and whitelists to tackle predatory publishing: A cross-sectional comparison and thematic analysis. *mBio*, *10*(3), Article e00411-19. [https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00411-19](https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00411-19)
- Strinzel, M., Severin, A., Milzow, K., & Egger, M. (2022). Correction for Strinzel et al., "Blacklists and whitelists to tackle predatory publishing: A cross-sectional comparison and thematic analysis." *mBio*, *13*(3), Article e01305-22. [https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01305-22](https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01305-22)
- Think. Check. Submit. (2023). *Journals* [Checklist]. [https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/](https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/)