What are Predatory Journals: A 2025 Guide to Avoiding Them

Predatory journals are deceptive outlets that collect author fees while skipping real peer review, hiding fees, and using misleading practices—so publishing in them can damage your reputation and the scholarly record. That’s the crisp definition researchers and students need. They often send flattering but generic invitations to submit, claim impact factors that do not exist, and list fake editorial boards. Submissions may be accepted within days, with little or no feedback, simply to secure payment. Unlike legitimate open access journals, they lack transparency, integrity, and genuine quality control.

For researchers and students, the risk lies not only in wasted money but also in the long-term consequences for their academic credibility. Articles published in predatory journals are rarely indexed in recognised databases, meaning the work is less discoverable and may not count towards career progression or funding applications. In some cases, scholars have even found their names associated with journals that later vanished entirely, erasing the record of their contributions. Understanding how to identify and avoid these outlets is therefore essential to protect both individual careers and the integrity of academic communication.

Introduction: The Hidden Danger in Publishing

The race to publish is fierce. You need to share your work—and get credit for it. But some outlets are traps: predatory journals. They imitate legitimate academic titles but cut corners on editorial scrutiny and transparency, hurting science and careers. A 2019 consensus statement in Nature captured it bluntly: these are entities that prioritize self-interest (usually financial) at the expense of scholarship.

They exploit the pressure to publish by preying on early-career researchers, those from under-resourced institutions, and anyone unfamiliar with the publishing landscape. Promises of rapid review, wide visibility, and low fees can seem appealing, but the reality is often disappointing. Articles may never reach a genuine readership, and authors find their efforts tied to journals with no credibility. In the long run, this not only undermines trust in research but also wastes valuable time that could have been invested in reputable outlets.

What Makes a Journal Predatory?

Deceptive Practices

• Fake or sham peer review. They claim robust review but often publish with little to no evaluation—letting weak or flawed research through. The US Federal Trade Commission’s case against OMICS detailed false peer-review claims and hidden fees, resulting in a $50.1M judgment in 2019.
• Aggressive solicitation. Unsolicited emails pushing for “urgent” submissions, special issues, or editorial board invites are a hallmark. Think. Check. Submit. warns authors to treat such tactics as red flags.
• Misleading metrics. They advertise fabricated impact factors or use meaningless indicators from obscure services to appear legitimate.
• False editorial boards. Some list respected academics without consent, or invent editors altogether to convey credibility.

Lack of Transparency

• Hidden or unclear fees. Article Processing Charges (APCs) appear late in the process or shift after acceptance—explicitly cited in the OMICS judgment.
• No credible indexing. Many predatory titles are not listed in major indexes (Web of Science, Scopus, DOAJ). Caution: some deceptive journals do slip into aggregators (e.g., via PubMed Central routes), so always verify the journal’s status independently.
• Dubious contact details. Journals may hide their physical location or provide only vague email addresses, often not linked to institutions.
• Unstable websites. Broken links, poor design, and frequent domain changes are common signs of a low-quality or short-lived operation.

The Harm They Cause

To Researchers

• Damaged reputation & lost time/money. Publications in predatory venues are often discounted by hiring and promotion committees; APCs are gone with little scholarly impact. Cabells and librarian guidance emphasise the career risk.
• Career setbacks. Articles in deceptive journals are hard to cite, hard to find, and may be ignored in evaluation exercises and grant reviews. COPE highlights how deceptive publishing undermines careers and assessment standards.
• Reduced collaboration opportunities. Colleagues and potential collaborators may hesitate to engage if work appears in low-quality or predatory outlets.
• Misallocation of effort. Time spent preparing, submitting, and revising articles could have been invested in reputable journals with lasting impact.
• Long-term indexing issues. Work in predatory journals often fails to appear in recognised databases, meaning it may never contribute meaningfully to the scholarly record.
• Exploitation of early-career researchers. Predatory journals often target graduate students or postdocs unaware of the risks, creating early setbacks in academic trajectories.
• A useful framing from the Nature consensus: predatory outlets exploit scholarly norms for profit and erode trust in research.

Predatory outlets exploit scholarly norms for profit and erode trust in research. Nature

To Science

• Spread of bad information. Poor methods and unchecked claims pollute the literature; others may unknowingly build on them. The 2013 Science sting and later investigations show how nonsense or low-quality work can be waved through.
• Erosion of trust. High-profile reporting on predatory journals and conferences (e.g., OMICS, WASET) shows systemic damage to public confidence in science.
• Distorted citation networks. Flawed research may be cited inappropriately, inflating false claims and misleading subsequent studies.
• Reduced funding efficiency. Grant committees may waste resources evaluating work published in unreliable outlets.
• Hindrance to evidence-based policy. Policy decisions based on unchecked findings can lead to poor or harmful outcomes.
• Undermining open-access credibility. Predatory practices tarnish the reputation of legitimate open-access publishing, discouraging adoption and support.

Identifying Predatory Journals

Red Flags to Watch For

• Unprofessional website: broken links, typos, awkward English, stock photos of “editors.”
• Vague scope: “Covers all disciplines” across STEM/arts/humanities.
• Fast-track promises: “Submit today, publish next week.”
• No physical address or unverifiable contact info.
• Name mimicry: Title resembles a reputable journal (e.g., adds “International,” “British,” or “Advanced” to a known brand). Cabells documents this tactic widely.
• APCs unclear or moving. Fees not listed on the site or revealed post-acceptance. (DOAJ requires fee transparency for indexed journals.)
• Fake editorial boards. Scholars listed without consent or invented identities used to imply credibility.
• Dubious metrics. Boasts of “impact factors” from obscure services (e.g., Index Copernicus) instead of recognised providers like Clarivate.
• Inconsistent publication record. Missing issues, erratic frequency, or sudden surges of papers with no clear peer review.
• Overly broad invitations. Emails soliciting unrelated research topics far outside your field of expertise.
• Poor-quality articles. Published papers show weak methodology, sloppy references, or plagiarised content.
• No retraction or correction policy. Absence of clear ethics statements or processes for handling misconduct.

How to Check a Journal (5-minute workflow)

1. Indexing check:
   • Web of Science Master Journal List (is it there?) and Clarivate’s editorial criteria.
   • Scopus Sources & CSAB selection policy.
   • DOAJ (for OA journals) & its transparency requirements.
2. Editorial board: Are editors real, field-appropriate, and contactable? Do they list the role on their university pages?
3. Contact details & policies: Look for a physical address, ethics statements, retraction policy, and transparent APCs. (These are core “Principles of Transparency and Best Practice.”)
4. Read a few articles: Is the writing professional? Are methods and peer-review dates shown? Are references credible?
5. Use whitelists/guides: Think. Check. Submit. offers clear checklists; institutional librarians can validate your target.

Famous Examples and Key Statistics

• OMICS (publisher) & predatory conferences: FTC won a $50.1M judgment in 2019 for deceptive practices (false peer review, hidden fees). Federal Trade Commission
• WASET (conference organizer): Media investigations documented thousands of low-quality, copycat conferences and questionable journals. The Guardian
• Scale of the problem:
  • 420,000 articles published in predatory journals in 2014 (approx. 8,000 active journals), per Shen & Björk’s landmark analysis. BioMed Central+1
  • Cabells reported >12,000 titles on its blacklist in 2019, surpassing 13,000 by February 2020, and 15,000+ by 2021—demonstrating rapid growth. The Source+2The Source+2
  • The InterAcademy Partnership (2022) similarly notes 15,574 predatory journals listed in Cabells as of January 2022. interacademies.org

Protecting Yourself and Your Work

For Researchers

• Be skeptical of solicitations. Cold emails = caution. Use Think. Check. Submit. checklists before engaging.
• Do your homework. Verify indexing in Web of Science/Scopus; confirm OA journals in DOAJ.
• Ask colleagues & your librarian. Library guides and consultations are the fastest route to a safe shortlist.
• Check the editorial board. Look up listed editors to confirm their expertise and that they actually serve on the board.
• Read recent articles. Assess quality of writing, methods, and references—do they look like solid scholarship?
• Watch the timeline. If a journal promises peer review in a few days, treat it as a red flag.
• Keep a record. Save email invitations and correspondence—these can help you spot patterns and avoid repeat offenders.

For Institutions

• Educate. Run workshops on journal selection and predatory publishing (use COPE & IAP resources).
• Set clear policies. Define acceptable venues for promotion/tenure; require proof of peer review and indexing. (Clarivate’s criteria pages are a useful reference point.)
• Support legitimate OA. Fund APCs in reputable open-access journals (often DOAJ-indexed) and promote repository deposits.
• Provide tools. Offer access to journal evaluation platforms (Cabells, Ulrichsweb) and maintain local lists of trusted journals.
• Reward quality, not just quantity. Emphasise research integrity and impact over raw publication counts in assessment.
• Encourage mentorship. Senior academics should guide early-career researchers on journal choice and publishing strategies.
• Monitor patterns. Track institutional publications to spot predatory outlets and warn researchers before they spread further.

Quick Checklist (print this)

Is this journal legit?

• Listed in Web of Science/Scopus/DOAJ?
• Clear editorial board with real experts?
• Transparent APCs and policies (ethics, peer review, retractions)?
• No spammy solicitations or “48-hour acceptance” claims?
• Sample articles look professional, methods sound, references credible?
• Publisher is a recognised member of COPE, OASPA, or DOAJ?
• Journal has a clear physical address and contact details?
• Website is stable, well-designed, and free of broken links?
• Peer review process is explained clearly and matches standard practice?
• Journal scope is coherent (not publishing everything from engineering to poetry)?
• Past issues are consistent in quality and publication frequency?
• Policies on corrections and retractions are stated and accessible?

If any answer is “no,” pause and ask a librarian.

Conclusion: Upholding Research Integrity

Predatory journals are a serious, documented threat. They exploit authors, pollute the literature, and erode public trust. Awareness is your first defense; careful vetting is your shield. Verify indexing, scrutinize policies, use the citations and checklists above, and ask experts when in doubt. Protect your work, your collaborators, and your career—and help keep the scholarly record clean.

For those looking to further enhance the impact of your research, read also my article entitled How to Increase Your Google Scholar Citations: A Practical Guide, which offers practical tips on improving visibility, citation counts, and overall academic influence.