Predatory Journals

This journal evaluation tool was created under a Creative Commons license by Marie Kennedy, Shipla Rele, and Nataly Blas- "mix it up, improve it, and share what you learn as you go so that we may all benefit".

Rele, S., Kennedy, M.. & Blas, N. (2017). Journal evaluation tool. LMU Librarian Publications & Presentations. 40. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=librarian_pubs

Adapted from Shamseer et al. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine. 15:28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9

1. The journal's scope of interest includes unrelated subjects alongside legitimate topics.
2. Website contains spelling and grammar errors
3. Images or logos are distorted/fuzzy or misrepresented/unauthorized.
4. Website targets authors, not readers (i.e. publisher prioritizes making money over product).
5. The Index Copernicus Value (a bogus impact metric) is promoted.
6. There is no clear description of how the manuscript is handled. 
7. Manuscripts are submitted by email.
8. Rapid publication is promoted, and promised.
9. There is no article retraction policy.
10. There is no digital preservation plan for content.
11. The APC (article processing charge) is very low (e.g., <$150)
12. A journal that claims to be open access either retains copyright of published research or fails to mention copyright.
13. Contact email address is non-professional and non-journal/publisher affiliated (e.g., @gmail.com, or @yahoo.com)