Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition)

In August 2012, I published the first edition of my Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers. I received many helpful comments and am now publishing a second edition of the work. I am especially grateful to Bill Cohen and Dr. Michael W. Firmin for their helpful suggestions. Also, thanks to all the those who left helpful comments or who sent in emails with suggestions.  This document is also available as a PDF.

­Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers 

By Jeffrey Beall

2nd edition / December 1, 2012

1. Complete an analysis of the publisher’s content, practices, and websites according to ethical standards established by membership organizations.

A. Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) Code of Conduct 

B. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers [PDF]

C. International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM) Code of Conduct

2. Complete an analysis of the publisher’s content, practices, and websites: contact the publisher if necessary, read statements from the publisher’s authors about their experiences with the publisher, and determine whether the publisher commits any of the following practices (below) that are known to be committed by predatory publishers.

n.b. Some journals publish independently of any publisher, but in most cases, we evaluate journals that are part of a publisher’s fleet. The practices described below are meant to apply both to independent journals and to publishers with multiple journals in their portfolios.

Editor and Staff

  • The publisher’s owner is identified as the editor of all the journals published by the organization.
  • No single individual is identified as the journal’s editor.
  • The journal does not identify a formal editorial / review board.
  • No academic information is provided regarding the editor, editorial staff, and/or review board members (e.g., institutional affiliation).
  • Evident data exist showing that the editor and/or review board members do not possess academic expertise to reasonably qualify them to be publication gatekeepers in the journal’s field.
  • Two or more journals have duplicate editorial boards (i.e., same editorial board for more than one journal).
  • The journals have an insufficient number of board members, have concocted editorial boards (made up names), include scholars on an editorial board without their knowledge or permission, have board members who are prominent researchers but exempt them from any contributions to the journal except the use of their names and/or photographs.

Business Management

The publisher…

  • Demonstrates a lack of transparency in publishing operations.
  • Has no policies or practices for digital preservation.
  • Depends on author fees as the sole and only means of operation with no alternative, long-term business plan for sustaining the journal through augmented income sources.
  • Begins operations with a large fleet of journals, often using a template to quickly create each journal’s home page.
  • Provides insufficient information or hides information about author fees, offering to publish an author’s paper and later sending a previously-undisclosed invoice.


  • The name of a journal is incongruent with the journal’s mission.
  • The name of a journal does not adequately reflect its origin (e.g., a journal with the word “Canadian” or “Swiss” in its name that has no meaningful relationship to Canada or Switzerland).
  • The journal falsely claims to have an impact factor, or uses some made up measure (e.g. view factor), feigning international standing.
  • The publisher sends spam requests for peer reviews to scholars unqualified to review submitted manuscripts.
  • The publisher falsely claims to have its content indexed in legitimate abstracting and indexing services or claims that its content is indexed in resources that are not abstracting and indexing services
  • The publisher dedicates insufficient resources to preventing and eliminating author misconduct, to the extent that the journal or journals suffer from repeated cases of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, image manipulation, and the like.
  • The publisher asks the corresponding author for suggested reviewers and the publisher subsequently uses the suggested reviewers without sufficiently vetting their qualifications or authenticity. (This protocol also may allow authors to create faux online identities in order to review their own papers).


A predatory publisher may ...

  • Publish papers already published in other venues/outlets without providing appropriate credits
  • Use language claiming to be a “leading publisher” even though the publisher may only be a startup or a novice organization.
  • Operate in a Western country chiefly for the purpose of functioning as a vanity press for scholars in a developing country.
  • Do minimal or no copyediting.
  • Publish papers that are not academic at all, e.g. essays by laypeople or
    obvious pseudo-science.
  • Have a “contact us” page that only includes a web form, and the publisher hides or does not reveal its location

The following practices are considered to be reflective of poor journal standards and, while they do not equal predatory criteria, potential authors should give due consideration to these items prior to manuscript submissions:

  • The publisher copies “authors guidelines” verbatim (or with minor editing) from other publishers.
  • The publisher lists insufficient contact information, including contact information that does not clearly state the headquarters location or misrepresents the headquarters location (e.g., through the use of addresses that are actually mail drops).
  • The publisher publishes journals that are excessively broad (e.g., Journal of Education) in order to attract more articles and gain more revenue from author fees.
  • The publisher publishes journals that combine two or more fields not normally treated together (e.g., International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology).
  • The publisher requires transfer of copyright and retains copyright on journal content. Or the publisher requires the copyright transfer upon submission of manuscript.
  • The publisher has poorly maintained websites, including dead links, prominent misspellings and grammatical errors on the website.
  • The publisher makes unauthorized use of licensed images on their website, taken from the open web, without permission or licensing from the copyright owners.
  • The publisher engages in excessive use of spam email to solicit manuscripts or editorial board memberships
  • The publishers’ officers use email addresses that end in, some other free email supplier
  • The publisher fails to state licensing policy information on articles or shows lack of understanding of well-known OA journal article licensing standards.
  • The publisher lacks a published article retraction policy or retracts articles without a formal statement; also the publisher does not publish corrections or clarifications and does not have a policy for these issues.
  • The publisher does not use ISSN numbers, DOI numbers or uses them improperly.
  • For the name of the publisher, the publisher uses names such as “Network,” “Center,” “Association,” “Institute,” and the like when it is only a publisher and does not meet the definition of the term used.
  • The publisher has excessive advertising on its site to the extent that it interferes with site navigation and content access.
  • The publisher has no membership in industry associations and/or intentionally fails to follow industry standards.
  • The publisher includes links to legitimate conferences and associations on its main website, as if to borrow from other organizations’ legitimacy, and emblazon the new publisher with the others’ legacy value.
  • The publisher displays prominent statements that promise rapid publication and/or unusually quick peer review.
  • The publisher focuses on authors (not readers) and on getting their fees at the expense of due quality, and offers few or no value adds to readers such as RSS feeds, hotlinked references, or the like.
  • The publisher creates a publishing operation that is set up and run by a single individual who engages in rapacious entrepreneurial behavior. The individual might have business administration experience, and the site may have business journals but it also has journals that are outside the experience of the entrepreneur or anyone on staff.
  • The publisher or its journals are not listed in standard periodical directories or are not widely cataloged in library databases.
  • The publisher copies or egregiously mimics journal titles from other publishers.
  • The publisher uses text on the publisher’s main page that describes the open access movement and then foists the publisher as if the publisher is active in fulfilling the movement’s values and goals.
  • None of the members of a particular journal’s editorial board have ever published an article in the journal.

146 Responses to Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition)

  1. Soumyadeep B says:

    This is just great.. and is most comprehensive.. thanks

  2. Thanks very much, Jeffrey. This is invaluable for faculty vetting reputable sources.

  3. diehappy07 says:

    Thank you very much…. its great work…. however i have question….

    Can you quantify the number of days for Rapid publication and quick peer review???
    What you mean by augmented income sources?

    • Review time varies by field. Some predatory publishers are promising completed peer review in one week — this is clearly too short for a thorough and honest peer review.

      Augmented income sources basically means expanding and improving a business — adding additional value.

  4. Ogwo says:

    This is a great help. Quite comprehensive.

  5. Mike Smithee says:

    Excellent Jeffrey. It should be sent to all OA “publishers,” and if you have not already disseminate this to the ALA and other professional and academic organizations.

  6. Guido says:

    Yes, this is very helpful! These criteria very clearly make a distinction between ‘predatory’ journals and merely unprofessional/embryonic ones.

  7. [...] Beall from the University of Denver has just published Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition). If you are thinking of submitting to an open access journal for the first time (or [...]

  8. John Canning says:

    Thank you for publishing this document and for your work in this area.

  9. R V Krishnakumar says:

    Interestingly, they also have links to apply for the posts of editors-in-chief and editors. I think publishers are expexted to keep the Editorial board constituted prior to the launch. Merely providing links for applying to the posts of editor-in-chief and editors in their site is ridiculous. Is it not a valid criterion? Dr.Beall. If they are not able to identify and invite 10 (or at least 5 per journal to begin with) to be in the Board, I wonder why do they want to launch?

  10. Guria says:

    On OASPA’s website, there is a link to DOAJ, which requires quality control-”The journal must exercise peer-review or editorial quality control to be included.” However, I searched the directory and found some of them were published by those on the Beall’s list. I start to be wondering if there is anything left for us to believe.

  11. [...] sure to also take a look at Beall’s Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) for many useful [...]

    • Guria says:

      Thank you very much. I’ve found some answer to my concern.
      “…the DOAJ does not have very stringent rules for inclusion. DOAJ seeems to include too many titles on Beall’s list, plus titles which have ceased to publish, plus some non-scholarly titles.”

  12. R V Krishnakumar says:

    Not surprisingly, I see lots of rate downs here. I think the predators have come here, seen and gone.

  13. [...] criteria for inclusion in the lists can be found here. The author’s email address is: [...]

  14. [...] yang dibuat oleh Beall dalam menentukan penerbit yang masuk ke dalam daftar tersebut dapat dilirik di sini. Anda boleh setuju, boleh tidak. Tentu saja, hal ini masih bisa diperdebatkan. Tetapi, kalau toh [...]

  15. [...] is a list of questionable, scholarly open-access publishers.  There’s carefully prepared criteria for determining entries on the list.  I’ve found the list very useful when trying to assess [...]

  16. Mao Sheng Yang says:

    It is very helpful. Open Access is good for research and learn, but it has two sides like a coin. We should use its advantages and control its disadvantages.

  17. [...] could these standards be? Beal gives a number of reasons why publishers are included in his black list. Yet, these are tentative criteria that just allow to [...]

  18. Restless Wanderer says:

    Reblogged this on Restless Wanderer.

  19. Dear Mr. Beall,

    Why did you include Trade Science Inc as predatory publisher? it does not manage open access journals. Its journals do not ask fee from authors, but give them free e-reprints in the form of PDF

    • Because I want to help people by advising that they avoid this ridiculous publisher.

      My guess is that they (Trade Science) are trying to fill up their journals with content and then they will switch to an author-pays model.

      I have examples of spam email from Trade Science that say.

      “Maximum publication time 15 days”


      “Acceptance or rejection of submitted manuscript will be informed within 7 days limit to corresponding author.”

      I recommend that people avoid this publisher. It is very suspicious and possibly a big scam.

      • Kobi says:

        So you say it is impossible to review an article in 14 days? Why? An expert should be able to do that if he/she is conversant with the field and the article is properly constructed and edited before submission. Do you want to get rid if competition that can provide a better service? Afraid of losing your advertising income? How are Open Access publishers supposed to fund their operations? It does not necesarrily mean that the product is no good if somebody paid $100 to get it published instead of the publisher charging thousands or millions to distribute the information that they got for free!

      • Dear Mr Beall,
        I do not agree to avoid Trade Science, as until now, they do not charge authors. Even if it is as you have supposed, that they will switch to author-pay model, I think authors can take advantage of the free of charge period. However, when your supposition has become a reality, i.e. they begin to charge author, then I agree with you, to avoid them.

      • imran says:

        Dear J Beall…if you are right then AoB Plant journal from Oxford Journal Publications be also regarded as Predatory because that particular journal has been publishing free of cost till end 2012 and now 1000 US dollars it switch to author-pays mode. Dear Beall you may kindly raise this issue and so far AoB is predatory and in fact Oxford journal to say, as per your insight against Trade Sciences

      • Jignesh Pandya says:

        Would you explain why trade science inc is ridiculous publisher?

      • See my earlier comment. Thank you.

  20. [...] Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers (2nd edition) « Scholarly Open Acces… – How to ID a potential predatory journal: the usual criteria of openness, names, dates, places, and association. – (OER library2.0 ) [...]

  21. [...] open-access publishers is an understanding of and a commitment to digital preservation. In fact, my Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers includes one criterion related to this: “The publisher … has no policies or practices [...]

  22. Menos famous says:

    Saw a link to this in The Lancet. I’ve gotten a few emails TELLING me I was on the editorial board for such “journals.” I have not checked to see if they listed me on their websites, having not responded in any way, but I guess I should.

    The corresponding piece of this that has become clear to me is a booming business is fake, for-profit international conferences, most commonly in China. The last couple of years, I have been inundated with offers to be a podium speaker. I would love to think I have a huge overseas following (the “Big in Japan” phenomenon), but I don’t think so.

  23. Researcher says:

    There is one publisher in the predatory list that does not meet most of the criteria listed here. They even have a copyright form for contributors. What would you recommend regarding publishing in any of their journals?

    • Many of the publishers and independent journals on my lists require copyright transfer. This is not the standard among progressive OA publishers, most of whom let the author retain copyright.

      How can you ask a question like the one above and not include the publisher’s name?

      • Researcher says:

        Thank you for your reply. I really find your page very informative and it raises awareness in the academic world indeed. This is why I’d like to ask for more info on this. For example:

        What is the difference between:

        1. the “Copyright transfer” of “Infonomics society” (in your list):


        2. the Copyright conditions of the prestigious “Taylor and Francis”:

      • Sorry, I lack sufficient time to examine the differences between the two; perhaps you should re-direct your question on a blog devoted to copyright issues.

      • Researcher says:

        Thank you Mr. Beall,
        Then, as far as your list is concerned, in the case of Infonomics society, could give more details about this publisher’s predatory characteristics?
        Thank you!

      • I observe the following problems:

        1. Their “contact us” page does not provide a headquarters location
        2. Several of the journals have the same EiC despite covering different subjects
        3. My anti-virus software will not let me open this page on the publisher’s site:
        4. On the individual journal pages, the publisher has table of contents pages, but there are no live links to the articles. However, I can find the articles by doing a Google search. Why aren’t the links live? See:
        5. There are prominent spelling and grammatical errors.
        6. I get errors saying some of the PDFs are “unreadable”
        7. Some of the journals have missing issues, issues with very few articles, no articles, etc.
        8. There is no mention of article processing fees.
        9. Some of the articles contain plagiarism.
        10. I don’t really think this vanity press qualifies as a “society”

      • Alsee says:

        “What is the difference between:
        1. the ‘Copyright transfer’ of ‘Infonomics society’ (in your list)
        2. the Copyright conditions of the prestigious ‘Taylor and Francis’”

        I’m not a copyright lawyer, but I have studied these legalities in depth. Copyright law is complex and there are a million details that could affect any specific situation, so I’m going to oversimplify things and try to stick to plain English.

        ‘Infonomics society’ requires that you give them ownership of the copyright, basically giving them absolute ownership of the paper. This means THEY can sue YOU for doing stuff with the paper you wrote. They then say they will PERMIT you to use THEIR paper (the one you wrote) own paper in a few ways (such as using your own paper in a course you’re teaching). However that permission comes with conditions and it’s very vague and very limited. If you screw up, or if they dislike what you’re doing, they can sue you into oblivion. In the last several years copyright law has been strengthened into an extremely potent weapon, and you really do not want to be on the receiving end of a copyright lawsuit. The fact that you wrote the paper is NOT going save you.

        ‘Taylor and Francis’ gives you a choice. One option is that you keep ownership of the paper you wrote, and in essence you merely promise never to sue them for publishing it. You can do basically anything you like with your paper and no one can sue you for anything. You’re safe. The only possible downside here is if someone else publishes your paper without permission then you are the one who’d have to hire a lawyer to sue them for it (and you’re the one who gets the $$$ award when you win in court).

        ‘Taylor and Francis’ also gives you the option of transferring the copyright to them, meaning their legal staff goes after anyone who illegally copies the paper. If you do give them the copyright, their terms put a lot of effort protecting you. They give much broader terms saying you can still use the paper you wrote in ways you’d expect to be able to still use it. But more fundamentally you know they won’t use the copyright to screw you over because if they did that then other authors would simply stop selecting this option.

  24. [...] guesses that making this kind of money on vanity/predatory publishing may make Dr. Ketchum forget about marketing the non-existent Sasquatch Wildwear tshirts and other [...]

  25. [...] Alert !! (Woo… abal-abal.detected), arsipnya dikit amat .., kriteria lain juga memenuhi (full kriteria klik di sini (1) dan di situ (2)) [...]

  26. Mr. Beall,

    You recently added Melba Ketchum’s Denovo Science Journal to your list. You might find my article on how and why I think she created it interesting:

  27. [...] None of these are on Jeffrey Beall’s “Possible Predatory Publishers” list at the Scholarly Open Access site, however. Beall’s list consists of newly-formed open access (OA) journals that charge authors [...]

  28. hatuxka says:

    Needed just as much is a blog tracking the (mal)practices of the “prestige” journals that lead to the rise of a significant portion of this kind of publishing.

  29. [...] Beall, J. (2012). Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. Scholarly Open Access: Critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing. Luettu 5.2.2013,… [...]

  30. [...] list of publications and a list of publishers to be very wary of.  He’s also explained his criteria for how these have been selected, and recommends that researchers also use these when looking at [...]

  31. BrotherChe says:

    The idea behind the list seems great, but honestly if they went to the time to analyze each journal according to the criteria stated then there should be a ranking page with notes for each individual journal.
    To simply stick a journal on there without any clarifying points seems unfair and not exceptionally helpful.
    In fact, it might not be a bad idea to allow a secondary ranking score by third-party contributors, with both an anonymous and a verified ranker score set, with comments allowed. (Similar to how some community-driven website link scanner tools work e.g.

  32. [...] Fun Things” above is published by World Academic Publishing which is on Beall’s list of “predatory publishers”. I’m fairly amused Gmail just moved it into the spam folder straight away. An idea for a [...]

  33. [...] jest dostępna pod adresem Można się także zapoznać z kryteriami umieszczania czasopism na tej liście. Lista ma być docelowo regularnie odświeżana więc warto dodać ją do [...]

  34. Robin Somes says:

    Just read about the list in the NYT yesterday – an excellent resource, that suddenly clarifies the bombardment of requests for submissions I’ve had from SCIRP. The paper that prompted my deluge? A minor piece, to which my main contribution was proof-reading…

  35. joy macdermid says:

    I continue to be surprised that Open Orthopedics is included on this list by a global inclusion of all Bentham open journals. That journal has an editorial board ( i know as I am on it), rejects papers ( i know I have had papers rejected), does formal peer review( i know i have done it) and is listed in PubMed as it says. The website could use work but otherwise it a fair journal and DOES NOT fit your published criteria for predatory journals

    Joy C MacDermid PhD

    • I agree with you. Some journals should not be present in the list. The list contains almost all new open access publishers and journals. In my experience, new journals are usually a little bit loose in peer reviewing, but once they become stronger, the peer reviews will become more credible.

      I am an editor in Med J Indones, so I know how hard is to collect papers from renowned authors. Therefore, I have empathy to newborn journals and publishers for their struggle to survive.

      Indeed, there are many publishers and journals that do not do their job properly. However, to include them in the list, ethically, a prove that they do not do peer review should be given.

      If you examine carefully the list, you will find journals that are not open access, do not ask payment from authors, and you have to send the copy right transfer to an address, which is the address of a University. Is it possible that they are predatory? I doubt it.

      • Can you tell me five publishers or journals that you think should not be on the lists?

        There are hundreds of new journals that are not included on my lists.

        Can you send me examples of journals on my lists that match the conditions you state in the last paragraph of your comments?

  36. Azam says:

    I disagree with bellas assessment, if they are predatory why ISSN is issued to them

  37. Dear Mr Beall,
    Here are some examples:

    International journal of Pharm tech research (sphinx knowledge house) – It only charge 20 USD, and now is at Vol 5, so pretty new, but already listed in scopus.

    BioChemistry: An Indian Journal (Trade Science) – It is not open access, and do not charge authors. Authors will get PDF of the article free. It has print issues, and it is now Vol 6, and not yet in scopus, but it can be listed in scopus some day, if it can attract articles from potential authors (I hope), the same way as another journal of trade science below.

    BioTechnology: An Indian Journal (Trade Science). It is free, and author gets PDF of the article free, except if we want to get-5 reprints and manuscript containing issue, we have to pay 25 USD. It is now vol 7, and listed in scopus. The address is not present in the website, but there is an address in the copy right transfer form. Editorial Office : 126 Prasheel Park, SanjayRaj Farm House, Nr. Saurashtra University,Rajkot 360 005, Gujarat – INDIA. Fax : +91-281-3066669. So, I suppose that the journal is managed by some people of the university.

    Asian Journal of Information Technology (Medwell Journal), now vol 11 and listed in scopus (it has online and print version) payment: no information, I suppose free, because there is subscription.

    Current stem cell research and therapy (Bentham open). They asked 2200 USD if I am not mistaken, but we can opt for not to be in open access, and do not have to pay. It is also listed in scopus.

    If they can be listed in scopus, they must be pretty good, aren’t they?

    Therefore, to be fair, big and establish publishers that charge exorbitant fee should be listed as well, such as springer open, which charges authors US$ 3000/ EUR 2200, or some journals from Elsevier. Why can we not assume that the review process is looser, if we pay?

    • Husain says:

      I agree with your statement Galuh. Elsevier journals (Some) charge very exorbitant, which no one can afford in developing or underdeveloped countries. I clearly see a bias by Mr. Jeffery toward those Scientific journals.
      Mr. Jeffery, I strongly recommend that you put up a list of European and American journals who charged for publications.

      Then it will be a fair landscape.

      • I also agree with Galuh and Husain, Mr. Jeffary is bias to journals from underdeveloped countries and developing countries. The journals that have mentioned all details on website, takes copyright before publication, review is competent and indexed in reputed databases are also listed in predatory journals. I can advice that attempt Mr. Jeffery is good,;but, Mr. Jeffery should recheck the information to release new list; otherwise, the authenticity of this list will be lost.

  38. Dear Mr Beall,
    Galuh Sarasvati is my pseudonym of (Jeanne Adiwinata Pawitan).
    I used it as I can not enter the post using my real name

  39. Dear Mr Beall,
    I want to know your opinion about:
    Accupuncture and related therapies (Elsevier), option: open access (3000 USD)

    On 13-4-2013: There is only 1 issue Vol 1, no 1 (2012)
    On 13-4-2013: Aim and scope: no information
    On 13-4-2013: only 4 articles written by editor in chief (3) and 1 of the editors (1)

    I am not anti-new journals, as I always hope that they can manage to survive. However, in case that they can not, I think author wants to be sure that their published articles do not dissappeared, when the publisher is collapsed. Therefore, I want to know, how can we check, whether a journal has digital preservation or not?

  40. Husain says:

    Sir, you mention “Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)” above, at the same time you are critical to Hindawi publications, while the OASPA is chaired by Paul Peters (Hindawi Publishing Corporation) Chair. ( )
    Don’t you think it’s a conflict of interest.

    Another query, MedKnow was included in your list in the past (if i am not mistaken), what Medknow publication has done to remove them from your list. They have hundreds of publications under their belt.

    • No, I don’t think it’s a conflict of interest.

      Medknow was purchased by Wolters Kluwer Health, a reputable publisher, but MedKnow wasn’t on my list.

      • Husain says:

        Sir, I do not understand that You are critical of Hindawi publication, while at the same time you are referring OASPA. A Board member of OASPA sitting on the chair of Hindawi group !!!

        Sir, I do recommend that you expose other journal, who are charging exorbitant amount for publishing articles. You are doing a tremendous job. Keep it up sir.

        Research & publication should be an Open access to all. Why closed journal charges huge sum of money for just reading a research paper?

  41. [...] (who is an American academic librarian) provides a comprehensive list of the criteria he uses to determine whether the publisher or journal is included on his [...]

  42. Is it possible that Open Access Journals may carry fake ISSN?
    Do you think that a photo of editor or editor-in-chief with valid address of a particular Open Access Journal may be a proof of authenticity of an Open Access Journal?
    Could you include the provision of ISSN and photo of editor or editor-in-chief with valid address as criteria of genuine Open Access Journals?

    • Yes, it’s likely that some journals have fake ISSNs.
      Any journal can get an ISSN — it’s not a measure of quality. I don’t think the picture idea would work either — they could just put any picture. They already use fake pictures for their editorial boards. Thanks.

  43. I appreciate your reply.
    I have read a profile of an editor of three Open Access Journals.I failed to find any photo of the editor on the net despite intensive and frequent searches.I have concluded that the person posing as the editor of the journals is non-existent.

  44. vuse says:

    I dont agree with u.elmer press .and baishenideng journals are listed in pubmed central. Also these are new journals so have less papers reaching peer review takes less time contrary to high impact journal where no. R much more; taking months for review . I FEEL authenticity issues should be left to proper governing body instead of individual.

  45. yurinahmad says:

    Why not to establish a Wikipedia-like scientific journal?

  46. […] If  you see the name here, be cautious and keep an open mind! Click here to find out how Jeffrey Beall made a decision to put them on the black-list. A word of caution, […]

  47. Adiwinata J says:

    Dear Mr Beall,
    I got an e-mail:
    Subject: Meet over 250 of your stem cell, cell and gene therapy, and cord blood peers for half price
    From: “Stem Cells & Regenerative Medicine Congress”
    Date: Thu, May 16, 2013 2:42 am

    On September 30 – October 1, Stem Cells & Regenerative Medicine Congress, World Cord
    Blood Congress and Cell Culture World Congress USA will all take place alongside
    each other in Cambridge, MA.

    The three conferences will run separately, allowing attendees to choose the content
    most relevant for them. But, the exhibition and networking opportunities will be
    shared, giving you full access to leading stem cell biotechs, cell and gene therapy
    companies, and cord blood banks from around the world.

    When it comes to the best use of your time and resources, there’s no better place to
    be. And, if you book by Friday, May 24th you can now save 50% off your registration
    fee! This is a saving of up to $1625! Simply enter the promo code OFFER50 when

    Book for Stem Cells & Regenerative Medicine Congress with promo OFFER50


    Book for World Cord Blood Congress with promo OFFER50


    Book for Cell Culture World Congress USA with promo OFFER50


    Confirmed speakers include: *Michael May, Chief Executive Officer, Centre for
    Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine
    *Geoff Crouse, Chief Executive Officer, Cord Blood Registry
    *Chris Goodman, Chief Executive Officer, Virgin Health Bank
    *Raj Puri, Director, Division of Cellular & Gene Therapies, Office of Cellular,
    Tissue and Gene Therapies, CBER, FDA
    *Robert Hariri, Chief Executive Officer, Cellular Therapeutics Division, Celgene
    *Richard Garr, Chief Executive Officer, Neuralstem
    *Keith Thompson, Chief Executive Officer, Cell Therapy Catapult
    *Renier Brentjens, Medical Oncologist, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
    *Ian McNiece, Cell Therapy Laboratory Director, MD Anderson Cancer Center
    *Kristian Tryggvason, Chief Executive Officer, BioLamina

    Can you really afford to miss it? Remember, book by Friday, May 24th to save up to

    Best regards,

    André Singer
    Conference Manager
    +1 212 379 6320

    Terrapinn Inc., 4th Floor, 96 Spring Street, New York, NY 10012, USA
    Tel: +1 212 379 6322 | Email:

    Is this a predatory Congress?

    • It may be. I don’t specialize in evaluating scam conferences. However, if they are spamming for attendees, and if you’ve never heard of it before, then I would be careful. Also, just the fact that you find it suspicious if a fair indication that you probably find a better conference to attend.

  48. […] the degree to which it is viewed as giving a fair assessment of publishers. And Beall’s (lengthy) criteria for determining whether or not a journal is questionable are easily accessible on his […]

  49. DT_199 says:

    Dear Beall,

    Thanks for your effort. There are some other journals which I met recently: (econjournals is in your list, but this website use .net and .org instead of .com. :)) )

    and turkish version of

  50. […] scholarly open-access publishers,” in which company he includes OMICS. On his blog Beall explains how he arrives at his characterization of a publisher as “predatory,” saying that he begins by analyzing “the publisher’s content, practices, and websites […]

  51. […] and results.  The criteria by which Beall determines predatory open access publishers can be found here and the full list of potential, possible or predatory scholarly open access journals and publishers […]

  52. UmaKado says:

    Dear Mr.Beall,

    Thank you for the very comprehensive criteria on predatory open access journals. What one should do in case if one becomes a prey unknowingly through submitting to such one? Do you have any advice?


    • One possibility is to withdraw any articles still in process. Otherwise, just chalk it up as a lesson learned.

      • BAH says:

        I naively thought I had done my due diligence in selecting a place to submit an article, but didn’t know about this list. I found it after my paper was ‘accepted’ but before publication. I have contacted the publisher to request withdrawal, creating a paper trail of ‘please withdraw before initiating editing’ requests, but am still concerned that they will publish it without my consent. A couple questions-

        1. If they refuse to withdraw it, is there any legal recourse I can take?
        2. If I (again, admittedly moronically) paid the fee – which was thankfully pretty small, does that qualify as ‘consent to publish,’ making it too late to withdraw? I haven’t signed any papers or any other documents consenting to publication.

        Thank you for your work on this list. I am going to tell all my colleagues about it. I wish someone had told me before I made such a mistake!

      • Hi, it’s tough to answer your questions. The law may depend on where the publisher is based. Also, if you’ve already signed over copyright of the article to them, you may have little recourse. Generally, if you don’t pay the fee and keep demanding that they withdraw it, in most cases this works eventually. Good luck.

  53. Bhavani A B says:

    Thanks a lot for giving comprehensive information about criteria for selection of journals for publications.

  54. sbaker says:

    This journal seems to fit the criteria:

    They e-mailed a professor on my campus charging $38 to “process” his article and post it on their website, claiming to increase its impact and that they had X page views, were cutting edge, etc.

  55. Serwaa Opoku says:

    Please provide a list of the genuine ones. That will also be helpful.

  56. […] You’ll notice that our suspect journal, Studies in Literature and Language, meets many of his criteria for determining predatory publishers, […]

  57. Subrahmanya says:

    I would like to whether chemical science transactions is a genuine OA journal or falls under other catogory?

  58. […] If the publisher isn’t on the list, check out Beall’s Criteria for Determining Predatory Open Access Publishers and do some investigating […]

  59. awantika says:

    Dear Sir


    Pl provide us list of OA journal which are fit for publication…..This will be really helpful to most of us.
    Thanx & Regards
    Awantika Shrivastava

  60. […] da burada yer aldığını üzülerek gördüm. Söz konusu dergilerin sahiplerinin burada yer alan kriterleri dikkate alarak isimlerini bu siteden kaldırabilmelerini […]

  61. […] If the publisher isn’t on the list, check out Beall’s Criteria for Determining Predatory Open Access Publishers and do some investigating […]

  62. […] yer alma kriteri için bu adrese bakınız. Yazar Jeffrey Beall'a e-posta adresinden […]

  63. […] about publishers and journals to avoid. The Scholarly Open Access blog maintains the list and is upfront about its criteria for labeling a publisher […]

  64. Mr Beall, have you seen TOASTSE Academic Journals, ?

  65. ermias ergete says:

    i think most of the journals listed provide free access to read and down load the papers. their payment also conditional you can publish if you don’t have capacity to afford the payment and if your paper is really good. i think you better revise your study before criticize most of the publisher.

  66. Arun Sharma says:

    I think people here are arguing on the author fee, open access, big publishers bullying small ones and whatnot. The primary point is the criteria of rejecting, how would any scholar be sure that his/her work is being published alongside quality work from other authors and not second grade copied stuff. I see journals in India publishing articles left right and center, just to keep their profitability. If every thing written is published, what value remains of good research

  67. […] you protect yourself from predatory open access publishers?  Jeffrey Beall has made available a set of criteria you can use to determine whether a publisher is legitimate or predatory.    This can help you to […]

  68. Mena says:

    Is IGI Global: a publisher predator?

    • No. They are not an open-access publisher.

      • Philomena Marinaccio says:

        Thank you Jeffrey.

        Philomena Susan Marinaccio, Ph.D. Florida Atlantic University Dept. of Teaching and Learning College of Education 3200 College Ave. ES 206 Davie, FL 33314 Phone: 954-236-1070 Fax: 954-236-1050 ________________________________

  69. Laura H. says:

    A lot of people are defending new journals here. A big part of the problem of lack of quality of scientific articles is the shear number of journals that are suddenly appearing. We don’t need thousands of new journals. All that means is that any author will be able to find SOME journal out there that will publish their work; overall quality will suffer. As for the idea that new journals will eventually have better quality articles, that’s a big assumption given what I said above (there are too many journals now.)

  70. Laura H. says:

    I don’t understand the focus on whether authors are charged for publishing their papers. I personally hate this practice, but it’s been a standard procedure for the journals of all the major scientific societies for years, and still is. At least the prices have come down as publications switch from paper to electronic form, but we’ve been paying to have our articles published for years.

  71. […] access and quality. Beall’s List is one of questionable OA publishers as determined by a set of criteria that includes examining the editor’s credentials, the digital preservation practices and the […]

  72. […] publishers can have on the scientific endeavor. He outs such publishers on his blog and his list. His criteria for categorizing a publisher as predatory are […]

  73. […] publisher is listed on the famous Beall’s List of predatory publishers (definition here). You can find the list of publishers here. As can be seen, Synergy Publishers are included on that […]

  74. RAFI LASKAR says:

    What about Annual Review & Research in Biology of ScienceDomain International?

  75. Bob O'H says:

    Sorry to add another publisher to your workload, but have you looked at Pinnacle Journal Publication, It looks new (ISSN only applied for), doesn’t seem to have any editorial boards etc.

    It also seems to be sending out the most pathetic journal spam yet.

  76. Andrejs Skesters says:

    Skesters Andrew to Jeffrey Beall. I have only one question. Which pay You for it?
    In our List are many excellent SCIENTIFIC journal, published hundreds perfect title, specially in medical, experminental biology and experimental biochemistry.
    Sorry, but your “roof is gone” !

    • SD says:

      Why do people never tell the names of the “good” journals “wrongly” in the list so others can evaluate for themselves?

  77. […] you protect yourself from predatory open access publishers?  Jeffrey Beall has made available a set of criteria you can use to determine whether a publisher is legitimate or predatory.    This can help you to […]

  78. […] now you either have to pay or never publish that manuscript! (Take a look at this list of aspects of predatory journal […]

  79. […] criteria for inclusion in the lists can be found here. The author’s email address […]

  80. Sharon says:

    Hi Mr. Beall, thank you for compiling this list, the scale at which this exists is really eye-opening. Sorry to add yet another journal to your workload, but we recently received an email asking for submissions from the Journal of Nephrology and Urology Research (Synergy Publishing, which is on your list). Their website can be found at: Do you know if this is a predatory journal? What was the criteria that Synergy Publishing met to be put on your list? I’ve done some research online but can’t seem to gather much information.
    Thank you!

    • Hi, Sharon, Yes, I consider all of Synergy’s journals to be questionable, and I recommend against responding affirmatively to their spam. I see a lot of strange aspects to this publisher, despite its jazzy website. It has a link to CCC on its pages, but it is unclear why this is there — all the articles I saw have a CC BY license. Perhaps it is because some articles will be toll access despite all authors having to pay a fee. It claims to have an office in the UK, but the office is really a dwelling. The articles show little or no copyediting, and many of them are very short. Some of the articles look questionable, like this one: “Asperger’s Syndrome and Skin Vibration Sessions: A Theoretical Model” Is this publisher a place to submit strange articles that were rejected elsewhere? It appears so.

  81. Thomas Zaslavsky says:

    I didn’t notice that your criteria specifically include that the publisher requires payment by the author, but doesn’t state that in the author guidelines. (This is the very problem a friend of mine encountered recently. I will send him your list, because he was shocked at the treatment and wants to avoid the same problem in the future. So, thank you for your work.)

    I suggest it be a prominent part of the criteria, even though it would normally be impossible for you to tell for yourself, as you’d have to go through the submission process to find out. (You’d have to rely on reader reports for this information.)

    • In fact, requiring a payment from the author (the article processing charge) is not a criterion. It’s the abuse of this charge that contributes to making a publisher predatory.

  82. […] Even among open access journals, a sharp divergence in quality is already becoming apparent. The Public Library for Science, BioMed Central and eLife have emerged among the serious brands in the space, offering their own prestige. Many others have been labeled predatory for charging researchers for the privilege of publication, among other questionable practices. […]

  83. Gentrit says:

    Recently members of academic staff of my faculty have being witch-haunted by media for publishing in journals of questionable rating. Can anyone provide me with a comprehensive statement that this is an issue of authors being victims rather than profiting unethically from scam journals?

  84. M Bolt says:

    In venturing off the OCLC/Scholar path I have found the African Journals Online to carry both questionable journals and much more stable journals. As this is a Ford Foundation venture into OA as a means of economic development I wonder if you may want to review their holdings?

    • African Journals Online (AJOL) is not a publisher; it is an aggregator. As such, it is not eligible for my list. I do agree that much of what it aggregates is of very low quality.

  85. uwera alice says:

    Is the journal of chemical biological and physical sciences predatory?Its website is here:

  86. John says:

    Dear Beall, what about this journal?

  87. Jeremy Dawson says:

    This is great! But I get spammed with invitations to submit to, and attend, doubtful looking conferences (with many of the characteristics in your list of criteria). Is there a similar list anywhere of conferences to avoid?

  88. […] this journal was easy. (I was partially inspired by Jeffrey Beall’s list of things to look for to determine ‘predatoriness’.) The website features animated GIF images and other very general images as ‘context’ […]

  89. […] Today it lists 477 of what Beall calls “questionable” open-access publishers, and includes criteria for determining “predatory” publishers. Bohannon’s other source was the comprehensive […]

  90. l says:

    Hola Amigos, he recibido un mensaje de invitacion de esta institucion, desearia concoer si es legal o es un depredador

    Horizon Research Publishing,USA (HRPUB)
    asistente editorial en .

    Gracias un abrazo
    Lucy Orellana

  91. mustafa says:

    what about WASET ? is it fake ? i submitted one paper to them and they accepted, is this mean they stole my paper ?

    • I do find WASET to be a highly questionable publisher and conference organizer, and I recommend that scholars NOT submit papers to their journals or attend any of their many conferences.

      However, if you submit a paper to them, and they accept it, this is not stealing.

  92. […] Pour plus d’informations sur les signes qui doivent alerter, rendez-vous sur ce site. […]

  93. hamdan says:

    It is useful to our scholars in indonesia. They aching wish to publish their works in international journal. Most of them publish by fraud. Go go Beall.

  94. Dirk Pons says:

    Dear Jeffrey
    I share your opinion about the need to expose fake and predatory journal titles and their publishers. I have read your project with interest.

    However in thinking about this, it appears that there are a number of difficulties with your approach.
    (1) You don’t really have any way to incorporate actual author experience into your evaluation. Perhaps this is because you don’t know who to trust or not. For whatever reason, it means that you are not getting the full picture, but solely relying on your own judgement.
    (2) I looked up the inclusion criteria, to see how you are making that judgement. However the criteria are broad and lack specificity: it is not clear what combination of factors makes the decision. Apparently it relies on your subjective judgement.
    (3) I was interested in seeing why you say certain journals are dubious. However there are no details. You publish the outcome of the judgement, but not the thinking behind it. This makes it very difficult to know where the publisher was deemed to be deficient. It also makes it difficult for users of your list to distinguish the really bad (predatory) publishers from the merely slack ones.
    (4) There is no natural justice in the system you have created. There appears to be no way of seeing your file on a journal/publisher and correcting the information where necessary.
    (5) Condemnation. While your list doubtlessly started out as being just a personal opinion, and your disclaimer states as such, you appear to erode that neutrality in several of your actions. For example, you explicitly condone the use of your list for use by ‘tenure and promotion committees’, and you took a self-congratulatory and explicitly condemnatory position on the Iceland business professor. Throughout your blog you actively encourage researchers not to submit to certain journals. I feel such actions are morally perilous. There is a potential for your actions to contribute to a ‘Witch-hunt’. This especially given the lack of specificity of your decision criteria and the subjective & covert decision-making. If this list really is going to be your opinion, then you should be doing everything you can to point out its unreliability and oppose its use as an instrument for punitive action. Alternatively, if you wish people to make decisions on the basis of your list, then you need to make the decisions more objective and overt.
    (6) Solely pejorative. Your list only identifies the publishers/journals you consider bad. It does not identify why they are bad, or what they could do to improve. Your list is not about continuous improvement.

    I get the feeling that what started out as a useful opinion piece on your part, may be morphing into something more ugly. You are both the judge and the jury. Sooner or later you are going to make an error of judgement (we all make these), the consequences of which are going to be significant for some researcher, editor, editorial board member, or publisher. In the resulting regrets, all your good work on this project will be undone. Perhaps it might be time to rethink what this project is about, and restructure your efforts to have a more positive and lasting effect? I therefore have a suggestion: That you create a set of criteria based on objective principles, with say five levels of excellence (one to five stars), and overtly rate each publisher/journal accordingly. For example, the principles for inclusion in the One star category might be Plagiarism (reproduced articles), For Two stars it might be Major Misrepresentation or Fabrication (of physical address, impact factor, or editorial board membership), etc. I am sure you could come up with an objective hierarchy of principles. Then you simply publish that information, and researchers can see what the risks are, and publishers can see how they need to lift their game. Maybe let people on Researchgate provide feedback. And then let the levels and their criteria speak for themselves: you can stay out of making recommendations to avoid publishing in so-and-so journal.

    This is worth doing for the potential to help researchers select appropriate journals for their works. Let’s also bear in mind –and you as a librarian will be keenly aware of this – that it is easier to get a copy of a work from an open access journal than a conference presentation. So these journals provide a valuable repository for ideas that are not noteworthy enough to get into mainstream journals. Let us also not forget the lesson of the Ignobles: that works in mainline journals can also be trivial.

    I hope this criticism is taken in the constructive manner in which it is intended.

    Thank you
    Dirk Pons

  95. […] If the publisher isn’t on the list, check out Beall’s Criteria for Determining Predatory Open Access Publishers and do some investigating yourself. One of our librarians recently spotted a dodgy title and […]

Leave a Reply -- All comments are subject to moderation, including removal.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,405 other followers