Beall’s List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers

Searchable research-integrity archive

Beall’s List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers

This is the main searchable archive for potentially predatory scholarly publishers and standalone journals. Use it as an early warning signal, then verify the current evidence before making a submission, hiring, funding, or promotion decision.

Maintained by the Beallslists.com editorial review team · Last updated: · Current verification cycle: 2026

Journal practices can change. A publisher may improve transparency, a title may move to a different owner, and a website may disappear or be replaced. For that reason, this page is designed to help researchers search quickly and then check the details that matter: peer review, editorial board, indexing records, fees, ownership, archiving, and publication-ethics policies.

Type a keyword to filter the list below.

Search the listUse the checklist

What are predatory journals?

A clear explanation of the behavior that makes a journal risky, and why open access itself is not the problem.

Journal checklist

A practical screening process for authors, librarians, research offices, and students.

Verify indexing claims

How to check PubMed, MEDLINE, PMC, Scopus, Web of Science, DOAJ, Crossref, ISSN, and metrics claims.

Check before submission

A step-by-step author workflow for checking a journal before sending a manuscript or paying an APC.

Peer review checks

How to assess editorial boards, review timelines, conflicts, and recent article quality.

APC transparency

Understand publication fees, discounts, withdrawal fees, refund terms, and payment risks.

Author guidance

Start with the list, but decide from evidence

Many authors arrive here after receiving a flattering email invitation, finding a journal with a very broad scope, or seeing a promise of rapid acceptance. The safest workflow is simple: search the list, save the journal’s current website, verify official records, and ask a librarian or research office when the evidence is mixed.

Publisher-level checks Predatory journal checker Recognize warning signs Publication ethics Correction and appeal policy FAQ for authors Check before submissionPublication fees and APCsEditorial board checksCopyright and licensingReport suspicious journal

Current publisher reviews — not yet classified

The following publishers have current evidence profiles because public information requires clarification. They have not been inserted into the historical or updated predatory-publisher list solely on that basis.

View all current publisher verification reviews.

What makes this archive useful today

  • Historical context: preserved publisher and standalone-journal records associated with Beall’s work.
  • Current verification: guides for checking PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Journal Impact Factor claims.
  • Author protection: practical checks for peer review, editorial boards, APCs, licensing and withdrawal terms.
  • Identity checks: guidance for hijacked journals, confusing titles and publisher ownership.
  • Corrections: a process for submitting evidence when a record is outdated, incomplete or disputed.

Use Beall’s List as a screening tool, not a final verdict

Beall’s List remains one of the best-known historical resources for identifying journals and publishers that may deserve closer scrutiny. It is also easy to misuse. A historical listing does not automatically describe every current practice, and absence from a list does not guarantee legitimacy.

The safest approach is two-stage: search the archive first, then verify the current evidence. Check the exact journal and publisher identity, official indexing records, editorial board, peer-review process, APCs and withdrawal terms, metrics, copyright and archiving before you submit or pay.

Looking for a journal?

Search the standalone journal archive, or use the journal checker if you have the journal title, ISSN or website.

Search standalone journals Check a journal

Looking for a 2026 guide?

Use the current-year verification guide for updated checks covering PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, misleading metrics, hijacked journals and fee transparency.

Predatory journals 2026

Potential predatory scholarly open-access publishers

Search the publisher name, journal title, acronym, or domain. If you find a match, treat it as a starting point for current verification rather than as the only evidence.

Instructions: first, find the journal’s publisher - it is usually written at the bottom of the journal’s webpage or in the “About” section. Then simply enter the publisher’s name or its URL in the search box above. If the journal does not have a publisher use the Standalone Journals list.
A publisher-level listing is a warning signal for every journal in that portfolio, but each title should still be checked using current evidence and official records.

Original list

Go to update

This is an archived version of the Beall’s list - a list of potential predatory publishers created by a librarian Jeffrey Beall. We will only update links and add notes to this list.

Last updated December 31, 2016

Update

Here we include publishers that were not originally on the Beall’s list, but may be predatory.

Last updated June 18, 2026

Excluded – decide after reading

Useful pages

​List of journals falsely claiming to be indexed by DOAJ

DOAJ: Journals added and removed

Nonrecommended medical periodicals

Retraction Watch

Flaky Academic Journals Blog

List of scholarly publishing stings​

Conferences

Questionable conferences [archive]

How to avoid predatory conferences

Flaky Academic Conferences Blog

Evaluating journals

Journal Evaluation Tool

JCR Master Journal List

DOAJ Journal Search

Think Check Submit

News

Scholarly publishing evaluation resources
The Scholarly Kitchen: Guest Post – MDPI’s Remarkable Growth
Email and publishing integrity illustration
UNDARK: Opinion: I Published a Fake Paper in a ‘Peer-Reviewed’ Journal
5F56E036E67F0749C12937Ad related to research publishing
Nature Index: Retractions: the good, the bad, and the ugly
More

Original description by J. Beall

This is a list of questionable, scholarly open-access publishers. We recommend that scholars read the available reviews, assessments and descriptions provided here, and then decide for themselves whether they want to submit articles, serve as editors or on editorial boards. In a few cases, non-open access publishers whose practices match those of predatory publishers have been added to the list as well. The criteria for determining predatory publishers are here.​
We hope that tenure and promotion committees can also decide for themselves how importantly or not to rate articles published in these journals in the context of their own institutional standards and/or geocultural locus. We emphasize that journal publishers and journals change in their business and editorial practices over time. This list is kept up-to-date to the best extent possible but may not reflect sudden, unreported, or unknown enhancements.

Predatory journals: quick answers

What is Beall’s List?

Beall’s List is an archive-style reference used by researchers to identify publishers and journals that may require careful verification. It should be used with current evidence, not as an automatic judgment.

Why did the site remove thin year and country pages?

Pages that only repeat the same content with a different year or country can look like doorway pages. This site keeps the main archive and practical guidance pages instead.

Is every open-access journal predatory?

No. Many open-access journals are legitimate and transparent. The concern is deceptive or low-transparency publishing behavior, not open access.

What should I check before submitting?

Check the publisher, ISSN, editorial board, peer-review process, APCs, indexing claims, metrics, copyright, archiving, corrections policy, and recent articles.

Useful external references

These links are included because they are practical, public starting points for researchers. They should be used alongside local institutional policies and the current evidence for a specific journal or publisher.

Explore the archive by research task

Use the historical lists as an initial warning signal, then move to the relevant verification guide before making a submission, payment, hiring, or promotion decision.

Related researcher resources