Journal Evaluation Checklist: 30 Ways to Check if a Journal Is Legitimate

How to use this checklist

Work through the checks before you upload your manuscript or pay a fee. A single “no” does not automatically mean a journal is predatory, but several unresolved problems should make you stop and investigate. Save screenshots or links for important claims if the publication decision affects funding, promotion or degree requirements.

Identity and ownership

1. Does the journal name clearly distinguish it from established journals?
2. Can you verify the print ISSN and/or eISSN?
3. Is the publisher clearly named?
4. Does the publisher’s address and contact information appear consistent across the site?
5. Does the domain appear to be the journal’s genuine website rather than a copy or hijacked site?

Editorial board and peer review

6. Are the editor-in-chief and editorial-board members named with affiliations?
7. Can you independently verify several board members?
8. Does the journal explain the type of peer review it uses?
9. Is it clear who makes the final editorial decision?
10. Are review-time claims plausible, without guaranteed acceptance?

Indexing and metrics

11. Can every claimed index be confirmed in the official database?
12. If Scopus is claimed, is current coverage active and are the coverage years clear?
13. If PubMed or MEDLINE is claimed, does the NLM Catalog support the claim?
14. If Web of Science is claimed, which collection includes the journal?
15. If a Journal Impact Factor is shown, can the current JIF be verified through Clarivate/JCR information?

Fees and business terms

16. Are APCs stated before submission?
17. Are taxes, page charges, language-editing fees or other mandatory charges disclosed?
18. Are waiver or discount rules clear?
19. Are withdrawal and refund terms available before submission?
20. Does the journal avoid using payment as a condition for editorial acceptance?

Publication ethics and author rights

21. Are authorship and conflict-of-interest policies available?
22. Are plagiarism and research-misconduct procedures described?
23. Does the journal explain corrections, retractions, complaints and appeals?
24. Are copyright and licensing terms clear?
25. Can authors tell what rights they retain and what version they may archive?

Publication record and preservation

26. Does the journal publish on the schedule it claims?
27. Do recent articles fit the stated aims and scope?
28. Do recent papers show normal editorial information such as dates, authors and affiliations?
29. Is long-term digital preservation or archiving described?
30. After completing all checks, would you be comfortable explaining your choice of journal to a supervisor, librarian or promotion committee?

How to interpret the result

Mostly clear and verifiable: continue with your normal suitability assessment, including scope, audience and publication quality.

Several unclear items: contact the journal and independently verify the missing information before submission.

Multiple false, contradictory or unverifiable claims: do not rush. Consider another journal and ask your library or research office for advice.

Why this is a verification checklist, not a scoring formula

Predatory-publishing checklists are common, but research comparing dozens of them found that most were not built as validated diagnostic tools. For that reason, this page does not assign a numerical “predatory” score or treat one missing item as proof. It is designed as a due-diligence workflow: verify claims in independent sources, look for patterns, and ask for clarification when important information is missing.

A practical decision should combine several kinds of evidence: journal identity, editorial transparency, peer review, fees, indexing, metrics, author rights, corrections and preservation. When the decision affects a degree, grant, promotion or clinical research record, keep a record of the sources you checked.