Publisher verification
Predatory publishers list: search the archive, then verify current evidence
A historical warning list can be useful for screening, but it should not be treated as a permanent verdict. Publisher ownership, journal portfolios, domains, editorial teams and database coverage change. Use this page to understand how to search a publisher name and how to verify what is true today.
Maintained by the Beallslists.com editorial review team · Evidence reviewed: · Current verification cycle: 2026
What this list can—and cannot—tell you
Beall's historical work documented publishers that raised concerns under the criteria used at the time. That archive remains useful as an early-warning resource, especially when a publisher name, domain or journal title appears in an unsolicited invitation. It does not replace current due diligence.
A publisher can change ownership or practices. A journal may move to a different publisher. A publisher can also operate journals with different policies and histories. For that reason, the safest approach is to use a list as a starting point and then verify the exact journal you are considering.
How to check a publisher in 2026
- Record the exact identity. Note the publisher name, website domain, registered or business address, journal title and ISSN.
- Search historical records. Check whether the publisher name or a previous name appears in the archive. Look for spelling variants and former domains.
- Verify the journal separately. Confirm the journal's indexing claims in official databases rather than trusting logos on the publisher website.
- Read the peer-review policy. It should explain who reviews manuscripts, how decisions are made, and how conflicts and appeals are handled.
- Check fees before submission. APCs, taxes, optional services, withdrawal charges and waiver rules should be clear before you submit.
- Verify editors independently. Check a sample of names using institutional pages, ORCID or recent publications.
- Inspect corrections and retractions. A serious publisher should have visible procedures for correcting the scholarly record.
Warning signs that deserve a second look
- Indexing claims that cannot be reproduced in the official database.
- Journal titles or website designs that could be confused with an established publication.
- Very broad journal portfolios with little subject-specific editorial information.
- Guaranteed acceptance or implausibly short review promises.
- Fees revealed only after acceptance or payment requests sent to unrelated accounts.
- Editorial-board names that cannot be independently verified.
- Missing ownership, contact, licensing, archiving or complaints information.
One warning sign alone is not enough to label a publisher. Look for a pattern, document what you verified, and distinguish poor practice from deliberate deception.
Best next checks
After searching the publisher archive, continue with the predatory journal checker, journal indexing guide, journal evaluation checklist and APC transparency guide.
Independent sources used in this guide
- Think. Check. Submit. — practical journal and publisher due-diligence checklist
- Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing — joint transparency principles used by DOAJ, COPE, OASPA and WAME
Database coverage and publisher practices can change. Check the official source directly before making a submission, promotion, funding, or assessment decision.