Evidence profiles
Publisher verification reviews
Publisher reviews on this site are intended to document verifiable facts, unresolved questions and changes over time—not to issue a permanent label from one signal. Each profile should distinguish historical concerns from what can be confirmed in the current review cycle.
Maintained by the Beallslists.com editorial review team · Evidence reviewed: · Current verification cycle: 2026
What a publisher evidence profile should contain
- Publisher's current and former names.
- Official domains and relevant ownership information.
- Journal portfolio and sampled journal identities.
- Independent checks of major indexing claims.
- Editorial-board and peer-review information.
- APCs, waivers, withdrawal terms and payment transparency.
- Copyright, licensing, archiving and corrections policies.
- Material changes since the previous review.
- Sources checked and review date.
Current evidence profiles
- Scientific Archives — publisher verification review
- SciTech Journals — publisher verification review
- EPRA Journals — name change, indexing checks, SJIF and fees
More profiles should be added only when there is enough publisher-specific evidence to make the page useful. We do not recommend generating hundreds of near-identical pages from a publisher name alone.
The EPRA profile includes independent title–ISSN checks and distinguishes them from the publisher’s policy statements. It does not establish current Scopus, Web of Science or DOAJ coverage.
How to read a profile
Pay attention to dates. A publisher may change ownership, websites, journal titles or indexing status. A historical listing explains why a publisher attracted attention at a particular time; a current evidence profile should show what was verified now.
Corrections and responses
Publishers, editors and readers should be able to provide evidence of factual corrections. A transparent review process should distinguish a correction to a fact from a disagreement about interpretation, record the update date, and preserve a useful change history where appropriate.
See the site's listing policy, editorial methodology and evidence/reporting page.
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.
Archive listing and current publisher policies
Science Publishing Group: archive listing and journal checks separates historical inclusion from the publisher’s published policies and journal-specific evidence still needed.
Page updated .