Direct comparison
DOAJ vs Beall's List vs TCS
Compare DOAJ, Beall's List, and Think.Check.Submit: how each journal-vetting approach works, its limits, and which to trust today.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | DOAJ | Beall's List | Think.Check.Submit |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it is | Curated directory of vetted open-access journals | Discontinued blacklist of publishers/journals judged predatory | Free decision checklist -- not a list of journals at all |
| Type of evidence | Positive (inclusion) evidence | Negative (exclusion) evidence | Self-assessment framework, no verdict issued |
| Currently maintained? | Yes, ongoing | No -- frozen since January 15, 2017 | Yes, actively maintained |
| Run by | Infrastructure Services for Open Access (IS4OA), since 2013 | One individual (Jeffrey Beall); site removed by him in 2017 | Coalition: ALPSP, COPE, DOAJ, ISSN Intl. Centre, LIBER, OASPA, STM, UKSG |
| Founded | 2003, Lund University | 2008 (removed 2017) | Coalition-run checklist, ongoing revisions |
| Evaluation basis | Published inclusion criteria (peer review, editorial board, licensing, fee disclosure) | Beall's own evolving, unpublished criteria applied case by case | Structured questions on publisher ID, peer review, indexing, fees, author rights |
| Output | Listed or not listed (application-based) | Frozen 2017 blacklist entry | No automatic verdict -- informs the author’s own decision |
| Scope | Fully open-access journals only | Publishers and standalone journals, OA-focused | Any journal -- OA, subscription, or hybrid |
| Cost to use | Free | Free (unofficial mirrors only) | Free |
| Main limitation | Absence isn’t proof of predation -- not every legitimate journal has applied | One-person judgment, documented accuracy/bias criticism, no updates since 2017 | Requires the author to do the checking -- no automated lookup or verdict |
| Current best-practice role | Meaningful positive signal for OA journals | Historical reference only -- not a reliable current screening tool | Recommended starting workflow for vetting any specific journal |
Common questions
FAQ
Is DOAJ the same thing as a "safe list" of trustworthy journals?+
Not quite. DOAJ listing is a strong positive signal for the specific criteria it checks, but it only covers fully open-access journals, and a legitimate non-OA or newer journal can simply not be listed yet. Treat DOAJ inclusion as meaningful evidence, not a guarantee, and absence from DOAJ as inconclusive rather than a red flag on its own.
Is Beall's List still updated?+
No. Jeffrey Beall removed the entire list on January 15, 2017, and it has not been maintained since. Unofficial community mirrors of the frozen snapshot exist, but they do not reflect publishing-industry changes over the years since.
Does Think.Check.Submit tell you whether a specific journal is predatory?+
No -- and that's by design. It gives you the questions to check and leaves the judgment to you, rather than issuing a yes/no verdict the way a list does.
What replaced Beall's List as the current predatory-journal screening tool?+
Nothing free and comprehensive replaced it directly. Cabells' Predatory Reports (a paid, subscription database) is the closest ongoing equivalent. For free options, DOAJ and COPE membership function as continuously updated positive screens, and Think.Check.Submit gives a free do-it-yourself framework.
Which one should I check first for a specific journal?+
Think.Check.Submit, since it's built as a live workflow for exactly that question. Then verify the journal's current DOAJ status (if it's OA) and COPE membership as independent, currently-maintained corroborating checks.
