Explainer · Plain-language

Predatory Publishing: Definition, Meaning & Examples | CASRAI

Predatory publishing refers to journals and publishers that exploit the open-access model by charging article processing charges (APCs) while failing to provide the genuine editorial and peer-review services they claim. They prioritise fee collection over scholarly quality, often using aggressive solicitation and deceptive practices. The term covers a spectrum of behaviour rather than a single clear-cut category. Initiatives such as Think. Check. Submit. help authors identify trustworthy venues.

CASRAI plain-language explainers — clear answers to recurring research-administration questions

The step most authors miss

Doing CRediT right? Don’t stop at the statement.

A CRediT statement credits you inside one paper. The recognition CRediT was built for happens when those roles are tied to you, persistently. Sign in with your ORCID — free — and claim your CRediT contributions on casrai.org, the home of the standard. They become a verified, portable part of your identity, not a line that disappears into one PDF.

Free: claim your contributions, then export a journal-ready CRediT statement, schema.org structured data, JATS XML, CSV or BibTeX — and preview your public profile. A membership publishes that profile publicly and verifies the journals you serve.

What makes a journal predatory

Predatory journals present themselves as legitimate scholarly venues but exist primarily to collect fees. They commonly solicit submissions through unsolicited, flattering emails, promise unusually rapid review and publication, and accept manuscripts with little or no genuine peer review. Editorial boards may be fabricated, list scholars without their consent, or be impossible to verify. Other hallmarks include hidden or only-disclosed-after-acceptance APCs, false or exaggerated claims about indexing and impact metrics, poor or inconsistent copy-editing, and contact details that are vague or untraceable. The underlying problem is a mismatch between the services claimed and those actually delivered.

How to check a journal: Think. Check. Submit.

Think. Check. Submit. is a cross-industry initiative that provides a checklist to help researchers assess whether a journal or publisher is trustworthy before submitting. It encourages authors to check whether they recognise the journal, whether the editorial board and contact details are verifiable, whether peer-review and fee processes are clearly described, and whether the publisher belongs to recognised bodies. Complementary signals include inclusion in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), which applies criteria for transparency and quality before listing a journal, and membership of organisations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA). None of these is an absolute guarantee, but together they give authors a reasoned basis for judgement.

Beall's List and the contested history

Awareness of predatory publishing grew through Beall's List, a blog maintained by librarian Jeffrey Beall that named publishers and journals he judged to be predatory. The list raised the profile of the problem but was also criticised for relying on one person's judgement, for opaque criteria, and for the risk of unfairly labelling legitimate venues, particularly from the Global South. It was taken down in 2017. Since then, the field has moved towards more transparent, criteria-based approaches such as DOAJ indexing and Think. Check. Submit., rather than denylists. This history is a reminder that identifying predatory behaviour involves judgement and can carry reputational consequences for those named.

A spectrum, not a binary

It is misleading to treat journals as simply predatory or legitimate. Quality and practice vary along a spectrum: some venues are clearly fraudulent, others are merely low-quality or inexperienced, and many reputable open-access journals charge APCs while providing rigorous review. Charging a fee is not itself evidence of predatory behaviour. Because the boundaries are blurred, authors are better served by assessing specific, verifiable features of a journal — its review process, transparency, editorial board, and recognised affiliations — than by relying on a label. The aim is informed, case-by-case judgement rather than a single verdict.

Key facts

At a glance

Definition: journals charging fees without genuine peer review or editorial service
Business model: exploits the author-pays open-access model via APCs
Warning signs: spam solicitation, rapid acceptance, opaque fees, fake editorial boards
Check tools: Think. Check. Submit.; DOAJ indexing; COPE / OASPA membership
History: Beall's List (taken down 2017) — contested and criticised
Nature: a spectrum of quality, not a strict predatory-versus-legitimate binary

Common misconceptions

What people often get wrong

Often heard: Any journal that charges an APC is predatory.

Actually: No — many reputable open-access journals charge APCs to fund genuine peer review and publishing. Charging a fee is not, by itself, evidence of predatory behaviour; the failure to provide the claimed services is.

Often heard: A journal is either predatory or fully legitimate.

Actually: No — quality varies along a spectrum, from clearly fraudulent through merely low-quality to fully reputable. Authors should assess specific verifiable features rather than rely on a binary label.

Often heard: Beall's List is the definitive authority on predatory journals.

Actually: No — Beall's List was influential but criticised for opaque, single-person judgement and was taken down in 2017. Criteria-based tools such as DOAJ and Think. Check. Submit. are now preferred.

Going deeper