The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker is a free, continuously updated public database — created by researcher Anna Abalkina in partnership with Retraction Watch — that lists confirmed cases of journal hijacking. Research offices should treat it as one input in a three-tool pre-submission workflow, alongside Think.Check.Submit and the DOAJ, rather than as a standalone verdict on a journal’s legitimacy.
A hijacked journal is a fraudulent website that clones the title, ISSN and branding of a legitimate journal in order to solicit manuscripts and publication fees under a false identity.
- What is the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker?
- How to use the checker before you submit
- Combining the checker with Think.Check.Submit and DOAJ
- Common questions about hijacked and predatory journals
- What this means for research offices
What is the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker?
The checker began as independent detective work. Researcher Anna Abalkina uncovered overlapping, duplicated article archives while investigating plagiarism allegations, and traced the pattern back to journals whose titles, ISSNs and metadata had been copied wholesale by scam operators. Retraction Watch published the resulting resource on 29 May 2022 as a public, dynamic spreadsheet, and Nature covered its launch on 22 June 2022 under the headline “Hijacked-journal tracker helps researchers to spot scam websites”.
By 26 December 2025, Retraction Watch reported the checker had grown to more than 400 confirmed hijacked-journal entries. It is not a static blocklist: Retraction Watch and Abalkina add titles as new hijackings are verified, and readers can submit suspected cases for investigation through a dedicated form.
Detection relies on a repeatable analytical method rather than guesswork:
- Comparing article archives across journals that share an identical or near-identical title
- Spotting identical website templates reused across multiple suspect journals
- Flagging atypical, sudden spikes in indexing volume (for example, in Scopus)
- Identifying citations or subject matter that has no relationship to a journal’s stated scope
How to use the checker before you submit
The checker’s practical value sits earlier in the workflow than most guidance suggests: before a manuscript is drafted for a specific venue, not after an unsolicited invitation arrives. A research office or corresponding author should run the target journal’s exact title, ISSN and submission-site URL against the spreadsheet — hijackers frequently register a lookalike domain while keeping the legitimate journal’s name and ISSN intact, so matching on URL alone is not sufficient.
Three checks matter most:
- ISSN cross-reference. Confirm the ISSN printed on the target site matches the ISSN registered for that journal title, since a mismatched or duplicated ISSN is the clearest hijacking signal.
- Domain history. Check whether the journal has recently changed domains, or whether two live websites claim the same title — a strong indicator one is a clone.
- Scope alignment. Review a handful of recently published articles against the journal’s stated aims and scope; unrelated subject matter is a red flag the checker’s own methodology relies on.
Because the checker only lists confirmed cases, a clean result is not proof of legitimacy — it simply means Abalkina and Retraction Watch have not yet verified a hijacking for that title. That gap is why the checker needs to sit alongside broader vetting tools rather than stand alone.
Combining the checker with Think.Check.Submit and DOAJ
Research offices advising authors on target-journal selection get materially better coverage by running three complementary tools in sequence, because each one screens for a different failure mode.
| Tool | What it checks | Best used for | Key limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker | Confirmed cases of title/ISSN cloning | Ruling out known hijacked or cloned journals | Lists only confirmed cases — absence is not proof of legitimacy |
| Think.Check.Submit | Publisher and journal trust signals via a structured checklist | Assessing an unfamiliar journal’s overall credibility before submission | A self-assessment checklist, not a verified database |
| DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) | Open-access journals vetted against published inclusion criteria | Confirming an open-access journal has passed independent editorial review | Covers open-access journals only, not subscription or hybrid titles |
Think.Check.Submit is a checklist-based initiative backed by a coalition of scholarly-communication organisations, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and DOAJ itself, and asks authors to verify a journal’s editorial board, peer-review process, and indexing claims before submitting. The DOAJ, founded in 2003, takes a different approach: it is a curated whitelist that open-access journals must actively apply to join, and inclusion signals that the journal’s editorial governance and peer-review process have already passed independent review.
A practical sequence for a research office vetting an unfamiliar target journal:
- Search the exact title, ISSN and domain in the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker.
- Work through the Think.Check.Submit checklist for editorial transparency, peer-review claims and indexing.
- If the journal claims open-access status, confirm its DOAJ listing directly rather than trusting a badge displayed on the journal’s own site.
- Escalate anything inconclusive to your institution’s research integrity or library office before submission.
Common questions about hijacked and predatory journals
What is a hijacked journal?
A hijacked journal is a fraudulent website that copies the title, ISSN and branding of a legitimate, often reputable, journal without permission. Operators use the cloned identity to solicit manuscripts and publication fees, exploiting the original journal’s reputation and indexing status to appear credible to unsuspecting authors.
How to check cloned journals?
Cross-check the journal’s title, ISSN and website domain against the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker, then verify the ISSN independently through an official registry. A recently changed domain, or two active websites claiming the same journal name, is a strong sign of cloning that warrants further scrutiny before submission.
What is a red flag for a predatory journal?
Common red flags include an unsolicited invitation promising unusually fast peer review, unclear or missing editorial board information, article processing charges that are hidden until after acceptance, and published articles whose subject matter does not match the journal’s stated scope.
How to check if a journal is predatory?
Run the journal through the three-tool workflow: the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker for confirmed hijacking cases, the Think.Check.Submit checklist for editorial and peer-review transparency, and DOAJ if the journal claims open-access status. No single tool is sufficient on its own.
What this means for research offices
Journal hijacking exploits exactly the signals institutions rely on to judge legitimacy — a familiar title, a real ISSN, and claimed indexing in databases such as Scopus. That makes it a research-integrity risk research offices should treat as distinct from generic “predatory publishing” advice, because a hijacked journal’s clone site can look more convincing than a typical low-quality predatory title.
Embedding the Retraction Watch checker into pre-submission review — alongside Think.Check.Submit and DOAJ verification — gives research administrators a repeatable, evidence-based check rather than an ad hoc judgement call. Given the checker’s entry count has grown from launch to more than 400 confirmed cases in under four years, institutions should expect the list to keep expanding and should re-run checks for any journal an author has not published in before, even where past guidance found no match.
