“There is no universally agreed definition of a predatory journal or publisher. However, organizations like the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) define global publication ethics standards — predatory journals do not meet those standards.”
-- Karen Holland, Prof. Peter Brimblecombe, Dr. Wim Meester and Susanne Steiginga,
The importance of high-quality content: curation and reevaluation in Scopus
What are “predatory journals”?
Why is it important to identify them?
The checklist below can be used to evaluate if a journal is potentially predatory. The checklist is adapted from Think. Check. Submit, an initiative started by a group of scholarly communication professionals, organisations and publishers to help researchers identify trusted journals and discern deceptive and predatory publishing practices. The more questions and issues encountered when verifying a journal's characteristics with the checklist, the more you should be wary and avoid publishing in that journal.
Different authors may have different objectives, aims, tolerance or thresholds when using such checklists. As such, You should only submit your manuscript to a journal only if you can answer most or all of the questions satisfactorily based on your standards or requirements.
Think. Check. Submit Checklist
Do you or your colleagues know the journal?
Email or journal website
Peer review and editorial proceses
Metrics and indexing
Can the journal be found on lists?
Adapted from: Think. Check. Submit
As of January 2017, the original Beall's list of predatory journals and publishers is no longer updated. Details on its cessation can be read at Retraction Watch.
The updated "Beall's list" can be found at https://beallslist.net/. The criteria used to derive the "Beall's list" can be found here. Do note that an anonymous individual has taken on the responsibility of preserving Beall’s list and updating it when potentially new predatory journals and publishers are identified.
Predatory journals are continuously changing names and publishers. Hence, lists are not longer considered to be comprehensive and authoritative.
All authors are advised to conduct their own due diligence when evaluating journals.