Want to Avoid Predatory Publishers? Start Here.

Today’s researchers face a complex publishing landscape. Online, legitimate scholarly outlets coexist with predatory journals that exploit authors without providing meaningful peer review (Laine et al., 2025). The impact of predatory publishers can be devastating, well beyond the financial cost. Articles published in predatory venues are cited at far lower rates than those in reputable journals, failing to reach the audiences that researchers hope to influence (Björk et al., 2020). For early-career scholars, publishing in a predatory journal can have lasting professional consequences, from weaker tenure and promotion portfolios to reputational harm that is hard to reverse (Tornwall et al., 2025). Retractions, when possible, are time-consuming and costly, sometimes requiring legal intervention (COPE Council, 20254).

In this environment, Think. Check. Submit. (TCS)—a global campaign to help researchers distinguish trustworthy journals and publishers from questionable ones—offers researchers a straightforward way to evaluate journals and publishers before submitting their work.

Overview

TCS’s central contribution is a checklist that guides authors through questions that reflect some of the key markers of credibility a legitimate journal should be able to demonstrate (see Figure 1). Does the journal clearly describe its peer review process? Are persistent identifiers such as DOIs in use? Is the publisher a member of professional bodies like the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)?

If a researcher can answer the majority of the checklist’s questions in the affirmative, they can feel confident that they are submitting their research to a credible publisher.

By structuring the evaluation in this way, TCS prompts authors to pause, reflect, and verify before committing their work.

Two things make TCS particularly effective: its accessibility and its global reach. The checklist, which is available for both journal articles and books/chapters, has been translated into more than 50 languages, ensuring that researchers worldwide, regardless of geography or institutional affiliation, can access guidance on avoiding predatory publishers. Because predatory outlets often target scholars in regions with less established publishing infrastructures, TCS’s wide linguistic reach is a meaningful way of supporting equity in scholarly communication.

The design and dissemination of the resources also reflect a commitment to accessibility. The materials are concise, written in plain language, and freely downloadable in multiple formats, such as posters, slide decks, and videos, making them approachable for students and early-career researchers while also giving institutions practical tools for outreach and instruction.

Features and Resources

In addition to the checklist, the TCS website includes a substantial set of supplementary resources designed to help authors build broader publishing literacy (see Figure 2). These resources cover topics such as citation metrics, copyright and licensing, and the basics of peer review. Each is presented in plain language, without assuming prior expertise, making them particularly valuable to graduate students or those navigating scholarly publishing for the first time.

The campaign also hosts a companion initiative, Think. Check. Attend., which extends the same principles to academic conferences. Predatory conferences, much like predatory journals, solicit submissions and fees without delivering meaningful review or professional value. By applying the same “pause and question” approach, the conference checklist provides a safeguard in another area where scholars can be vulnerable.

Beyond these tools, the website features a “news” tab that highlights developments related to the campaign. The site also provides freely downloadable outreach materials, such as posters, slide decks, and videos (see Figure 3). Librarians and faculty advisors can adapt these materials to their local contexts, using them in orientations, workshops, or consultations. In this way, TCS functions not only as an individual decision-making tool but also as an educational platform that can be integrated into broader research support efforts.

Evaluation

The TCS checklist is easy to use and covers the most essential questions to help differentiate between trustworthy and questionable publishers. Because it is simple and accessible, it is approachable for those new to scholarly publishing. Authors who are unfamiliar with the scholarly publishing process can take a few minutes to work through the prompts and come away more confident in their decision to publish with a particular outlet.

Equally important is the initiative’s educational role. By providing explanations of publishing concepts, such as what a robust peer review process entails or how citation metrics should be interpreted, the campaign demystifies aspects of scholarly communication that often seem opaque to those submitting their research for the first time. In doing so, it levels the playing field, helping researchers who may not have extensive mentorship or institutional resources to develop the knowledge needed to prudently navigate the publishing process.

That said, the tool is not comprehensive, nor does it intend to be. It does not maintain a vetted list of trusted journals, nor does it attempt to categorize or score publishers. Instead, it encourages authors to apply critical thinking when searching for publication venues. For this reason, TCS works best when combined with other resources that provide additional forms of validation and guidance.

Similar Products

TCS is one important tool in a wider landscape of resources that support researchers in avoiding predatory publishing. No single initiative is comprehensive on its own, but used together these tools form a robust set of options for authors at different stages of the publishing process.

The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) offers one of the most widely recognized points of reference. Whereas TCS encourages authors to critically evaluate a journal’s practices, DOAJ provides a vetted index of open access journals that have already demonstrated adherence to standards of quality and transparency. Many researchers rely on it for quick validation of a journal’s credibility.

Compass to Publish takes a somewhat different approach by guiding users through a structured series of questions about a journal and then generating feedback on its reliability. Compared with TCS, which emphasizes an author’s critical reflection, Compass to Publish delivers a more prescriptive evaluation.

At the institutional level, Cabells Journalytics and Predatory Reports (recently reviewed in Katina by Erin Owens) provides perhaps the most comprehensive evaluations. With both whitelists of recommended journals and blacklists of questionable ones, Cabells offers in-depth analyses of editorial and publishing practices. The drawback is its subscription model, which restricts access primarily to well-funded universities and organizations, in contrast to the free and open availability of TCS.

Taken together, these resources illustrate the complementary nature of the publishing evaluation ecosystem. TCS emphasizes accessibility, global reach, and critical reflection, while tools like DOAJ, Compass to Publish, and Cabells supply more prescriptive or curated forms of validation. Researchers who draw on multiple tools in combination can make the most informed and confident choices about where to publish.

Recommendation

TCS is a valuable resource in the fight against predatory publishing. Its accessibility, reach, and clarity make it especially appropriate for graduate students, early-career faculty, and scholars working in institutions or regions without strong publishing support infrastructure. For these groups, the checklist can instill habits of careful evaluation that will serve them throughout their careers.

Librarians will also find the initiative useful as a teaching and outreach tool. The downloadable promotional materials, along with concise explanations of publishing concepts, make it easy to integrate into workshops, consultations, or classroom discussions. In settings where questions about predatory publishing frequently arise, TCS can serve as a starting point for deeper conversations about scholarly integrity and informed publishing.

While seasoned researchers may find the checklist somewhat basic, the initiative still offers them a valuable reminder to slow down and verify details before submitting work. In a rapidly evolving publishing environment, such reminders can make a real difference.

TCS does not claim to be a comprehensive solution to the problem of predatory publishers. What it offers is a straightforward, accessible way for researchers to pause, ask the right questions, and make informed decisions about where to publish. Used consistently, it can help protect both individual scholars and the broader credibility of scholarly communications.

References

Björk, B.-C., Kanto-Karvonen, S., & Harviainen, J. T. (2020). How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited. Publications, 8(2): 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8020017

Clark, J., & Smith, R. (2015). Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ, 350: h210. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h210

COPE Council. (2024).Withdrawing an article from a predatory journal to resubmit elsewhere - English. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/sJZRU4uM

Laine, C., Babski, D., Bachelet, V. C., Bärnighausen, T. W., Baethge, C., Bibbins-Domingo, K., Frizelle, F., Gollogy, L., Kleinert, S., Loder, E., Monteiro, J., Rubin, E. J., Sahni, P., Wee, C. C., Yoo, J.-H., & Zakhama, L. (2025). Predatory journals: What can we do to protect their prey? The Lancet, 405(10476), 362–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)02863-0

Think. Check. Submit. (n.d.). Resources. Retrieved September 10, 2025, from https://thinkchecksubmit.org/resources/

Tornwall, J., Overcash, J., McNett, M., Tornwall, J., Overcash, J., & McNett, M. (2025). Predatory journals and conferences: impacts and strategies to protect scholarly integrity. Building Healthy Academic Communities, 9(2), 18–23. https://doi.org/10.18061/bhac.v9i2.10479