Skip to Main Content

Banner

Teaching & Scholarship Support › Research & Scholarly Publishing

Publishing Choices

Evaluating journals, conferences, and publishers for quality, transparency, and integrity

Formerly “Predatory Publishing” — renamed to reflect a spectrum-based approach.

Make informed publishing decisions

Choosing where to publish is a key research decision. Publishing models exist on a continuum—from reputable open access and traditional journals to outlets that promise rapid publication without adequate peer review. Understanding this range helps protect your work and reputation while supporting ethical, transparent scholarship.

Some venues misuse peer review or charge high fees without transparency; others may simply lack strong editorial standards. This page shows you how to recognize risks and make sound choices before you submit.

Quick tip: Before you submit, check the venue in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), use an evaluation checklist, or ask your subject librarian.

A spectrum approach to evalulation

The Think. Check. Submit. checklists are the standard for evaluating publication venues.

Think. Check. Submit. logo

The spectrum approach

Not all questionable outlets are deliberately fraudulent. Some are simply low-quality, misleading, or lack strong editorial standards, while others meet accepted scholarly norms. Viewing publishing practices on a spectrum encourages critical thinking, avoids oversimplified “good/bad” labels, and acknowledges the grey zones between legitimate and predatory practices. Even reputable or open access venues may occasionally display problematic behaviours (UNESCO Open Science Toolkit, 2022).

Journals and Conferences: Spectrum of Predatory Behaviour

This diagram illustrates a continuum—from fraudulent and low-quality practices to reputable, high-quality ones—highlighting common warning signs and features to watch for.
Diagram showing a continuum of publishing practices, from fraudulent and low-quality to reputable and high-quality, with associated indicators.

Note: The spectrum supports critical analysis but isn’t a definitive checklist. Use it to guide your judgment in context, alongside research goals and trusted advice.

Adapted from Identifying Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences (UNESCO & InterAcademy Partnership, 2022).

When evaluating a journal, conference, or publisher, ask yourself:

The Directory of Open Access Journals is an authoritative listing of quality OA journals from all disciplines. Every journal listed in the DOAJ has been vetted to ensure it meets proper OA standards and is not predatory in nature.

A tool such as Ulrichsweb (formerly Ulrich's) is an authoritative listing of quality journals (traditional and open access) from all disciplines. Search for your journal to find key information about the editors, publisher, peer review, and more. Also check to see whether the journal is indexed in major academic databases.

Beall's List and other curated lists of predatory publishers and conferences can be useful as a single point of reference, but don't treat them as definitive or authoritative.

Check to see in your library, or if other libraries that support similar disciplines, subscribe to this publication or collect other works from the same publisher in their library subscriptions or collections.

Do researchers and other experts from your discipline publish there? If you haven't heard of the journal or publisher, and your colleagues haven't either, and no one you know publishes there, be cautious.
  • Also double check the journal name: predatory publishers will try to trick you by using journal titles that are very similar to legitimate, well-known publications. Be sure that you’re looking at the right journal.

Predatory publishers and conferences rely on aggressive mass email solicitations to attract potential authors. These may be generic ("Dear Sir/Madam/Dr./Professor"), or may specifically mention your name, title, or make reference to your recent publication. The call may be for a journal, book/chapter, or conference that has little or no relation to your subject expertise, and may be so interdisciplinary in scope that it could include any potential subject matter.

Many predatory journals and conferences collect their fees at the time of submission, not at the time when a paper is formally accepted for publication or inclusion in the conference. Legitimate open access journals that use article processing changes (APCs, also known as page fees) will only ask for payment after your manuscript has been peer-reviewed, revised, and accepted for publication.

Identify who is on the editorial board and check how qualified they are to review your work. You can search online for profiles or publication records of those who manage the journal, and those that might be responsible for peer review. You might consider contacting one of the members of the editorial board to ask questions about the peer review process. Alternatively, if you can't clearly identify an Editorial team and verify their connection to the publication, or only see generic contact information, be suspicious.

Before you try to publish your research, Think, Check, Submit. If it's a conference you're considering, Think, Check, Attend.

Your university library or research office should be able to help you. At MRU, contact Richard Hayman by email (rhayman@mtroyal.ca) or phone (403.440.8518). Your subject librarian is also an expert and can help you.

Tools & checklists

Responsible publishing practices

Practical steps

Practical steps to avoid and respond to questionable publishing practices

Everyone involved in research, faculty, students, and administrators, can develop, support, and strengthen systems that mitigate the conditions publishers engaging in questionable practices often exploit. The guidance below outlines practical steps at both individual and institutional levels.

Why this matters: Studies show scholars may turn to predatory outlets due to pressure to publish, limited awareness, convenience, and peer encouragement. Learn more from the InterAcademy Partnership (2022), Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences.

Students and early-career researchers

While academics at all stages are likely to encounter instances where they are invited to publish in a platform or venue that is problematic, students and early-career scholars are often targeted by these venues with the promise of career advancement.

  • Plan ahead and plan early, choose target journals before writing.
  • Build publication timelines into your project, peer review and revisions can take months.
  • Check legitimacy: look for peer-review details, editorial board members, indexing, and clear APC policies.
  • Ask editors for peer-review timelines if unclear; avoid aggressive solicitation or vague fees.
  • If invited to guest-edit or join a special issue, confirm guest editors, publisher reputation, and timelines.
  • Not sure? Connect with your Subject Librarian for guidance.

Departments and faculties

Research has shown that vulnerability to predatory publishers increases when there is:

  • Pressure to publish quickly or meet output metrics
  • Limited awareness of reputable publishing options
  • Peer encouragement or normalization of problematic outlets

Departments can reduce these risks by:

  • Emphasizing quality over quantity in research assessment
  • Providing mentorship for newer faculty and emphasizing reasonable timelines for publication goals
  • Offering workshops on evaluating publishers and sharing recognized tools and checklists (e.g., Think. Check. Submit.)
  • Recognizing open, reputable, and community-owned publishing venues in evaluations
  • Encouraging consultation with a Subject Librarian

Evaluation committees

Be mindful when reviewing scholarship. If you suspect predatory practices:

  • Don’t assume the author was aware
  • Recognize that mistakes may be unintentional
  • Communicate with authors to support improvement

If you’ve published with a predatory outlet
  • You have rights as an author and may be able to act.
  • Request a retraction or withdrawal (ask for your work to be removed)
  • Refuse or reverse APC payment (request a chargeback if applicable)
  • Document your actions and correspondence
  • Be transparent with colleagues, share what you learned

Consult with us

Subject Librarian Consultation

Discipline-specific support