Predatory Journal Meaning: What the Term Covers and What It Does Not
The 2019 consensus definition of a predatory journal, explained part by part, with what the label does not mean and a decision guide for a source already in your thesis.
The predatory journal meaning set out in a 2019 expert consensus is a journal or publisher that puts its own interest ahead of scholarship. It shows this through false or misleading information, poor editorial practice, a lack of transparency or aggressive solicitation. In plain words, it takes a fee and skips the work a journal is supposed to do.
This guide explains that definition part by part, what the label does not mean, and what to do if a source in your thesis came from one. Spotting a suspect journal, check by check, has its own guide: how to spot a predatory journal.
What is a predatory journal
A predatory journal looks like a scholarly journal but does not deliver what a journal promises, such as real peer review. The definition below comes from a 2019 expert consensus, and it applies to publishers as well as single journals.
It was agreed by “Leading scholars and publishers from ten countries”, in a process that “took 12 hours of discussion, 18 questions and 3 rounds to reach” (Grudniewicz et al., Nature, 2019). In paraphrase, it describes predatory journals and publishers as putting their own interest ahead of scholarship.
It then names four signs: false or misleading information, a departure from best editorial and publication practice, a lack of transparency, and aggressive, indiscriminate solicitation of authors. For the exact wording, read the article itself through its DOI, doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y.
The process behind it was a three-round modified Delphi study, with the final round held at a summit in Ottawa on 19 and 20 April 2019 (Cukier et al., BMJ Open, 2020). A Delphi study asks a panel of experts to rate statements over several rounds until they agree.
The predatory journal meaning, part by part
The definition has one core idea and four signs. The core idea is self-interest put ahead of scholarship, and the four signs are how that shows up in practice.
The table turns each part into something you can look for. The “what to look for” column draws on the Think. Check. Submit. journals checklist, DOAJ’s inclusion criteria and the COPE discussion document linked below.
| Part of the definition | In plain words | What to look for on the journal’s site |
|---|---|---|
| Self-interest at the expense of scholarship | Money comes before sound research | Fees that are hard to find, or a guarantee of acceptance |
| False or misleading information | It says untrue things about itself | Indexing claims you cannot confirm, a name easily confused with another journal |
| Deviation from best editorial practice | Editorial work is missing or faked | No description of peer review, a promise of very fast review, editors listed without names or affiliations |
| A lack of transparency | You cannot see who runs it or what it costs | No publisher name or contact details, fees without a stated amount and currency |
| Aggressive, indiscriminate solicitation | It asks almost anyone to submit | Repeated invitations to submit that you never asked for |
Each sign has an innocent look-alike. A new journal, a small volunteer editorial team or a clearly stated fee is not a sign by itself, which is why one sign alone calls for more checking rather than a verdict.
Predatory journals meaning in other sources
Other bodies define the term in their own words, and the core is the same. Each stresses deception or missing services, not the fact that a fee is charged.
The Think. Check. Submit. initiative says predatory publishers or journals “charge authors a fee for publication with no intention of providing the expected services” (About predatory publishing). It adds that charging a fee is a legitimate business model. Its page also lists other names for the same thing, including fake, questionable, illegitimate and deceptive journals.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) uses a slightly different frame. Its 2019 discussion document says predatory publishing “generally refers to the systematic for-profit publication of purportedly scholarly content” done “in a deceptive or fraudulent way and without any regard for quality assurance” (COPE, Predatory publishing). The same document lists “aggressive solicitation of authors” among common traits.
What the label does not mean
“Predatory” is a judgement about how a journal behaves, not about its business model, age or fame. Think. Check. Submit. warns that a journal with flaws in its processes may simply lack resources, so “there may not be an intention to deceive”.
Four distinctions are worth keeping in mind when you judge a journal. Each one is a common reason a sound journal gets wrongly labelled.
- Open access is not predatory. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) indexes open access journals and says it “only accepts journals that follow good publishing practice”.
- A fee is not predatory. DOAJ requires journals to state every fee an author might face, so a clear fee is a normal part of open access publishing.
- Not in DOAJ is not proof. DOAJ only accepts open access journals, so subscription journals will never appear there. Treat absence as a reason to check further.
- Low quality is not the same as predatory. A weak but honest journal fails at quality. A predatory one fails at honesty about what it does.
Where the term came from
The term is linked to Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado Denver who kept a public list of suspect publishers. He wrote that he first noticed such journals “in 2008 and 2009”, through spam emails inviting him to submit (Beall, Biochemia Medica, 2017).
His list is no longer maintained by him. Beall wrote that “In January 2017, facing intense pressure from my employer”, and fearing for his job, he shut down the blog and removed all its content. Any copy you find today is not kept by him, so check who maintains it before relying on it.
The 2019 Nature authors titled their piece “Predatory journals: no definition, no defence”. Its summary says the agreed definition is one “that can protect scholarship”. Using it gives you and your examiners a shared, citable test instead of a gut feeling.
Why the meaning matters for your thesis
Your examiners or committee will judge the sources you rely on, and a source from a predatory venue may not have had real peer review. The risk is not citing it, but resting a claim on it without saying what kind of source it is.
Decision guide for a source already in your thesis
Use this when a journal you cited shows one or more signs from the table above. The rules are a suggested working method, not a university regulation, so check your own institution’s guidance and ask your supervisor.
| What you find | Suggested action |
|---|---|
| One sign only, and the paper’s methods are clear and checkable | Keep it, but look for a peer-reviewed source that supports the same point and cite that as well |
| Two or more signs | Do not rest a key claim on it. Replace it with a source from a journal you have checked, or reword the claim |
| The paper is your only evidence for a key claim | Tell your supervisor, and either find other evidence or narrow the claim to what you can support |
| You cite it as an example of weak or questionable research | Keep it, and say in the text what kind of source it is |
If you are asked about one of these sources, a short, plain answer works best. For example: “I checked that journal after I cited it and found it does not describe its peer review. I now support that point with [verified source] as well.”
What Thesisroom does with this
Thesisroom’s Citation Check looks up each reference in eight registries, including Crossref, OpenAlex, PubMed and DOAJ. It shows which references it could verify, which are retracted and which need checking by hand. It does not judge whether a journal is predatory, so that check stays with you.
To check whether a reference exists at all, see how to check if a citation is real. You can also paste a reference list into the free citation checker, which needs no account.
Frequently asked questions
What is the simplest predatory journal meaning?
A journal that takes money from authors but does not do the work a journal promises, such as real peer review. The 2019 consensus definition adds four signs: false or misleading information, poor editorial practice, a lack of transparency and aggressive solicitation.
Is every open access journal that charges a fee predatory?
No. Think. Check. Submit. calls charging a fee a legitimate business model, and DOAJ indexes open access journals that meet its criteria, including clear statements of every fee. The problem is a fee taken without the promised services.
Can I cite a paper from a predatory journal in my thesis?
Check your university’s guidance first, as no single rule applies everywhere. If you keep it, do not rest a key claim on it alone, add a peer-reviewed source for the same point, and say in the text what kind of source it is.
Is Beall’s list still available?
Not from Beall. He wrote that he shut down his blog and removed all its content in January 2017. Lists circulating since then are maintained by others, so check who runs any list before relying on it.
Is a journal predatory if it is not in DOAJ?
Not necessarily. DOAJ only accepts open access journals, so a subscription journal will never be listed. For an open access journal, absence is a reason to check further with the Think. Check. Submit. checklist, not proof.
What other names are used for predatory journals?
Think. Check. Submit. lists fake, questionable, illegitimate, deceptive and dark journals, and journals “operating in bad faith”. The names differ, but each points to the same problem the definitions above describe.
Sources
- Grudniewicz A, Moher D, Cobey KD, et al. (2019). Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature 576, 210-212. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y
- Cukier S, Lalu M, Bryson GL, Cobey KD, Grudniewicz A, Moher D (2020). Defining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: a modified Delphi consensus process. BMJ Open (PMC7045268)
- Beall J (2017). What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochemia Medica 27(2), 273-278. doi:10.11613/BM.2017.029
- Think. Check. Submit.: About predatory publishing
- Think. Check. Submit.: Journals checklist
- COPE: Predatory publishing, discussion document
- DOAJ: About DOAJ
- DOAJ: Guide to applying (inclusion criteria)
How this guide was made: Thesisroom drafted this guide with the help of AI writing tools, then checked every fact, figure and source by hand against the references linked above.