Written by: Alessandra Giugliano 

Predatory journals will continue to evolve in 2026, but you can stay ahead. This guide for PhD students and early‑career researchers shows how to spot predatory journals, recognize new red flags, and avoid academic traps. 

You will learn about the latest growth trends, hybrid schemes, AI-powered scams, and a step-by-step journal vetting workflow. By the end, you will know how to protect your reputation, what to do if you have already submitted, and how institutions can foster ethical publishing.

Predatory Journals 2026 Landscape: Growth, Indexing, and Why It Matters

Predatory journals have expanded from a fringe problem into a global threat. Understanding the scale of the issue helps you see why ongoing vigilance matters. In 2015, there were roughly 10,000 predatory journals; by late 2024 estimates surpassed 18,000, and the number continues to grow.

This proliferation means that scams are no longer obvious outliers – they are embedded in the scholarly landscape. The pressure to publish and the shift toward open access have driven this growth, and bogus journals now appear in respected indexes.

Growth of Predatory Journals From 2015 to 2026

Trends from 2015 to 2026

Early surge (2010–2015): 

The term “predatory journal” entered the lexicon in 2010 with Jeffrey Beall’s list, and by 2015 there were around 10,000 such journals. The growth was driven by the open‑access model and publish‑or‑perish culture.

•  Continued expansion (2015–2024): 

Predatory titles expanded to over 18,000, with many mimicking reputable journals. While lists like Beall’s are no longer maintained, Cabell’s Journalytics and other safe‑list databases track more titles every year.

• Looking ahead to 2026: 

Experts anticipate further growth unless academic culture shifts. There is no definitive blacklist; instead, safe‑lists and mentorship are becoming more important. Hybrid models and AI‑assisted scams (discussed below) will likely contribute to more sophisticated predatory operations.ù

How Predatory Journals Enter PubMed, Scopus, and Other Indexes

Legitimate appearance is part of the predatory journal playbook. Journals may claim indexing in PubMed or Scopus, or may even be included temporarily because of lax or outdated screening. 

Key infiltration pathways of predatory journals include:

• PubMed Central deposits: NIH and other funder policies require open access to funded research; when authors publish in predatory journals, those articles can enter PubMed via deposits.ù

• Loose inclusion criteria: Databases such as Scopus sometimes add journals with minimal scrutiny; a 2021 study found 324 suspected predatory journals indexed in Scopus, publishing 160,000 articles from 2015–2017.

• Hijacked or cloned titles: Some scammers hijack the name of an existing journal, making indexing errors more likely.

When evaluating a journal, always verify its indexing status directly through the database and cross‑check ISSN numbers and website domains. Recognize that a listing in a major index is not a guarantee of quality. Understanding the peer review process also helps you interpret claims about indexing and quality.

Hybrid Predatory Journals, Hijacked Titles, and AI-Polished Scams

Traditional red‑flag checklists focus on obvious signs such as poor grammar and spammy emails. However, predatory publishers are adapting and it’s important to remain aware of predatory journal’s latest tactics. 

Hybrid models, journal hijacking and AI‑powered phishing campaigns make deception harder to spot. This section explores these new tactics so you can see beyond superficial red flags.

Hybrid Open Access Models and Pseudo Peer Review

Hybrid publishing models – in which a journal offers both open‑access and subscription options – can be legitimate when managed by reputable publishers. Predatory journals abuse this model by charging high article processing charges (APCs) while delivering little value. They may claim to offer peer review but provide only perfunctory or automated feedback.

Signs of hybrid abuse include:

1. Unusually high APCs relative to legitimate journals in the field.

2. Extremely rapid review timelines with generic reviewer comments or acceptance within days.

3. Lack of methodological critique in returned reports.

4. Opaque fees that shift during the submission process.

If a journal lists itself as hybrid, compare its APCs to those of established hybrid journals and scrutinise its peer‑review processes. Reach out to colleagues and mentors for guidance. 

Predatory conferences often exhibit similar predatory conference warning signs, such as unclear fees and vague peer review. 

• For more information on predatory conferences, read Predatory Conferences: Warning Signs and How to Avoid Them.

Journal Hijacking, Cloned Titles, and Rebranded Predatory Journals

Journal hijacking occurs when scammers copy or acquire the title and ISSN of an existing journal, then operate a fraudulent website while the legitimate journal continues elsewhere. Rebranded predatory journals may slightly alter their names to resemble prestigious journals. 

To protect yourself:

1. Check the ISSN and domain: Use the ISSN Portal or the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) to confirm the correct publisher and website.

2. Validate editorial boards: Fake journals may list scholars without their consent. Search editorial board members’ names to verify they are truly affiliated.

3. Contact the publisher: Legitimate journals have clear contact information and respond to queries. Predatory journals often use generic email addresses or ignore questions.

AI-Generated Phishing Emails and Personalized Predatory Journal Spam

Advances in generative AI allow scammers to craft personalized invitations that reference your previous papers, conference presentations, or online profiles, and they mimic the style of reputable journals. They might even use .org domains or well‑formatted websites.

To defend against AI‑enhanced scams, ask yourself:

1. Is the invitation relevant to my work? Predatory conferences and journals often send invitations unrelated to your research area. According to 2025 PubMed editorial, only 7.35% of solicitation emails from journals were relevant to the recipients’ work.

2. Does the message contain flattery or pressure? Overly enthusiastic praise or urgent deadlines are warning signs.

3. Can I verify the journal’s ISSN and indexing? Use official databases to cross‑check.

Report suspicious emails to your institution’s IT or library services and block the sender. Be wary of attachments or links in unsolicited invitations.

Risks of Predatory Journals for PhD Students and Early-Career Researchers

While all researchers should care about predatory publishing, PhD students and early‑career scholars are particularly vulnerable. The pressure to publish quickly, limited mentorship and unfamiliarity with legitimate publishing norms create an environment in which scams flourish. This section examines the career, mental‑health and research implications of falling prey to predatory journals.

Career and Funding Consequences of Predatory Publishing

Publishing in a predatory journal can have lasting career repercussions. Many legitimate journals refuse to consider work that has been previously published elsewhere, even if it appeared in a predatory journal. Grants and promotion committees weigh publication venues when evaluating productivity, so a record of questionable journals can jeopardise funding and job prospects. 

Consequences of publishing in a predatory journal include:

1. Loss of publication rights: Predatory journals often demand copyright transfer and may refuse to retract or release manuscripts.

2. Difficulty submitting elsewhere: Reputable journals typically do not accept duplicate submissions; rewriting a predatory article for resubmission may be considered self‑plagiarism.

3. Reputational damage: Future employers or collaborators may question your judgment if they see predatory publications on your CV.

4. Funding risk: Grant reviewers may interpret predatory publications as evidence of poor quality or unethical behavior.

Mental Health Impact of Predatory Journal Pressure

Predatory publishing creates logistical headaches and also erodes researchers’ time, energy, and confidence, especially for early-career scholars who accidentally publish in predatory journals. Many report feeling embarrassed, ashamed, or anxious about sharing their CV, and some start to doubt their own judgment about journal quality. These emotional costs can linger long after the immediate problem is solved.

Predatory publishing is not just a logistical problem; it erodes emotional well‑being. Inboxes flood with personalized spam invitations, acting like micro‑aggressions and draining time and focus. Researchers who inadvertently publish in predatory journals often experience shame, anxiety and mistrust. 

Coping strategies related to the mental toll predatory journal’s can take include:

1. Seek mentorship: Talk to supervisors or senior colleagues about your experience; chances are they have encountered similar scams.

2. Pause and verify: Slow down before responding to unsolicited invitations and verify the journal’s legitimacy.

3. Use safe‑lists: Refer to Cabell’s Journalytics, DOAJ, or Think Check Submit to confirm journal quality.

4. Limit exposure: Filter email domains or set up rules to reduce spam volume.

How To Identify Predatory Journals: Step-by-Step Vetting Checklist

A structured vetting workflow can protect you from predatory journals. No single list or checklist is definitive, but combining several strategies reduces risk. 

Follow these steps to vet an academic journal before submitting your manuscript: 

1. Verify indexing in reputable databases: Use MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science or DOAJ to confirm that the journal appears where it claims. Be cautious if indexing is only on Google Scholar or vague lists.

2. Assess peer‑review transparency: Look for clear statements about the review process, reviewer criteria and typical timelines. Legitimate journals often publish peer‑review histories or policies.

3. Check editorial board legitimacy: Search names of board members. Do they have verifiable affiliations? Have they published in the field? Predatory journals often list scholars without consent.

4. Review fees and policies: Legitimate journals disclose all fees upfront and explain what they cover. Watch out for hidden charges or additional “editing” fees during the process.

5. Examine scope and website quality: Genuine journals clearly describe their aims and scope, align with your discipline, and maintain professional websites with functioning links and archives.

6. Consult safe‑list databases: Resources such as Think Check Submit, Cabell’s Journalytics, and Ulrichsweb provide vetted lists. Some require institutional access. Always verify when lists were last updated.

7. Verify memberships: Check whether the journal is a member of COPE, OASPA, DOAJ or ICMJE. Predatory journals may falsely claim affiliation.

8. Cross‑check ISSN and domain history: Use the ISSN Portal to ensure the journal’s ISSN corresponds to its title. Tools like WHOIS can reveal recent domain registrations that suggest a hijacked or clone journal.

Classic Warning Signs of Predatory Journals That Still Matter

Despite predatory journal’s new tactics, classic warning signs remain useful:

1. Poor grammar and spelling on the website or in emails.

2. Unsolicited invitations that flatter you and promise quick publication.

3. Lack of indexing in established databases.

4. Fake impact metrics or claims of membership in well‑known organizations.

5. Short review times coupled with high acceptance rates.

Use these classic predatory journal red flags as initial filters, but always follow through with the full vetting workflow.

Safe Journal Lists, Cabell’s Journalytics, DOAJ, and Other Tools

Safe‑lists help shift attention from blacklists to positive identification of legitimate venues. 

According to Tornwall et al. 2025, key resources to check an academic journal’s legitimacy include:

How To Use Mentors and Librarians To Vet Questionable Journals

Mentorship remains one of the most effective defenses against predatory journals. Experienced colleagues can share tacit knowledge about reputable venues and help interpret ambiguous signals. 

When designing your own decision‑making framework to avoid predatory journals, draw on lists of red flags and safe‑lists. 

When in doubt:

1. Ask about the journal’s reputation in your field and whether mentors have published or reviewed for it.

2. Request typical turnaround times for peer review and publication; unrealistic promises may signal a scam.

3. Seek advice on fees and whether similar journals charge comparable amounts.

4. Use librarians’ expertise in evaluating indexing claims and accessing safe‑lists.

What to Do If You’ve Already Submitted or Published in a Predatory Journal

Discovering that your work has been trapped in a predatory journal can be distressing. Take heart: you are not alone, and there are steps you can take to mitigate harm.

1. Stop engaging with the journal: Do not pay additional fees or sign further agreements. Predatory journals may demand “withdrawal fees” or “editing fees” that are not legitimate.

2. Consult your supervisor or mentor: Share the situation. Experienced scholars may have seen similar cases and can advise on next steps.

3. Send a withdrawal notice: If your article has not yet been published, formally request withdrawal. Keep a record of correspondence. Note that predatory journals may ignore or refuse your request.

4. Document everything: Save emails, payment receipts and screenshots. These can support institutional reporting or legal action.

5. Report to funders and ethics offices: Inform your funding agency and institution’s research ethics office. Transparency can protect you from future accusations of misconduct.

6. Rework and resubmit cautiously: If your manuscript has not been formally published, you may be able to submit to a legitimate journal after making substantive changes and disclosing the history. Always check the new journal’s policies.

7. If you have to prepare a revised version for a legitimate journal, treat it as a fresh submission. Strengthen your argument, clarify methods, and make sure your reporting matches the target journal’s expectations. Check out How to Use thesify’s Downloadable Feedback Report for Pre-Submission Success to run a final check before you send it again.

8. Warn your peers: Sharing your experience helps others avoid similar traps. Consider posting on departmental forums or speaking at training sessions.

9. Reflect on lessons learned: Consider how you can refine your research practices and share guidance with others. If you have attended a predatory conference, many of the same recovery steps apply.

Legal recourse is limited; most predatory publishers operate in jurisdictions where enforcement is difficult. Focus on mitigating professional harm and preventing recurrence.

Institutional and Supervisor Responsibilities: Quality Over Quantity

Individual vigilance is necessary but not sufficient. Universities, funders, and supervisors play an important role in shifting incentives away from predatory publishing. When institutions reward quantity over quality, they inadvertently incentivize submissions to low-quality outlets. Strong policies, safe lists, and mentoring structures can create systems that favor integrity and support early-career researchers.

Safe-List Initiatives and Quality-Over-Quantity Evaluation Criteria

Rather than chasing ever‑growing blacklists, institutions are developing curated safe lists. These lists highlight journals vetted by disciplinary societies and librarians. Examples include a safe list for urology journals and discipline‑specific lists maintained by professional associations. 

To support safe‑list adoption, institutions should:

1. Publicize the lists and incorporate them into training and grant guidelines.

2. Regularly update lists and ensure transparency about selection criteria.

3. Adjust evaluation metrics: Reward quality, rigor, and impact over sheer publication count. Weight peer‑reviewed journal quality and research contributions rather than the number of papers.

Training and Mentorship Programs To Prevent Predatory Publishing

Comprehensive training on avoiding predatory journals is important for all researchers. 

To better equip researchers with the skills and knowledge to avoid predatory journals,  institutions should:

1. Offer workshops on journal vetting, research integrity, and predatory publishing as part of doctoral training.

2. Integrate library sessions into graduate curricula to teach use of indexing databases and safe‑lists.

3. Provide mentorship matching: Connect early‑career researchers with experienced mentors who can advise on publication strategies.

4. Adopt codes of conduct that guide faculty and students on acceptable editorial roles, conference participation, and publication venues.

AI Tools for Detecting Predatory Journals: Promise and Pitfalls

Machine‑learning models and natural‑language processing are being developed to screen for predatory journals. However, as Yoo (2025) notes, AI detection tools can misidentify journals and still require human judgment. You should treat AI as an aid, not a substitute for human judgment.

Tools use features such as website metadata, editorial board information and email patterns to flag potential scams. Some promising approaches include Random Forest classifiers, bag‑of‑words models, and heuristics embedded in platforms like Think Check Submit.

Comparing AI Predatory Journal Detection Tools

Evidence Synthesis and Research Quality: Protecting Systematic Reviews and Meta‑Analyses

Systematic reviews underpin evidence‑based practice across medicine, social science and engineering. According to a 2025 scoping review, articles from predatory journals can slip into systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which can bias results and mislead decision-makers.

Reviewers should build safeguards into their processes:

1. Verify indexing and journal quality for every included study.

2. Use established quality‑assessment tools (e.g., AMSTAR, ROBIS) to evaluate risk of bias.

3. Check author affiliations and ensure they correspond to credible institutions.

4. Cross‑check citations and references to identify citation cartels or circular referencing.

5. Work as a team: involve librarians and subject experts in search strategy and team-based screening.

6. Document exclusions: provide transparent reasons for excluding suspected predatory studies in PRISMA flow diagrams.

These practices should extend to evidence synthesis workflows, ensuring that review teams avoid risky journals and document their decisions.

Predatory Journals 2026 Checklist: Key Questions To Ask Before You Submit

Predatory journals are evolving, but you can stay ahead by combining awareness with practical steps. 

Here is a quick checklist to guide your decisions before submitting your next paper:

1. Is the journal indexed in a reputable database (MEDLINE, Scopus, DOAJ)?

2. Does the journal provide transparent peer review and reasonable timelines?

3. Are the editorial board members legitimate and active in the field?

4. Are fees transparent and reasonable, with no hidden charges?

5. Is the journal listed on a safe list (e.g., Cabell’s, DOAJ) or endorsed by your discipline?

6. Have you consulted a mentor or librarian about the journal’s reputation?

7. Are you comfortable disclosing any AI assistance you used in preparing the manuscript?

8. Does the journal have a credible publication history and clear contact information?

9. Are you confident that the journal is not hijacked, cloned or recently registered?

10. Does the journal align with your field and scope, avoiding broad or unrelated topics?

By asking these questions, you reduce the risk of falling prey to scams and strengthen the integrity of your work. Remember: high‑quality research deserves high‑quality publication venues. 

Ready to protect your research? 

thesify offers evidence‑based tools and feedback to help you craft, vet, and refine your work before submission. Sign up for thesify for free to access quality‑checked sources, peer‑reviewed reference suggestions and structured feedback that keeps your manuscripts on track.

Related Posts

• Predatory Conferences: Warning Signs and How to Avoid Them: This article explains how profit-driven events mimic legitimate meetings, why they target early-career researchers, and which red flags to check before you commit travel funds or a line on your CV. Our article walks you through organiser checks, peer review claims, fees, agendas, and email invitations, then gives you a practical checklist you can turn into a quick pre-submission screen for every conference invitation. If you are planning your next conference season, this guide helps you protect both your funding and your reputation

• Mastering the Peer Review Process: A Guide for Students and Researchers: Understanding the stages your manuscript undergoes during peer review can demystify this often-daunting process. In this article we answer the question how does the peer review work in academic publishing. We outline steps of peer review process and answer how long does peer review take. Plus we cover single blind vs double blind peer review and how to respond to peer review comments. Peer review is fundamental to scholarly publishing, enhancing research quality and credibility. Effective peer review preparation involves selecting appropriate journals, clear writing, proactive feedback gathering, and constructive revision responses.

• Going Beyond Journal Recommendations: How AI Supports Conference Submission & Academic Publishing: Quickly spot the right conference, match a journal, and refine your proposal with AI. Use thesify to uncover new academic publishing opportunities and submit with confidence. In this article we cover how AI tools simplify academic publishing, conference submission preparation AI, and focus on how AI helps draft, refine, and format submissions. You’ll also learn more about why picking the right conference can shape your career.