Extended definition
A predatory journal is one that charges APCs without offering rigorous peer review, legitimate editorial infrastructure, or commitment to academic integrity. The term was coined by librarian Jeffrey Beall in 2010 and popularized by his “Beall’s List” — discontinued in 2017 under legal pressure but still referenced as a historical starting point. The contemporary consensus definition is from Grudniewicz et al. (2019, Nature): predatory journals are “entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship, characterized by misleading information, deviation from best editorial and peer review practices, lack of transparency, and/or aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices”. Cobey et al. (2018) systematized a scoping review identifying 109 distinct features described in the literature. Cabells (Predatory Reports, commercial), DOAJ (positive whitelist), Think.Check.Submit., and COPE/STM list indicators are contemporary screening instruments.
When it applies
The concept applies in any decision to submit to an unfamiliar journal, especially in journals that send unsolicited emails inviting submission, promise review in absurdly short timeframes (3-7 days), or charge APCs without Scopus/WoS/DOAJ indexing. It applies in supervising graduate students: identifying and discouraging predatory submission is part of ethical training. It applies in institutional decisions about output validity: many evaluation systems, agencies, and universities today disregard publications in journals identified as predatory. It applies in systematic reviews: including predatory literature vitiates synthesis.
When it does not apply
It does not apply as a diffuse label for any OA journal with APC — diamond OA charges no APC, and legitimate gold OA journals (PLOS, BMC, Frontiers, MDPI in part) coexist with predatory ones. It does not apply as a synonym for low quality without evidence of specific predatory practices — small, regional, or low-impact journals are not predatory by virtue of that. It does not apply retroactively without care: Beall’s list contained false positives (legitimate journals from the Global South erroneously classified). It does not replace case-by-case editorial analysis: criteria should include indexing, transparency about editorial process, editor identity, and retraction history.
Applications by field
— Health and biomedical sciences: main target of predatory operations; surveillance maintained by national agencies; PubMed excludes predatory journals. — Engineering and computer science: “predatory conferences” (WASET, OMICS) with parallel model to predatory journal publishing. — Social sciences: lower concentration but growing; specific predatory journals in education and management with high publication volume. — Humanities: lower exposure (less APC and less time pressure); still, identified cases.
Common pitfalls
The first pitfall is trusting only “nice website appearance” — predatory journals invest in professional layouts; identity is visually indistinguishable from legitimate journals. The second is assuming a journal is reliable because a colleague published in it — researchers occasionally publish in predatory journals without realizing. The third is confusing a young or regional journal with a predatory one — many legitimate new journals are not yet indexed in Scopus/WoS, and small local society journals can be solid. The fourth is trusting fake in-house metrics invented by the journal (“Universal Impact Factor”, “Global Impact Factor”, “International Scientific Indexing”) — all are fake; the only legitimate ones come from Clarivate (JIF) or Elsevier (CiteScore, SJR via SCImago). The fifth is delaying article withdrawal after realizing publication was in a predatory venue: active author-led retraction is editorially respectable, and DOI preserves the historical record.