Journal invitations and hijacked websites: checking who is contacting you

An invitation can be genuine and still be unsuitable for your work. A convincing website can also belong to someone impersonating a real journal. Those are different problems, and they call for different checks.

Start with three questions: Is the publication real? Is this message actually from that publication? Is the proposed opportunity appropriate for this manuscript? A positive answer to one does not settle the others. The procedure below is designed for authors checking invitations, special issues and unexpected payment requests. It uses independently located records and direct confirmation, not assumptions about a sender’s country, English or institutional prestige.

What a documented hijacking looked like

In their account of the Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems hijacking, Sune Dueholm Müller and Johan Ivar Sæbø describe an author who encountered conflicting decisions in February 2023: a genuine editorial rejection and an apparent acceptance connected with a fraudulent website. The false acceptance involved a fee demand, while the legitimate journal did not charge publication fees. The authors also documented a copied journal archive and a misleading homepage link in Scopus. They could not establish how that link had been changed. 1

The legitimate journal was the victim of impersonation. This case is not evidence of misconduct by that journal, nor a claim about its present website. Its practical lesson is narrower: an authentic title, copied archive and even a link encountered in a recognised service can coexist with a fraudulent submission route. Independent cross-checks matter when the evidence conflicts.

Do not visit or circulate suspected clone links simply to see whether they still work. The published account provides the case evidence needed here. A verification exercise should not send additional authors toward the impersonating site.

Separate an unsuitable invitation from impersonation

A legitimate editor may contact an author about work outside their current interests. A publisher may send a broad call for papers. An unfamiliar specialist journal may have a small website and modest administrative resources. None of those observations independently proves fraud.

An invitation becomes more concerning when verifiable facts conflict: the purported editor disowns it, the journal’s official site does not recognise the submission destination, the payment beneficiary differs without explanation, or the title and identifier belong to another publication. Focus on those facts.

Keep editorial suitability separate. Even a confirmed invitation rarely tells you whether your manuscript meets the journal’s criteria. Ask whether the invitation is to submit for consideration, to propose an article or to write an already commissioned contribution, and what review applies. Do not interpret flattering wording as an editorial decision.

Think. Check. Submit. asks authors to examine publisher identity, contactability and review arrangements. It also cautions against guaranteed acceptance and implausibly short review promises. Use those as prompts to investigate the offer, not as a mechanical fraud score. 3

Establish an independent route to the journal

Do not begin by following the invitation’s submission or payment link. Locate the journal through a route you already have reason to trust: its scholarly society, university host, established publisher catalogue or library record. Search the title independently and compare more than one source when anything appears inconsistent.

A search engine can help you find candidates, but position in the results is not proof of authenticity. Compare the domain carefully. Read the actual address rather than relying on the displayed link text, logo or page title. Similar-looking addresses should trigger a closer check, especially when the message asks you to sign in or pay.

Record the route you used. “Found online” is less useful than “followed the society’s publications page to the journal, then used its submission link”. If a journal recently moved platforms, look for a migration notice at the established host or ask the editorial office through independently obtained contact details.

The October 2026 joint transparency principles call for one identifiable official journal website, clear direction from secondary sites and no impersonation through copied titles or identifiers. They are a statement of expected practice, not a guarantee that every site displaying a compliance badge follows them. 4

Check identifiers without giving them too much weight

Compare the title, print and electronic ISSNs, publisher and title history. An ISSN is an identity aid, not a certificate of quality. The ISSN International Centre makes that limitation explicit. A number printed on a suspicious page can be copied just as a logo can. 2

Use identifiers to ask whether the records describe the same publication. If the number belongs to a journal with a different host, investigate the relationship rather than assuming either site is authoritative. A genuine publisher transfer may explain a change; a copied identifier may not. Preserve the discrepancy until an independent source resolves it.

Do the same for indexing claims. An example article in PubMed does not establish journal-wide MEDLINE or PMC inclusion, as NLM explains. 5 A solicitation that turns one searchable article into a broad indexing promise needs a more precise check.

Do not ask the purported sender to be the sole verifier of its own claim. A reply containing another screenshot of the same website adds little independent evidence. Ask for the actual service record, then open that service yourself.

Verify the person and the submission destination

Find the named editor on the journal’s official editorial page. If needed, compare an institutional profile or an independently published professional contact. A real person’s name on a message does not demonstrate that they sent it. When the request is consequential or inconsistent, contact that person through a separately verified address.

Keep the inquiry neutral. The purpose is to confirm the invitation, not to accuse a colleague of misconduct. Include the subject line, sender address, date, purported special issue and destination domain. Avoid forwarding sensitive attachments unless the verified recipient needs them and your institution’s procedures allow it.

Check where the official journal website sends submissions. Third-party submission platforms can be legitimate, so a different domain is not automatically suspicious. What matters is whether the official journal actually identifies that platform and whether the invitation’s destination matches the documented route.

For a special issue, look for the call on the official journal site. Confirm the guest editors, scope, deadline and review arrangements. If the invitation describes a discount or waiver, verify who authorises it and whether the official office will honour it. A guest editor’s name does not, by itself, establish authority over payments.

Use the verified route to create an account. Avoid reusing a password associated with another publication system, particularly if you already entered it on a site whose identity is unresolved.

Treat payment changes as a fresh verification task

A genuine submission does not make every later payment email genuine. Compare the invoice with the official journal policy and any earlier written fee confirmation. Check the manuscript identifier, article title, currency, charge type and beneficiary.

An unfamiliar payment processor is not proof of fraud, but a changed beneficiary or urgent new payment route deserves confirmation through a known contact. Use the editorial or finance contact you located independently, not only the number supplied on the disputed invoice.

Ask what event triggered the charge and what it covers. Distinguish a submission fee from a publication charge and an optional service. If the message claims that immediate payment will guarantee acceptance, preserve it and seek clarification before committing funds.

Keep the relevant documents together: original invitation, confirmation, submission receipt, fee policy and invoice. This lets your library or finance team compare the sequence without reconstructing it from scattered messages. Redact unnecessary personal or banking details when asking a third party for help.

A verification sequence for suspicious invitations

Use this as a working sequence, with a dated note at each stage. It does not produce a numerical trust score.

1. Preserve the message. Save the original email and headers if your mail system allows it. Record what is being requested and any deadline. Do not alter the original evidence file.
2. Locate the real publication independently. Start from a society, institution, publisher catalogue or established library route. Record the domain and how you reached it.
3. Match the identity. Compare title, ISSNs, publisher and title history. Investigate mismatches rather than explaining them away.
4. Confirm the invitation. Ask an independently located editorial contact whether the sender, call and destination are authorised.
5. Verify consequential claims. Check indexing at the service, and costs and review arrangements at the official journal.
6. Choose a proportionate action. Proceed through the verified route, request missing information, decline an unsuitable invitation, or report suspected impersonation with evidence.

A pass through this sequence does not guarantee acceptance or flawless publishing practice. It gives you a documented basis for deciding whether the communication and route are authentic enough to continue investigating.

Blank confirmation message

Send this only to an address you have independently verified. Replace the brackets and remove anything irrelevant.

Subject: Confirmation of invitation concerning [journal or special issue]

I received an invitation on [date] from [sender address], naming [editor or guest editor]. It directs submissions to [domain] and states [specific fee, deadline or review claim].

Before submitting, could you confirm whether this invitation and submission destination are authorised by the journal? I located your contact through [official page]. Please also direct me to the applicable call and fee policy.

I have not attached the manuscript. I can provide the original message through an appropriate channel if needed.

The last sentence keeps the first check focused. You do not need to disclose unpublished findings to establish whether an invitation exists. If the office confirms it, return to the separate questions of audience fit, editorial criteria and affordability.

If you already submitted material or paid

Pause further interaction with the disputed destination while you establish what happened. Preserve submission receipts, files, messages and payment records. Do not delete the trail because the experience is embarrassing; those records may be needed to clarify the status of the manuscript or challenge a transaction.

Contact your institution’s information-security team if you entered credentials, downloaded unexpected files or supplied sensitive information. If money changed hands, contact the institutional finance team or payment provider promptly through its normal channel. Those specialists can advise on the available response; a publishing guide cannot promise recovery.

Tell the genuine editorial office what was impersonated, using a verified contact. Provide a concise chronology and evidence rather than a public accusation against the legitimate journal. If a database contains a misleading link, report the exact source record and conflicting evidence to that service as well.

Do not assume that a supposed acceptance at a clone establishes legitimate publication, or that the situation has no consequences for later submission. If your manuscript has appeared online, discuss that fact with the real prospective journal and your institution before making originality or prior-publication declarations. Describe the situation accurately and retain the correspondence.

Make the verification transferable within the team

If a co-author handles the invitation while another manages payment, pass along the evidence rather than only the conclusion. Include the verified journal domain, editorial contact, authorised submission route and any written fee confirmation. Explain which questions remain open.

That handover prevents a later message from bypassing the checks simply because someone assumes another team member already approved it. Name the person who will confirm any change to the route or terms. Keep the record concise enough to be used: a page of dated findings is more practical than an unexplained folder of screenshots.

Write the outcome without overstating it

Your evidence log can end with one of several conclusions: the invitation was confirmed; it was genuine but unsuitable; the journal could not confirm it; or independent evidence indicates impersonation. Keep the supporting facts next to the conclusion.

If you alert colleagues, identify the suspicious domain and behaviour precisely, while making clear that the real journal may be the victim. Avoid reproducing an active submission link in a way that encourages others to click it. Follow your institution’s reporting approach for potentially harmful links.

Do not turn uncertainty about one message into a judgement about an entire country, language community or publishing model. A careful warning says what happened, how it was checked and what readers should verify. That is more useful than a dramatic label that other researchers cannot independently assess.