Editorial credibility
Named editors, relevant expertise, affiliations and clear responsibility for editorial decisions.
Our methodology
Look beyond a number. Examine the practices.
A useful assessment helps you ask better questions. Our approach considers a publisher’s editorial practices, transparency and responsibilities to the research community.
Our methodology
A score is only
part of the record.
Our evaluations combine research, expert analysis and feedback from the academic community. We examine the practices behind a publisher’s name to help you make an informed publishing decision.
Report a change or request a re-evaluationHow to read these ratings
- What we assess
- Publisher credentials, editorial expertise, peer review, publication ethics, indexing, fee transparency and licensing all inform our evaluation.
- What a rating means
- The score and assessment category summarise our evaluation of publishing practices. Read them alongside the individual journal’s scope and author guidelines.
- Keeping information current
- Researcher feedback and re-evaluation help us respond to changes in publishing practices. If a record needs updating, share the relevant sources with us.
Research. Verify. Guide. Update.
We gather information from academic databases, publishing records and community feedback, examine a publisher’s credentials and policies, and translate our findings into ratings and practical guidance. Re-evaluation provides a route for new evidence and corrections.
Explore our approachWhat we examine.
These areas guide our assessment framework and the questions in our publication checklist.
Peer review
A stated review model, meaningful editorial oversight and transparent communication with authors.
Transparency
Clear ownership, contact information, fees, publishing agreements and author instructions.
Publication ethics
Policies covering authorship, competing interests, complaints, corrections and misconduct.
Indexing and preservation
Discoverability claims checked against the relevant index, together with arrangements for long-term access.
Researcher experience
Feedback and supporting evidence from the academic community, considered alongside published policies.
Reading a record
Use ratings with context.
Overall ratings and categories
The directory records a score out of 100 and an assessment category: Safe & Trusted, Be Cautious or Likely Predatory. Scores summarise a publisher-level assessment; they do not replace checking the policies of the specific journal you plan to approach.
Understanding the score bands
The directory’s guide describes 80–100 as high trustworthiness, 60–79 as generally trustworthy with minor concerns, 40–59 as requiring caution and verification, and 1–39 as indicating significant concerns. Recorded categories are retained even where they differ from these numerical bands.
What a profile contains
Each profile shows the rating and category available in the directory, alongside publishing-practice checks. Additional publisher information is included where it appears in the existing record. A score alone does not establish that every checklist item has been met, and individual records do not currently include a weighted calculation or a complete evidence log.
When records differ
If more than one assessment exists for a publisher, both are displayed. We do not average conflicting scores. A re-evaluation request with supporting sources provides a way to ask for a correction or further review.
Request a re-evaluationBehind the checklist
Publishing standards,
made practical.
Our checklist turns the areas covered by our evaluations into questions you can use at each stage of publication. It brings journal selection, manuscript preparation and publication responsibilities into one structured guide.
Work through the complete checklistStart with the practices that matter
The questions cover research fit, editorial boards, peer review, indexing, fees, copyright and publication ethics. They connect a publisher’s stated policies with the information an author needs to check.
Follow the author’s publication journey
Checks are grouped around decisions before submission, during review, at production and after publication. This makes the guidance relevant to the stage you are working through.
Make each question actionable
Identify named editors, read the review policy, confirm indexing at the source and check the full fee schedule. Record what you find, save your progress and return to unresolved questions before deciding.
Follow the evidence
Check claims
at their source.
Read the journal’s own policies, then corroborate relevant claims independently. Confirm the exact journal title and ISSN rather than relying on a publisher’s logo or a general statement about indexing.
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) — look up open-access journal records.
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) — consult guidance on publishing ethics.
- Think. Check. Submit. — use practical questions when evaluating a venue.
Absence from a particular index does not, on its own, establish poor practice. Consider the journal’s discipline, scope and the evidence as a whole.