How to Identify and Avoid Predatory Journals: A Guide to Safe and Ethical Academic Publishing

Introduction: Why Journal Selection Matters

Research publication makes scholarly findings available for scrutiny, discussion, and future investigation. Yet not every publisher offering fast publication provides the editorial oversight it advertises. Researchers must evaluate journal practices before submitting a manuscript or paying fees.

This guide explains how to identify potentially predatory publishing practices and offers a transparent comparison with the publicly stated policies of UNIVERSITAS: Journal of Global Research and Innovation. The comparison does not establish an independently certified “non-predatory” status; authors should independently verify the journal's claims and actual editorial performance.

What Are Predatory Journals?

Predatory journals are publishing operations associated with misleading information, lack of transparency, aggressive or indiscriminate solicitation, and departures from accepted editorial practices. Grudniewicz and colleagues (2019) describe these features in a widely cited consensus statement. Beall’s earlier criteria are useful prompts for scrutiny, but the World Association of Medical Editors cautions against relying on a list alone to judge a journal. The term should be applied cautiously: a newly established journal, an affordable article processing charge, or absence from Scopus does not by itself make a journal predatory.

Warning Signs Associated with Beall’s Criteria

How to Verify a Journal

Start with the publisher's official website, then check claims independently. Beall’s original 2015 criteria are best treated as historical warning indicators, not an official current registry of predatory journals. Confirm ISSN records using the ISSN Portal; verify indexing directly through the Web of Science Master Journal List, Scopus Sources, and DOAJ as applicable. A DOI or Google Scholar result is not proof of quality certification.

Read actual articles, examine the named editorial board and peer-review policy, inspect publication fees, and review policies on corrections and research ethics. Use the independent Think. Check. Submit. checklist to guide your decision.

Beall’s Warning Signs vs. UNIVERSITAS’s Published Practices

Jeffrey Beall’s 2015 framework discusses indicators such as absent editorial boards, misrepresentation, weak editorial oversight, and deceptive business practices. Below we compare representative warning signs with UNIVERSITAS’s publicly stated policies. These are not automatic verdicts or independent certification; readers should verify how the policies are implemented.

Sources: Double-Blind Peer Review Policy; Services and Fee; and the journal's public policy navigation. Accessed November 2026.

Why UNIVERSITAS Emphasizes Responsible Publishing

UNIVERSITAS publicly commits to double-blind peer review, scholarly evaluation, confidentiality, appropriate reviewer expertise, and editorial decisions based on research merit. Its policy describes reviewer selection based on expertise, experience, absence of conflicts, and availability, with the handling editor responsible for final editorial judgment.

Its publication services page states that payment does not guarantee acceptance and identifies estimated processing windows as distinct from guarantees of acceptance or publication. This separation matters: author support and publication production should not replace independent review or determine scholarly acceptance.

These publicly documented commitments distinguish UNIVERSITAS from the deceptive practices described by Beall, but they are not equivalent to independent certification or a blanket guarantee of performance. Researchers should still examine past articles, editor affiliations, applicable indexing requirements, and the actual review experience.

Why an Efficient Editorial Network Can Support Faster Publication

Speed does not automatically indicate poor quality. A coordinated editorial team and a sufficiently available pool of qualified, subject-matched reviewers can reduce waiting time for initial screening, reviewer invitations, manuscript tracking, author communication, proofreading, layout, metadata preparation, and publication of accepted work.

UNIVERSITAS publicly lists Standard (₱3,500; 3–4 estimated days), Express (₱5,000; one estimated day), and Full Paper to IMRAD (₱8,000; 5–7 estimated days) services. Its fee page expressly cautions that these timelines are not guaranteed publication or acceptance deadlines. Submissions still require independent review and revisions where necessary. Faster administrative coordination or production must never substitute for genuine scholarly assessment.

Although the journal may draw on a broad editor and reviewer network, an exact count of currently active editors and reviewers is not publicly established by the policies reviewed for this article. Any numerical staffing claim should be supported by an up-to-date, verifiable roster.

Checklist Before You Submit

• Does the journal fit your manuscript's scope?
• Can its publisher and editorial team be verified?
• Are peer-review and decision procedures clearly explained?
• Are all charges and conditions transparent?
• Can indexing claims be verified at the database source?
• Are research ethics, copyright, and corrections policies accessible?
• Does the journal meet your university or funder's requirements?

Frequently Asked Questions

Conclusion: Verify Before You Publish

Researchers protect their work by checking a journal's editorial practices, fees, indexing claims, published articles, and ethics policies. Predatory publishing is defined by deception and failures of scholarly practice—not simply by low fees, newness, open access, or efficient production.

UNIVERSITAS makes relevant editorial and fee policies available for public review. Authors considering the journal should read those policies, verify specific claims, and select a publication venue that meets their academic needs. Responsible research deserves a responsible publication decision.

References & Verification Resources

1. Grudniewicz, A., et al. (2019). Predatory journals: No definition, no defence. Nature, 576, 210–212. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y
2. Beall, J. (2015). Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers (3rd ed.). Read the historical criteria.
3. Laine, C., & Winker, M. A. (2017). Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 285–291. Read WAME analysis.
4. Think. Check. Submit. (n.d.). Journals checklist. thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/
5. UNIVERSITAS. (n.d.). Double-Blind Peer Review Policy. Read policy.
6. UNIVERSITAS. (n.d.). Services and Fee. Read fee schedule.
7. UNIVERSITAS. (n.d.). Research Ethics Policy. Read ethics policy.
8. UNIVERSITAS. (n.d.). Indexing and Dissemination. Review dissemination information.