How to Evaluate a Journal Before You Cite It or Submit to It
“Is this a good journal?” is one of the questions librarians hear most, and one of the hardest to answer with a single word. A journal can be honest but small, new but careful, well known but a poor fit for your paper. What we can do is replace a gut feeling with evidence. This guide sets out six questions, the reasoning behind each, and where to check the answer yourself.
Use it in two situations. Before citing, to decide how much weight a source can carry. Before submitting, to protect your own work — a paper placed in the wrong venue can be hard to take back.
We deliberately do not publish lists of “good” or “bad” journals. Lists go out of date, and a label is no substitute for checking. Every step below points to a primary source you can consult today.
1. Is the journal who it says it is?
Why it matters. Similar names are common, and some websites imitate established journals (“hijacked” journals). Everything else you check is meaningless if you are looking at the wrong publication.
How to check.
- Look up the ISSN printed on the website at the ISSN Portal. Does the record’s title, publisher and country match the website? Is the website URL in the record the one you are on?
- Check whether the journal appears in the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker if its name closely resembles a well-known title.
- Find a physical address and a named publisher. An organisation that publishes research should be identifiable.
Warning signs. An ISSN that belongs to a different title; a website domain registered recently for a journal claiming decades of history; contact only via a web form or a free email address.
2. Who runs it, and is peer review real?
Why it matters. Peer review is the core service a journal provides. You cannot see it directly, but you can see its traces.
How to check.
- Editorial board: are members named with institutional affiliations? Pick two or three and look them up. Do their own university pages or ORCID records mention the role?
- Review process: does the journal describe how review works (single-blind, double-blind, open), who decides, and typical timelines?
- Timelines: a promise of acceptance within a few days, or “publication within one week of acceptance” combined with a very large issue, deserves questions. Real review of a substantive paper takes reviewers’ time.
- Published articles: read two or three recent papers in your field. Would you be comfortable citing them? Are there obvious language, method or formatting problems that editing should have caught?
3. Does it follow recognised ethical standards?
Why it matters. Ethics policies tell you what happens when something goes wrong — plagiarism, data problems, authorship disputes, conflicts of interest.
How to check.
- Look for policies on plagiarism screening, corrections and retractions, conflicts of interest, and authorship. Compare them with the COPE Core Practices.
- COPE membership can be verified on the COPE website’s member list — don’t rely on a logo alone.
- Search the journal’s name in the Retraction Watch Database. One retraction is not a mark against a journal (correcting the record is what good journals do); a pattern of problems is worth noticing.
4. Are its indexing and metric claims true?
Why it matters. Many institutions evaluate researchers by where they publish, so indexing claims are a powerful — and frequently misused — selling point.
How to check each claim at the source, never from the journal’s own badge:
| Claim on the website | Where to verify |
|---|---|
| “Indexed in Scopus” | Scopus Sources list (search by ISSN) |
| “Indexed in Web of Science” | Master Journal List (Clarivate) |
| “Listed in DOAJ” | DOAJ search |
| “Impact Factor X.XX” | Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate) — the only source of the Journal Impact Factor |
| National lists (e.g. institutional or government-approved lists) | The issuing body’s current official list — check the list is still in force |
Warning signs. Metrics with unfamiliar names presented as if they were the Impact Factor; “indexed in Google Scholar” offered as a quality credential (Google Scholar indexes very broadly and has no selection process in that sense); logos of databases where the journal cannot be found.
5. Are fees clear, and what do they pay for?
Why it matters. Charging authors an article processing charge (APC) is a normal, legitimate open-access model. What matters is transparency.
How to check.
- Fees should be stated before submission, with currency, what they cover, and any waiver policy.
- Payment should normally be requested after acceptance, not on submission.
- Compare the stated APC with other journals in your field; a source-verified reference such as JournalFees can help you see typical ranges and waiver options.
Warning signs. Fees revealed only after acceptance; “fast-track” fees that buy a quicker decision; fees that change between the website and the invoice.
6. Will your paper still be there in ten years?
Why it matters. This is the question most authors forget, and the one that matters most when a journal closes. Our guide How to Find a Paper When the Journal Website Has Disappeared exists because many papers were published in journals that never arranged long-term preservation.
How to check.
- Does the journal register DOIs with Crossref? Search a recent article at Crossref Search.
- Is its content deposited with a preservation service? Check the Keepers Registry.
- What licence are articles published under (for example a Creative Commons licence), and do you keep the right to deposit your paper in a repository?
Putting it together
No single answer settles the question. A new journal with no indexing yet may be entirely sound; an indexed journal may still be a poor fit. We suggest recording your findings in a short table — identity, peer review, ethics, indexing, fees, preservation — with a source link for each. If you can’t verify three or more, choose another venue, or talk to your supervisor or subject librarian first.
For a structured, community-built version of these checks, see Think. Check. Submit., which offers checklists for journals, books and conferences in many languages.
One-page checklist
- ISSN matches the ISSN Portal record, title and URL
- Named publisher and address
- Editorial board members verifiable
- Peer-review process described; timelines plausible
- Ethics policies present; COPE membership (if claimed) verified
- Every indexing and metric claim verified at the source
- APC, waivers and payment timing stated up front
- DOIs registered; preservation arranged; licence and repository rights clear
Last reviewed 23 September 2026. Policies and indexing status change — always check the primary source on the day you decide.