All five sources · one check
Run Beall's + Scopus + WoS + DOAJ in One Go
Our Predatory Journal Checker cross-references all five sources automatically.
The story behind the most influential predatory-journal list in academic history — where it came from, why it disappeared in 2017, and how the community-maintained archive still helps researchers today.
If you have spent any time reading about predatory journals, you have come across Beall's list. It is mentioned in almost every article on the subject, cited in university guidelines, and referenced in editorials at major publishers. And yet — the original list has not existed since January 2017. Understanding what Beall's list was, why it disappeared, and what exists today is essential for any researcher serious about avoiding predatory journals. This guide explains Beall's list predatory journals 2026: the history, the current state of the archive, and how to use it alongside Scopus and DOAJ for reliable journal verification.
Jeffrey Beall was an academic librarian at the University of Colorado Denver. Starting around 2008, he began receiving a flood of spam invitations from newly-launched open-access journals — invitations to submit papers, join editorial boards, speak at conferences. Many had obvious hallmarks: poor grammar, exaggerated scope claims, unknown editorial boards, invented impact factors. Beall became fascinated, started documenting these publishers systematically, and in 2010 launched a public list on his blog Scholarly Open Access.
The list grew rapidly. By December 2016 it contained around 1,163 publishers and 1,311 standalone journals. Beall coined the term "predatory publishing" — the term we now use routinely — and gave the academic community its first concrete, public-facing catalogue of journals to avoid.
"The primary function of predatory publishers is to exploit open-access author-pays publishing as a revenue stream without providing the services legitimate publishers provide."— Jeffrey Beall, paraphrased from his work on predatory open-access publishing
Beall begins receiving hundreds of spam journal invitations, starts documenting the publishers behind them.
Beall publishes the first version on his blog Scholarly Open Access, with 18 publishers initially.
OMICS International threatens Beall with a $1 billion defamation suit. Other listed publishers file complaints with the University of Colorado.
On 15 January 2017, Beall took the list offline without public notice, citing pressure from his employer and ongoing legal threats. At shutdown the list contained ~1,163 publishers and ~1,311 standalone journals.
Anonymous scholars host the archived list at beallslist.net, continuing to add newly-identified predatory publishers. The changelog shows active updates through 2025.
The takedown was sudden and shocked the academic community. Beall later wrote about the institutional and legal pressure that led to his decision, describing years of harassment from publishers threatening lawsuits, writing to senior colleagues at his institution, and running personal attacks. Whatever one thinks of the list's accuracy in individual cases, the story of its disappearance is a clear reminder of the real-world consequences of calling out well-resourced predatory publishers by name.
The crucial point: Beall's list is one input among several, not a single source of truth. A journal present on the list is almost certainly worth avoiding. A journal absent from the list may still be predatory, delisted, or otherwise unsuitable. Treat it as a blacklist check, not a whitelist endorsement.
Used correctly, Beall's list takes about 30 seconds per journal and catches the most obvious bad actors before you waste any time on them. Here is the exact workflow.
Type the publisher name. The list shows both publishers and standalone journals. Check both sections.
Absence from Beall's is not safety. Confirm active Scopus indexing and DOAJ membership separately.
Cabell's Predatory Reports is subscription-based but more current. Most university libraries have access.
The beallslist.net changelog is arguably more valuable than the main list itself. It shows which publishers have been added recently and occasionally which ones were removed after improving practices. If you see a publisher added in the last 18 months, that is a very strong warning signal.
Beall's list is one layer of a sensible verification routine. A complete check looks at five sources together — four beyond Beall's list itself — and takes about two minutes once you have the habit.
The single most important check. Tells you whether the journal is currently indexed or has been discontinued. For the step-by-step process, see our guide on how to check if a journal is currently indexed in Scopus.
Confirms indexing in SCIE, SSCI, AHCI, or ESCI. Crucial for institutions that specifically require Web of Science indexing rather than Scopus.
A positive/whitelist approach — DOAJ includes open-access journals that have passed editorial standards screening. Absence is not fatal but presence is a positive signal.
The closest modern equivalent to Beall's original project, but subscription-based. Most university libraries have access — ask your librarian.
Read three recent articles from the journal. If the writing shows no signs of editing, figures are poor, or references are thin, no list can tell you that — only your own judgement can.
Predatory publishers create new brand names constantly. A journal launched in 2024 by a known predatory publisher may not appear on any list yet, but is still predatory. This is why current Scopus indexing matters more than any list — indexing takes at least a year to earn, which predatory operators cannot shortcut.
Beall's list is a piece of academic history — the moment when the community stopped ignoring predatory publishing and started tracking it systematically. Its disappearance in 2017 was a setback, but the community-maintained archive and the newer tools (Cabell's, the tighter criteria in DOAJ, and AI-powered verification services) have filled much of the gap. The overall defence against predatory journals in 2026 is stronger than it was in 2017, even without Jeffrey Beall himself updating the list.
The practical lesson: never trust a single source, always verify current indexing, and read the journal yourself. Lists help. They do not replace judgement. For the broader framework on spotting predatory journals, see our pillar guide on how to identify predatory journals.
Our free Predatory Journal Checker runs Beall's list, Scopus, Web of Science, DOAJ, and Cabell's simultaneously. One search, complete verification.
Verify Any Journal → Or talk to a publication expert → Free consultation