conv.

All stories
ScienceQuiet 11d · day 14

Researchers identify three warning signs of suspicious journal publishing

A study flags 3,753 journals indexed in Scopus that show signs of questionable publishing practices.

newest coverage 11d agosummary written 11d ago6 pieces1 likes & upvotes2 comments NewswiresGoogle NewsHacker NewsMastodon

What to know

  • Researchers identified three quantifiable warning signs for suspicious journal publishing: doubling output in one year, over 70% articles from single country, and 15%+ flagged articles.
  • Of 3,753 journals meeting at least one criterion in OpenAlex, only 5% had been delisted from Scopus, suggesting many problematic journals remain indexed.
  • Scopus delisted 156 journals in 2025 and 100 through 2026, but emphasizes no single signal automatically triggers removal—each case receives individual review.

“changes in publication volume and journal scope, unusual patterns in authorship and author collaboration, anomalous citation behaviour, and indications that a journal has become vulnerable to questionable content”

Elsevier spokesperson, Publisher of Scopus · Nature ↗

Achal Agrawal Preprint co-author, freelance data scientistElsevier Publisher of Scopus databaseScopus Leading bibliometric database

Researchers identify three warning signs of suspicious journal publishing
nature.com

How it unfolded 2 developments, newest first · click a bar or a number to jump articlesposts

Peak 2 pieces in 4h at Oct 28, 7 PM; 6 pieces over 14 days (3 articles · 3 posts) Oct 27, 7 PM — 1 piece · 1 article — Newswires 1Oct 27, 11 PM — quietOct 28, 3 AM — quietOct 28, 7 AM — quietOct 28, 11 AM — 1 piece · 1 article — Google News 1Oct 28, 3 PM — quietOct 28, 7 PM — 2 pieces · 1 article · 1 post — Mastodon 1, Newswires 1Oct 28, 11 PM — quietOct 29, 3 AM — quietOct 29, 7 AM — 1 piece · 1 post — Hacker News 1Oct 29, 11 AM — quietOct 29, 3 PM — quietOct 29, 7 PM — quietOct 29, 11 PM — quietOct 30, 3 AM — quietOct 30, 7 AM — 1 piece · 1 post — Mastodon 1Oct 30, 11 AM — quietOct 30, 3 PM — quietOct 30, 7 PM — quietOct 30, 11 PM — quietOct 31, 3 AM — quietOct 31, 7 AM — quietOct 31, 11 AM — quietOct 31, 3 PM — quietOct 31, 7 PM — quietOct 31, 11 PM — quietNov 1, 2 AM — quietNov 1, 6 AM — quietNov 1, 10 AM — quietNov 1, 2 PM — quietNov 1, 6 PM — quietNov 1, 10 PM — quietNov 2, 2 AM — quietNov 2, 6 AM — quietNov 2, 10 AM — quietNov 2, 2 PM — quietNov 2, 6 PM — quietNov 2, 10 PM — quietNov 3, 2 AM — quietNov 3, 6 AM — quietNov 3, 10 AM — quietNov 3, 2 PM — quietNov 3, 6 PM — quietNov 3, 10 PM — quietNov 4, 2 AM — quietNov 4, 6 AM — quietNov 4, 10 AM — quietNov 4, 2 PM — quietNov 4, 6 PM — quietNov 4, 10 PM — quietNov 5, 2 AM — quietNov 5, 6 AM — quietNov 5, 10 AM — quietNov 5, 2 PM — quietNov 5, 6 PM — quietNov 5, 10 PM — quietNov 6, 2 AM — quietNov 6, 6 AM — quietNov 6, 10 AM — quietNov 6, 2 PM — quietNov 6, 6 PM — quietNov 6, 10 PM — quietNov 7, 2 AM — quietNov 7, 6 AM — quietNov 7, 10 AM — quietNov 7, 2 PM — quietNov 7, 6 PM — quietNov 7, 10 PM — quietNov 8, 2 AM — quietNov 8, 6 AM — quietNov 8, 10 AM — quietNov 8, 2 PM — quietNov 8, 6 PM — quietNov 8, 10 PM — quietYesterday, 2 AM — quietYesterday, 6 AM — quietYesterday, 10 AM — quietYesterday, 2 PM — quietYesterday, 6 PM — quietYesterday, 10 PM — quietToday, 2 AM — quietToday, 6 AM — quietToday, 10 AM — quietToday, 2 PM — quiet 12
Oct 28Oct 30Nov 1Nov 3Nov 5Nov 7now · 5:08 PM ET
  1. 2

    Elsevier explains Scopus's review process

    An Elsevier spokesperson described Scopus's monitoring approach, noting the database looks for changes in publication volume, unusual authorship patterns, anomalous citation behavior, and signs of vulnerability to questionable content. The spokesperson emphasized that no single signal determines delisting outcomes and that journals undergo careful individual assessment.

    “No single signal, and no fixed threshold, determines the outcome. A signal is a prompt to investigate, and where needed the journal is put forward for re-evaluation by Scopus's content-selection board.”
    — Elsevier spokesperson
    • SteveThompson@mastodon.social

      The three red flags of suspicious journals | Nature https://www. nature.com/articles/d41586-026 -03548-4

      SteveThompson@mastodon.socialMastodon11d agoview on Mastodon ↗
  2. 1

    Nature publishes findings on journal red flags

    Nature published an article explaining the three warning signs and their significance, noting that the signals help identify journals warranting investigation but do not prove problematic status. The article emphasizes that Scopus employs its own monitoring tools and conducts individual assessments before delisting journals.

    “They serve as 'rudimentary flags'”
    — Achal Agrawal
    1. 2 outlets These three red flags could unmask dodgy journals

      first by Nature, 13d ago · also Nature News

      1 more headline
  3. background

    Study cross-references flagged journals with Scopus database — Using the OpenAlex database, researchers identified 3,753 journals meeting at least one warning criterion. Cross-referencing with Scopus, they found that 5% had already been delisted from the leading scholarly database, while roughly 3,500 non-delisted journals contributed over half a million papers in flagged years. Nearly 300 journals were flagged by two signals and 28 by all three.

  4. background

    Researchers publish preprint identifying journal warning signs — A team of researchers published findings on a preprint identifying three red flags for suspicious journal publishing: doubling of publication output within a single year, more than 70% of articles originating from a single country, and at least 15% of articles flagged by the Problematic Paper Screener tool.