In 2015, a collective concern among stakeholders in the scholarly publication sector ignited the inception of the ‘Think.Check.Submit.’ campaign. This initiative emerged from recognising the menace posed by deceptive publishers and the necessity of aiding researchers in making informed publication decisions.

Founding organisations and principles

The founding consortium comprised cross-industry organisations. Today these organisations are the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP), the Association of University Presses (AUP), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the International Association of STM Publishers (STM), ISSN International Centre, LIBER, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and UKSG.

Central to the campaign are carefully crafted checklists, designed to equip researchers with the tools necessary to assess the credibility of potential publishing venues. These checklists prompt critical questions: Is the publisher transparently identified? Are the published works reputable and aligned with your research? There is also a video that has been integrated into numerous library and publisher websites.

The founding positions have not changed. Think.Check.Submit. does not tell researchers where to publish, or which publishers are trustworthy. Rather, through a range of tools and practical resources, this international cross-sector initiative aims to educate researchers, promote integrity, and build trust in credible research and publications.

The Think.Check.Submit. committee believes that “watch lists of predatory or unethical publishers” are subjective and therefore not transparent, and impossible to maintain. Adopting such an approach would be inconsistent with the campaign’s focus on encouraging researchers to apply quality criteria when assessing publishers. Furthermore, watchlists do not allow for nuance. For example, newer journals may not yet have been reviewed for inclusion, while the absence of a journal or publisher from a watchlist does not guarantee that it is ethical.

Think. Check. Submit. has been supported by libraries that have engaged with their faculty members and publishers who have promoted the message to the authors in their fields, although researchers are the primary audience.

Developments over time

Think. Check. Submit. has always taken a global view, and volunteers have translated the checklists into over forty languages. Over the years, Think. Check. Submit. has expanded its scope to address deceptive practices in book publishing. The inclusion of OAPEN as a supporting organisation in 2019 marked a strategic milestone, underscoring the campaign’s commitment to combat deceptive practices across diverse publishing formats. In response, a checklist tailored for books and chapters was introduced in 2020.

The committee relaunched the website in 2022 enhancing user experience and accessibility. Moreover, increased community engagement through webinars and presentations reflects a proactive effort to connect with diverse stakeholders. In 2023, the committee released an updated video to support researchers, which has been viewed by over 3400 users in the last seven months. It will soon publish a Japanese translation of the video; the TCS website receives very high traffic from Japan.

Challenges, threats and opportunities

Deceptive or predatory journals exploit authors by charging fees without delivering the services or practices expected from a reputable publisher. This unethical behaviour poses a significant risk to authors who may be misled into submitting their work. If they later discover the journal’s true nature, they may face substantial retraction fees and find it difficult to publish their research in reputable journals, as many will not consider work that has already been published elsewhere. Moreover, having a predatory journal on one’s publication list can permanently damage an academic’s reputation.

Even if an author’s work is published by such a journal, it risks never being read, cited, or preserved. Predatory publishers often fail to ensure that their journals are indexed or archived in accessible databases, nor do they guarantee the long-term preservation of content. The lack of quality assurance is also a threat, not only can work that has not been peer-reviewed mislead other researchers but it can also undermine public trust in science.

The biggest challenge in combating predatory publishing is what appears to be their growth and increasingly deceptive behaviour. There is sometimes an idea that predatory publishers are unsophisticated and easy to spot, but they use increasingly disingenuous practices. For example, using names similar to established reputable publishers and journals, or social media handles that can easily be confused with established brands. We were reminded of the deceptive nature of predatory publishers by a recent case. A senior academic informed us that an editorial board member from their field was listed on a journal’s website. After submitting his work and realising the journal was predatory, he contacted the supposed board member, who confirmed that they had never heard of the journal and were not affiliated with it. This incident highlights the need for thorough due diligence before submission. 

However, we do also receive positive feedback from users of the tools. We are grateful for the support of researchers and librarians worldwide who volunteer to help translate these tools into their local languages.

Think. Check. Submit. is a small, not-for-profit initiative. Our advantage lies in our ability to respond quickly to changes in the scholarly communication landscape. However, our limited budget restricts the amount of work we can undertake. Despite this, the committee remains disciplined in prioritising efforts to ensure that our resources are used where they can have the greatest impact.

Our initiative serves diverse stakeholders, including the organisations that fund our activities and those involved in scholarly communication worldwide—be they librarians, publishers, or authors. What unites us all is a shared commitment to integrity in scholarly publishing and a determination to mitigate the threats posed by predatory journals.

Present day

Think. Check. Submit. continues to receive support from a coalition of volunteers and contributing organisations. The committee is dedicated to expanding its global reach, with a focus on involving universities and libraries. Katherine Stephan, the UKSG library community representative from Liverpool John Moores University, has recently produced a video guide for the library community. Most recently we are delighted to have the support of Austrian academic institutions and collaborate with the wissKomm community of practice. Further developments are planned for the next two years, these include expanding language translations of our resources and ensuring timely updates. The committee aims to expand our reach to international audiences and create more opportunities for engagement with Think. Check. Submit. The committee will also encourage and support the library community in integrating Think. Check. Submit. resources and guidance on university website pages for research support. Reflecting on nine years of evolution, Think. Check. Submit. emphasises the importance of responsiveness and adaptability. The committee responds to feedback from our users by updating the checklists and resources, ensuring they remain relevant in a changing scholarly communications environment, and in the fight against increasingly sophisticated and devious predatory publishers.