An unexpected journal invitation: verify the evidence before submitting

1. Read what the invitation actually offers

Record the journal name, sender, intended article type and requested action. Distinguish an invitation to submit from an invitation to review or join an editorial board. Each creates different questions. Keep the wording of any claim about fees, indexing, review time or acceptance so it can be checked directly.

Think. Check. Submit. describes established journals that approach preprint authors, as well as indiscriminate solicitations. Specific discussion of your work can justify a closer look; it still does not prove journal suitability. Generic praise provides little evidence that anyone assessed the paper. Neither a personal greeting nor a polished signature completes the verification.

Reference: Think. Check. Submit.: invitations concerning preprints

2. Verify identity through an independent route

Locate the journal’s official site independently and compare its title, publisher and contact information with the message. For a claimed database or association listing, inspect the relevant service’s own record and exact journal identity. A screenshot or badge supplied by the sender is a claim to verify, not the service’s current confirmation.

The Think. Check. Submit. checklist covers identifiable publishers, review arrangements, discoverability, preservation, fees and licensing. It also flags guaranteed acceptance or implausibly short review promises. Use these dimensions to organize your questions; the checklist is not a certificate issued to a publisher.

Reference: Think. Check. Submit.: journal checklist

3. Give different invitations different decisions

In the invented messages below, A promises acceptance before seeing the manuscript. B identifies a relevant preprint but does not establish the publication charge. C comes from a journal whose identity has been checked within the exercise, yet the proposed paper falls outside its stated subject area. These facts support different next steps.

Do not convert “fee not verified” into “hidden fee proved,” or “scope mismatch” into an allegation of misconduct. Conversely, a serious unsupported promise should not disappear from the assessment because the website looks professional. The decision record should name the actual concern and its evidence.

On small screens, scroll the table horizontally, or focus it and use the arrow keys.

4. Assess small and new journals fairly

The initiative’s discussion of due diligence notes limits in watch lists and explains that poor web design can reflect limited resources. Apply the same questions about scope and charges to a long-established publisher and a new one. Familiarity can guide where you start looking; it should not decide the result by itself.

A regional society journal may serve exactly the readership your research needs. Examine actual recent articles, stated editorial practices and the evidence behind its claims. Record unavailable information honestly. Avoid building a numerical “trust score” by assigning zero to fields that have not been checked; it would make a data gap look like a measured defect.

Reference: Think. Check. Submit.: due diligence and new journals

5. Resolve the terms before attaching the paper

For the candidate that remains suitable, write down the current fee amount and currency, payment trigger, licence, submission conditions and any applicable waiver terms. If a special issue is involved, verify its scope and responsible editor through the journal’s own channels. Do not let an expiring discount replace the co-authors’ assessment of fit.

In message B, a draft request for clarification can ask which published fee policy applies to this article type and whether any invitation-specific waiver is documented. It need not contain the manuscript, private reviewer correspondence or raw data. This guide sends no message and makes no submission; the team must decide what to share and with whom.

6. Keep a short record of the decision

Use a page with the journal identity, links checked, dates, unresolved items and co-author decision. Record “not checked” separately from “checked and inconsistent.” If the team decides against a journal because of scope, say so without adding unsupported accusations. If a material concern remains, select another venue or obtain reliable clarification.

Recheck the final submission destination against the journal that was assessed. A sound review of one title does not authorize uploading to a similarly named portal. The useful outcome is an informed choice about this manuscript, with enough evidence for a co-author to understand it later.

Questions for a practical final check

• Invitation type and exact claims retained
• Sender and journal identity independently checked
• Listing claims checked at their original service
• Scope and recent articles assessed
• Current charges and licence understood
• Co-author decision and remaining questions recorded