Fake impact factors: the metrics that are real, and the ones that aren't
A predatory journal cannot buy a genuine reputation, so it buys a number that looks like one. Learn the two metrics the research world actually recognises, and you can spot a manufactured "impact factor" in a single step.
Open the homepage of almost any predatory journal and you will find, displayed with pride, an "impact factor" — often a precise-looking decimal, sometimes accompanied by a badge and a logo you have never seen before. It is one of the most effective tricks in the trade, because it borrows the vocabulary of genuine scholarship to reassure an anxious author. The problem is that most of these numbers measure nothing. This guide, a companion to our complete guide to identifying a predatory or cloned journal, explains which journal metrics carry real weight, how the fakes are manufactured, and the single check that separates the two.
Why fake metrics exist
The demand is the whole story. In systems that reward publication in "high-impact" journals — for a degree, a promotion, a grant — the impact factor became shorthand for quality, and a shorthand that valuable is inevitably counterfeited. A journal that cannot earn a place in a recognised index can still pay a third party for an official-sounding metric to display, and to an author under pressure the distinction is invisible. The counterfeit metric is not a harmless vanity; it is a deliberate signal designed to convert your fear of choosing wrongly into a decision to submit.
The metrics that are real
Only a small number of journal-level metrics are produced by the organisations that actually run the major citation indexes, and this is what gives them their authority. The two you will encounter most are the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), published by Clarivate in its Journal Citation Reports and calculated from Web of Science data; and CiteScore, published by Elsevier and calculated from Scopus data. Both are computed and disclosed by the indexer itself, using a transparent, published method, for journals that have earned inclusion in the underlying index. Two further Scopus-derived metrics — SJR (SCImago Journal Rank) and SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper) — are also legitimate and widely used, particularly for comparing journals across fields. The common thread is decisive: a real journal metric is produced by the index, not sold to the journal.
How the manufactured ones work
Counterfeit metrics follow a recognisable design. A company with an impressive, authoritative-sounding name offers to evaluate a journal and assign it a numerical "factor" — for a fee. The journal pays, receives a certificate and a badge, and displays the number as though it were equivalent to the Clarivate Journal Impact Factor. The names are chosen to invite confusion: they frequently include the words "impact," "factor," "index," "global," "international" or "universal," arranged to echo the real thing closely enough that a hurried reader does not notice the difference. Some of these outfits list hundreds or thousands of journals; none of them runs a genuine, selective citation index, which is the only thing that would make the number mean anything. The metric is not a measurement — it is a product the journal purchased.
The one-line test
You do not need to memorise the names of the fakes, which change and multiply. You need one habit: trace the number to its source. If a journal claims an impact factor, ask whether that figure appears in Clarivate's Journal Citation Reports, or whether the journal has a CiteScore visible on Scopus. Both can be confirmed directly and freely — you can search the Web of Science Master Journal List and the Scopus sources page yourself. If the advertised number cannot be traced to Clarivate or to Scopus CiteScore, it is marketing, not measurement, and its presence — dressed up as a credential — is itself a red flag. A legitimate journal shows metrics you can verify at the indexer; a predatory one shows numbers you can only verify on its own homepage.
What the number does and doesn't tell you
Even when a metric is real, I counsel scholars against treating it as a verdict on their own work. A genuine impact factor or CiteScore describes the average citation behaviour of a journal, not the quality of any single article in it, and it varies so much between fields that comparing a number across disciplines is meaningless. In my own practice, I use recognised metrics only as one input — to sense a journal's standing in its field — alongside the questions that matter more: is the scope a genuine fit for the paper, is the peer review real and rigorous, and is the journal indexed where it claims to be. A real metric is useful context. A fake metric is a confession. Neither should ever be the whole basis for choosing where to publish.
A quick checklist
One: note any "impact factor," "index" or "factor" the journal advertises, and who issues it. Two: check whether the journal appears in Clarivate's Journal Citation Reports (via the Web of Science Master Journal List) or carries a CiteScore on Scopus. Three: if the advertised number is not traceable to Clarivate or Scopus, disregard it — and treat its prominent display as a warning about the journal. Four: never let any single number, real or fake, substitute for checking the journal's indexing, scope and peer-review integrity.
Not sure whether a journal's indexing claims hold up? Our free Predatory Journal Risk Checker checks recognised databases live and links you to the official sources. Choosing the right, well-indexed journal for a specific paper is also part of what we do.
Sources and further reading: Clarivate Journal Citation Reports and the Web of Science Master Journal List (Journal Impact Factor); Elsevier / Scopus (CiteScore); SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP); and Think. Check. Submit. Method and definitions are drawn from these public sources and, where noted, from the author's own peer-review practice. Compiled with care; verify any decisive detail at the primary source on the day you act.