GurjasEvidence & Policy Analytics
Public beta · Manual evidence workflow

Journal Evaluation Workflow

Record what you have actually checked about a journal and identify unresolved identity, policy, indexing, editorial or payment evidence. No live lookup occurs and no safe, unsafe, legitimate or predatory verdict is produced.

  • Runs in this browser
  • No account
  • No answer or result analytics
  • Local JSON record
This is a dated evidence worksheet—not a blacklist.

Open primary records in separate tabs, record only the state you observed, and preserve links or screenshots independently. A missing directory record is not proof of misconduct.

1 · Record the checks

What evidence state did you observe?

Use confirmed only after checking a relevant primary record. This page does not browse or verify a journal for you.

Identity consistency
Does the website match the publisher or registry record?
Does the contact email domain match the official domain?
Open records independentlyISSN Portal ↗Crossref search ↗DOAJ search ↗Scopus Sources ↗

Gurjas is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by or acting for these registries.

Decision boundary

What this workflow refuses to decide

It does not determine whether a journal is legitimate, safe, predatory, indexed, suitable for submission or deserving of a public allegation. Final identity, payment and reputational decisions require current primary records and human review.

Method record

Engine 1.0.0-alpha.2 · reviewed 5 August 2026. Inputs remain in the active browser session unless you download the local JSON record. Do not enter names, unpublished findings, participant data or confidential institutional content.

Continue through the evidence system

Use the result, then inspect the supporting route.

Evidence behind this tool

Use the result. Check the reasoning.

This interface is a decision aid—not an automatic verdict. The 1 linked Library entry explain the source workflow, assumptions and boundary conditions that should travel with the result.