How to Check a Journal's Editorial Board

By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD · 2026-08-27

Quick Answer

• Verify each editorial board member through ORCID records and institutional directories to confirm they are real researchers with relevant expertise.
• Check for board diversity across geography, career stage, and gender, and confirm members are actively publishing in the field.
• Treat missing affiliations, deceased members, or fabricated credentials as red flags that indicate a predatory or low-quality journal.

Understanding Editorial Board Credibility

Editorial boards serve as the public face of a journal's scholarly standards. A legitimate board consists of active researchers who oversee peer review, set editorial policy, and lend their expertise to manuscript evaluation. When researchers evaluate where to submit their work, the board's composition provides one of the most accessible signals of journal quality.

The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices establish expectations for editorial independence, transparency, and accountability in scholarly publishing. These practices apply to editors, authors, and reviewers, and they provide a framework for assessing whether a journal operates with integrity. A journal that lists board members who cannot be verified or who have no connection to the journal's subject area fails basic transparency expectations.

Commercial-investigation of a journal's editorial board serves multiple purposes. For researchers, it protects against submitting work to venues that may not provide genuine peer review or proper indexing. For job seekers and laboratory staff, it helps identify reputable outlets for their publications. For animal owners and life-science professionals who encounter journal citations in their reading, board verification offers a way to assess whether cited research comes from a credible source.

The verification process requires systematic checking instead of casual browsing. Each board member should be confirmed through independent records, beyond through the journal's own website. This means checking ORCID profiles, institutional faculty pages, and publication databases to establish that the person exists, works in the relevant field, and has an active research record.

At a Glance: Editorial Board Assessment

Core Principles of Board Verification

Identity Verification Through ORCID

ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes researchers from others with similar names. The ORCID for Researchers service explains how individuals can maintain their records, link their publications, and control their professional information. When checking a journal's editorial board, an ORCID iD offers a reliable starting point for confirming that a named individual exists and has an active research profile.

A board member with an ORCID record should have publications linked to that record. The record should show activity consistent with the journal's field and time frame. An ORCID profile with no linked publications, or with publications in unrelated areas, warrants further investigation.

Institutional directories provide a second verification layer. Most universities and research organizations maintain public faculty pages that list current positions, research interests, and contact information. Cross-referencing the journal's board listing with an institutional page confirms both identity and current affiliation.

Field Relevance Assessment

Board members should have demonstrable expertise in the journal's declared scope. A veterinary journal should list board members with veterinary or animal science credentials. A biomedical journal should list researchers with relevant clinical or laboratory experience. The National Library of Medicine's Research Methods Resources gateway provides access to authoritative biomedical references that can help researchers understand what constitutes legitimate expertise in a given field.

When assessing field relevance, examine each member's recent publications. A board member who last published a decade ago in a different specialty may not provide meaningful editorial oversight for current submissions. Similarly, a member whose publication record shows no connection to the journal's topic area raises questions about why they were appointed.

Active Status Confirmation

Editorial boards should reflect currently active researchers. This means members who are publishing, receiving grants, attending conferences, and otherwise participating in the scholarly community. The National Institutes of Health Grants and Funding portal describes how NIH supports research through grants and cooperative agreements, and active NIH-funded investigators typically maintain current publication records.

A board listing that includes deceased individuals or researchers who retired years ago suggests the journal does not maintain its board. This can indicate poor editorial management or an attempt to borrow credibility from names that no longer actively participate in the field.

Practical Workflow for Board Assessment

Step 1: Compile the Board List

Start by recording every name listed on the journal's editorial board page. Include the role or title associated with each name, such as Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, or Editorial Board Member. Note any affiliations or credentials the journal provides for each person.

Create a spreadsheet or table with columns for name, listed role, listed affiliation, and verification status. This record will serve as your working document throughout the assessment process.

Step 2: Verify Each Member's Identity

For each name, search ORCID to determine whether the person has a registered identifier. The ORCID for Researchers service explains how to search for researchers and view their public records. Record the ORCID iD when one exists.

Next, search institutional directories for each name. University faculty pages, research institute staff directories, and government laboratory personnel listings can confirm current positions. Record the institution and position for each verified member.

Finally, search publication databases for each name. Confirm that the person has published in the journal's field and that their publication record is recent. Note the number of publications and the date range of their most recent work.

Step 3: Assess Field Relevance

Compare each member's publication record with the journal's declared scope. A board member for a journal on animal nutrition should have publications on animal nutrition, not exclusively on human cardiology or plant biology.

Review the member's recent publications to determine whether they are actively contributing to the field. The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines for health research, and journals that follow these guidelines typically attract board members who value rigorous methodology. A board member who publishes in journals that follow established reporting standards demonstrates commitment to research quality.

Step 4: Evaluate Board Composition

Assess the board's diversity across multiple dimensions. Geographic diversity means members from different countries and regions, not all from one institution or one country. Career stage diversity means a mix of established senior researchers and promising early-career investigators. Gender diversity means representation across genders, which can be assessed through institutional profiles and publication records.

The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices emphasize the importance of editorial independence and transparency. A board that includes members from a single institution or a single research group may lack the independent perspective needed for fair editorial oversight.

Step 5: Document Findings

Record your verification results for each board member. Note which members were verified, which could not be confirmed, and which showed concerning patterns. This documentation supports your final decision about whether to submit to the journal.

Options and Tradeoffs in Journal Selection

Established Journals vs. Newer Journals

Established journals with long publication histories typically have well-known editorial boards. Their board members are often prominent researchers whose credentials are easy to verify. The tradeoff is that these journals may have high rejection rates and long review times.

Newer journals may have less established boards, but this does not automatically indicate poor quality. A new journal launched by a reputable publisher or scholarly society may have a strong board of active researchers. The verification process becomes more important for newer journals because their reputations are not yet established.

Society Journals vs. Independent Journals

Journals published by scholarly societies often have boards drawn from the society's membership. These boards tend to reflect the society's standards and may be easier to verify because society membership directories are public. The tradeoff is that society journals may have narrower scopes tied to the society's mission.

Independent journals may have more diverse boards, but they also require more careful verification. Without a society's oversight, the journal's editorial practices depend entirely on its publisher and editors.

Open Access Journals vs. Subscription Journals

Open access journals have become common venues for research publication, and many operate with legitimate editorial boards and rigorous peer review. The tradeoff is that the open access model has also attracted predatory publishers who create fake journals with fabricated boards.

The verification process applies equally to open access and subscription journals. A legitimate open access journal should have a board that passes the same checks as a subscription journal. The National Library of Medicine's Research Methods Resources gateway can help researchers understand the range of publication models and their implications for research dissemination.

Records and Measurements for Board Assessment

What to Record

Maintain a verification log that includes the journal name, the date of assessment, and the URL of the editorial board page. For each board member, record the name as listed, the role, the listed affiliation, the ORCID iD if found, the verified institutional affiliation, and the verification status.

Record the date of your last verification for each member. Editorial boards change over time, and a board that was verified six months ago may have changed. Regular re-verification is appropriate for journals where you are considering submission.

How to Measure Board Quality

Board quality can be measured through several observable indicators. The percentage of board members with verifiable ORCID records provides one metric. The percentage with current institutional affiliations provides another. The percentage with recent publications in the journal's field provides a third.

A board where more than 90 percent of members can be verified through independent records demonstrates transparency. A board where a significant portion cannot be verified warrants caution. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe expectations for editorial transparency, and a journal that cannot account for its board members fails this expectation.

Tracking Changes Over Time

If you are monitoring a journal over time, record the board composition at regular intervals. Note when members are added or removed. A board that changes frequently may indicate instability, while a board that never changes may indicate that the journal does not actively manage its editorial team.

Common Failure Patterns in Board Verification

Fabricated Board Members

Some journals list board members who do not exist. These fabricated names may be invented by the publisher or may be real researchers listed without their knowledge or consent. The verification process catches this pattern when a name produces no ORCID record, no institutional listing, and no publication history.

Deceased Members Still Listed

Journals that do not maintain their boards may continue to list deceased researchers. This pattern suggests the journal has not updated its website in years or does not actively manage its editorial team. Checking the publication dates of each member's most recent work can reveal this pattern.

Unrelated Expertise

Some journals list board members whose expertise has no connection to the journal's scope. This pattern may indicate that the publisher assembled a board from available names without regard for field relevance. Comparing each member's publication record with the journal's declared scope reveals this pattern.

Duplicate or Conflicting Affiliations

A board member listed with an affiliation that does not match their actual position may indicate that the journal copied information from another source. Checking institutional directories confirms whether the listed affiliation is current and accurate.

Missing Contact Information

Legitimate journals typically provide contact information for their editors. A board page that lists names without any way to reach the editors, or that provides only a generic journal email address, may indicate that the board members are not actually involved in editorial operations.

Limitations of Board Verification

Verification Does Not Guarantee Quality

A journal with a verified board of active researchers may still have poor editorial practices. Board verification confirms that the listed people exist and have relevant expertise, but it does not confirm that they actively participate in peer review or editorial decisions. Some legitimate researchers allow their names to appear on journal boards without meaningful involvement.

ORCID Records Have Gaps

Not all researchers maintain ORCID records. Some established researchers may have registered late or may not have linked all their publications. The absence of an ORCID record does not automatically indicate a problem, especially for researchers from disciplines or regions where ORCID adoption is lower. The ORCID for Researchers service describes how researchers can maintain their records, but it does not require universal participation.

Institutional Directories May Be Outdated

University faculty pages and institutional directories may not be updated promptly when researchers change positions. A board member who appears at one institution in the journal listing and another institution in the directory may have recently moved. Checking publication dates and recent conference participation can help resolve these discrepancies.

Field Boundaries Are Not Always Clear

Interdisciplinary research means that some board members may have expertise that spans multiple fields. A researcher with publications in both animal science and microbiology may legitimately serve on a journal covering either field. The assessment should consider the full range of each member's expertise instead of requiring a narrow match.

Safety and Regulatory Context

Research Integrity and Publication Ethics

The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices establish expectations for handling allegations of misconduct, managing conflicts of interest, and ensuring ethical oversight of research. Journals that follow these practices demonstrate commitment to research integrity. When evaluating a journal's board, consider whether the journal publicly states its commitment to ethical publishing practices.

The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines that help researchers present their work transparently. Journals that require authors to follow these guidelines demonstrate commitment to research quality. Board members who publish in journals following these guidelines are more likely to value rigorous methodology.

NIH Policy Context

The National Institutes of Health Grants and Funding portal describes the grant application and review process. NIH-funded researchers must publish their findings in credible venues, and the choice of journal affects how their work is received by the scientific community. The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy describes expectations for managing and sharing research data, and journals that support these expectations through their editorial policies are more likely to attract NIH-funded board members.

For researchers applying to NIH or other funding agencies, the choice of publication venue can affect how their work is evaluated. Publishing in a journal with a verified board of active researchers supports the credibility of the research record.

Professional Escalation Criteria

When to Avoid a Journal

Avoid submitting to a journal when the board verification reveals significant problems. These include a high percentage of unverifiable members, deceased members still listed, or members whose expertise does not match the journal's scope. A journal that cannot account for its board members is unlikely to provide rigorous peer review.

When to Report Concerns

If you identify a journal that appears to be operating deceptively, consider reporting your findings. The Committee on Publication Ethics provides guidance on handling publication ethics concerns, and many publishers have processes for investigating complaints about journal practices. Your documentation of board verification failures can support such reports.

When to Seek Additional Guidance

If you are uncertain about a journal's legitimacy, consult colleagues in your field, your institution's research office, or a librarian with expertise in scholarly publishing. These professionals can provide context about specific journals and publishers. The National Library of Medicine's Research Methods Resources gateway can help you locate authoritative references on research methodology and publication practices.

Decision Framework for Board Verification Triage

Assigning Verification Priority by Submission Risk

Not every board member requires the same depth of investigation. A practical triage system allocates your verification effort according to the risk each board position carries for your submission outcome. The Editor-in-Chief and handling editors make direct decisions about your manuscript, so their identities and credentials warrant the highest verification priority. Advisory board members may have little or no involvement in your submission's fate, so a lighter verification touch is defensible for them.

Create three verification tiers before you begin. Tier one covers the Editor-in-Chief, deputy editors, and associate editors who assign reviewers and make acceptance decisions. Verify these individuals through ORCID, institutional directories, and recent publication records. Tier two covers editorial board members listed with specific subject-area responsibilities, such as a statistics editor or an animal welfare section editor. Confirm their expertise matches their stated role. Tier three covers general advisory board members whose names appear without defined duties. For this tier, spot-check a representative sample instead of verifying every name.

This tiered approach matters because your verification time is finite. A journal with 80 listed board members could consume an entire workday if you investigate each name exhaustively. The triage framework concentrates your effort where it protects your interests most directly.

Building a Weighted Scoring System

A simple weighted score converts your verification findings into a single comparable number across multiple journals. Assign points in four categories, then sum the results to rank your candidate journals.

Start with identity verification. Award 40 points if more than 90 percent of tier-one members have verifiable ORCID records with linked publications. Award 20 points if 70 to 90 percent verify. Award zero points if fewer than 70 percent verify. Next assess field relevance. Award 30 points if tier-one members have recent publications matching the journal's scope. Award 15 points if some members match but others show unrelated expertise. Award zero points if most members publish outside the journal's declared field.

Assess active status as the third category. Award 20 points if tier-one members have publications within the past three years. Award 10 points if their most recent publications fall within five years. Award zero points if any listed member is deceased or has not published in over five years. Finally assess board maintenance. Award 10 points if the journal page includes a last-updated date or recent editorial announcements. Award zero points if you cannot determine when the board was last reviewed.

A journal scoring above 80 points warrants serious submission consideration. A score between 50 and 80 requires additional investigation into peer review practices and indexing status. A score below 50 should remove the journal from your candidate list unless you have compelling external evidence of its quality.

Recording Verification Decisions in a Structured Log

Your verification log should capture also what you found but also the decisions you made based on those findings. Use a table with columns for journal name, assessment date, tier-one member count, tier-two member count, tier-three member count, identity score, relevance score, activity score, maintenance score, total score, and submission decision.

Record the specific evidence that supported each score. For identity verification, note the ORCID iDs you confirmed and the institutional pages that matched. For field relevance, list the publication titles or journal names that demonstrated each member's expertise. This evidence trail matters if you later need to justify your decision to a coauthor, a supervisor, or a funding agency.

The National Institutes of Health Grants and Funding portal describes how grant applications undergo rigorous review, and your publication venue choices become part of your research record. A structured verification log demonstrates that you exercised due diligence in selecting where to publish your NIH-funded work.

Comparing Multiple Journals with a Decision Matrix

When you are choosing among several candidate journals, build a comparison matrix that places each journal side by side. List your verification criteria as rows and the journals as columns. Enter the evidence you found for each criterion instead of just a pass or fail mark.

For example, under identity verification for Journal A, you might record that 12 of 14 tier-one members have ORCID records with recent publications. Under the same criterion for Journal B, you might record that only 5 of 12 tier-one members could be verified through any independent source. This side-by-side view makes the differences immediately visible.

The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines that many legitimate journals require their authors to follow. Add a row to your matrix asking whether each journal references reporting guidelines in its author instructions. Journals that actively promote transparent reporting practices tend to maintain more credible editorial oversight.

Troubleshooting When Verification Results Conflict

You will encounter situations where your verification sources disagree. A board member may have an ORCID record but no current institutional listing. Another may appear in an institutional directory but have no recent publications. These conflicts require a structured troubleshooting approach instead of an immediate judgment.

First check whether the person has recently changed institutions. Researchers frequently move between universities, and institutional directories may lag behind actual appointments. Search for the person's most recent publications and see which affiliation appears on those papers. The most current affiliation on recent publications takes precedence over an outdated directory listing.

Second check whether the person publishes under a different name variant. Some researchers use middle initials in some publications and omit them in others. Search ORCID using the person's full name and common variants. The ORCID for Researchers service explains how records can include multiple name forms, and a single ORCID iD may link publications listed under different name spellings.

Third consider whether the person has moved into a non-academic role. A researcher who now works in industry or government may have a limited recent publication record but still possess relevant expertise for editorial oversight. Check for recent conference presentations, patents, or industry publications that demonstrate continued professional activity.

Escalating Unresolved Verification Failures

When your troubleshooting cannot resolve a conflict, escalate the finding according to its severity. A single tier-three member with an outdated affiliation warrants a note in your log but should not by itself disqualify a journal. A tier-one member who cannot be verified through any independent source warrants direct inquiry to the journal.

Send a professional email to the journal's editorial office asking for confirmation of the member's current role and affiliation. A legitimate journal will respond with clarifying information or update its website. A journal that does not respond, or that responds with vague assurances without specific evidence, adds weight to your concern.

The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe expectations for transparency in editorial operations. A journal that cannot or will not clarify its own board listings fails this transparency expectation. Document the date of your inquiry and the response you received in your verification log.

Applying the Framework to Different Journal Types

The triage framework adapts to different journal categories. For a new open access journal with no publication history, apply stricter verification standards because you have no track record to assess. Verify every tier-one member completely and require that at least 80 percent of the full board be verifiable through independent sources.

For a long-established society journal, you can reasonably rely on the society's reputation as a partial verification layer. The society's membership directory and governance structure provide independent confirmation that the journal operates within an established scholarly community. Still verify the tier-one members individually, since editorial leadership can change without public announcement.

For a journal you are considering for a high-stakes submission such as your dissertation chapter or a promotion package, apply the most rigorous standards. Verify every tier-one member completely, confirm that at least 90 percent of the full board has verifiable identities, and require recent publications from at least half the board members. The National Library of Medicine's Research Methods Resources gateway can help you locate authoritative references on research dissemination practices that inform these standards.

Frequently Asked Questions

How can I verify that an editorial board member is a real researcher?

Search the person's name in ORCID to find their registered researcher identifier and linked publications. Cross-reference with their institutional faculty page or staff directory to confirm their current position. Check publication databases to confirm they have published in the journal's field within a reasonable time frame.

What should I do if a board member has no ORCID record?

The absence of an ORCID record alone does not prove a problem, since not all researchers maintain ORCID profiles. Check institutional directories and publication databases for independent confirmation. If the person cannot be found through any independent source, treat this as a red flag.

How can I tell if a board member's expertise matches the journal's scope?

Review the person's recent publications and compare their topics with the journal's declared scope. A board member for a veterinary journal should have publications in veterinary or animal science. Consider the full range of their expertise, especially for interdisciplinary researchers.

What does geographic diversity on an editorial board indicate?

Geographic diversity means board members come from multiple countries and regions instead of a single institution or country. A diverse board suggests the journal has international reach and can draw on varied perspectives in editorial decision making.

How often should I re-check a journal's editorial board?

Re-check the board before each submission you are considering. Editorial boards change over time, and a board that was verified previously may have changed. Regular re-verification is especially important for newer journals or journals that have changed publishers.

What are the most serious red flags in an editorial board?

The most serious red flags are fabricated members who cannot be found through any independent source, deceased members still listed, and members whose expertise has no connection to the journal's scope. These patterns suggest the journal does not maintain its board or may be operating deceptively.

Can a journal have a legitimate board and still be low quality?

Yes. Board verification confirms that listed members exist and have relevant expertise, but it does not confirm that they actively participate in editorial operations. Some legitimate researchers allow their names on boards without meaningful involvement. Consider other quality indicators such as peer review practices, indexing, and the journal's publication ethics policies.

Where can I find guidance on ethical publishing practices?

The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe expectations for authorship, peer review, data handling, conflict management, and misconduct allegations. The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines for transparent research reporting. These resources can help you assess whether a journal follows established ethical standards.

Using the Evidence

Related Articles

• The Role of the Research Ethics Committee: What Researchers Need to Know
• Biostatistics Journal
• Journal Of Experimental Biology
• medical board of california
• Texas Nursing Board

References and Further Reading

• Research Methods Resources. National Library of Medicine.
• EQUATOR Network. EQUATOR Network.
• Core Practices. Committee on Publication Ethics.
• NIH Grants and Funding. National Institutes of Health.
• ORCID for Researchers. ORCID.
• Data Management and Sharing Policy. National Institutes of Health.
• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• PubMed. National Library of Medicine.

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.