Although it is commonly stated that untrustworthy journals usually have a very short peer-review process (a matter of days), in reality this criterion is questionable as well. On one hand, writing a review may take only a few hours, but on the other hand, the total length of the peer-review process may be influenced by searching for a suitable reviewer or by the reviewers being busy. For example, it follows from the e-mail below that if the editor of the journal had not been on holiday, the review process could have been shorter by a whole month.

When evaluating this criterion, you should find out whether a sample of the peer-review process is provided on the journal’s website, so that you have a precise idea about its course. This means finding a page on the journal’s website with information for authors or with the journal’s ethical principles, and there you should look to see whether the journal describes the course of peer review in detail. There are three types of peer-review process:

Double blind	The text is evaluated by at least two reviewers while neither the reviewers nor the author(s) know each other’s identity. This is the most common type of review process.
Single blind	The text is evaluated by at least two reviewers who know the identity of the author(s) and whose identity is hidden from the author(s).
Open	The text is evaluated by at least two reviewers, both the reviewers and author(s) know each other’s identity.

The editorial board is one of the key parts of a journal. It is a decision-making body determining both the content and thematic focus of the journal. It also develops strategies and visions which the journal follows in its publishing. The editorial board’s prestige reflects the quality of the whole periodical. In the context of untrustworthy journals, the editorial board is connected with the criteria mentioned below, though these criteria are generally problematic.