<p>The increasing number of predatory journals poses a significant threat to the&#xa0;entire scholarly landscape. This article aims to measure the social media impact of predatory publications and analyse the potential of using altmetrics as a parameter in identifying scientifically questionable journals. The study adopted a metric approach to conduct the research. Beall's list was used to identify the deceptive journals, and Altmetric Explorer was used to track their social media presence. The study reported that out of 1,310 journals on Beall's list, only 69 journals were tracked by Altmetric.com. The articles from “Aging” received the highest social media attention, with 4,435 outputs. Moreover, the predatory articles appeared on 16 social media platforms, with the highest intake on Twitter (69.16%) and the lowest on Weibo, with only 1 mention. The geographical distribution of Twitter mentions for the articles revealed that most discussions took place in English-speaking countries, such as the US and the UK. The sentiment analysis of the discussion about fake articles on Bluesky platforms was positive. Finally, the deceptive articles across all open-access categories showed a very weak positive association between Dimension citations (DC) and altmetric attention scores (AAS). The low coverage of articles on social media platforms and the weak correlation pattern may function as an indicative feature of predatory articles. This is the first in-depth study to measure the social media impact of predatory articles using Beall’s list and Altmetric.com.</p>