Non-Recommended Publishing Lists: Strategies for Detecting Deceitful Journals Fahmi H. Kakamad, Shvan H. Mohammed, Berun A. Abdalla, Dahat A. Hussein, Zuhair D. Hammood, Suhaib H. Kakamad, Diyar A. Omar, Kayhan A. Najar and 6 more The rapid growth of open access publishing (OAP) has significantly improved the accessibility and dissemination of scientific knowledge. However, this expansion has also contributed to the emergence of non-recommended journals (NRJs) and non-recommended publishers (NRPs) that exploit researchers by offering rapid… 2026 2,535 reads 17 citations doi:10.58742/bmj.v4i1.227 Full text PDF XML Read abstract — read the abstract for Non-Recommended Publishing Lists: Strategies for Detecting Deceitful Journals Review Articles Non-Recommended Publishing Lists: Strategies for Detecting Deceitful Journals Fahmi H. Kakamad, Shvan H. Mohammed, Berun A. Abdalla, Dahat A. Hussein, Zuhair D. Hammood, Suhaib H. Kakamad, Diyar A. Omar, Kayhan A. Najar and 6 more The rapid growth of open access publishing (OAP) has significantly improved the accessibility and dissemination of scientific knowledge. However, this expansion has also contributed to the emergence of non-recommended journals (NRJs) and non-recommended publishers (NRPs) that exploit researchers by offering rapid publication without maintaining proper peer-review standards. Such practices threaten the credibility of scholarly communication and may lead to the dissemination of low-quality or unreliable research. In response to this challenge, several initiatives have developed lists and monitoring systems to help researchers identify potentially NRJs. This study reviews major NRPs and NRJs evaluation platforms, including Beall’s List, Cabells’ Predatory Reports, Kscien’s List, Predatory Reports, Academic Journal Predatory Checking (AJPC), the Early Warning List of International Journals, Kanalregister, the Open Access Journal List, the Journal Insights Predatory List, and the International Journals Blacklist. The review examines their objectives, operational approaches, strengths, and limitations in identifying deceptive publishing practices. The findings indicate that while these lists serve as useful preliminary screening tools, they vary in transparency, accessibility, evaluation criteria, and governance structures. Some rely on expert assessment, whereas others apply automated or bibliometric methods. Despite their usefulness, no single list can comprehensively identify all NRJs, and misclassification may occur. Therefore, researchers should use these tools cautiously and combine them with independent evaluation of journal credibility to ensure responsible publishing and maintain the integrity of scientific communication. Keywords Non-recommended publishers · Beall’s list · Kscien’s list · Cabells’ list · Non-recommended journals All subjects Barw Medical Journal. 2026;4(1):33–41 Read the article PDF XML
Predatory Publishing Lists: A Review on the Ongoing Battle Against Fraudulent Actions Hiwa O. Abdullah, Berun A. Abdalla, Fahmi H. Kakamad, Jafaar O. Ahmed, Hiwa O. Baba, Marwan N. Hassan, Rawa Bapir, Hawbash M. Rahim and 13 more Predatory journals challenge the scholarly community by muddling the boundary between legitimate and dubious publishing practices. Despite the awareness of predatory publishers, there are no globally accepted criteria for identifying them. Various warning lists have emerged as predatory practices evolve, but they are… 2024 4,174 reads 48 citations doi:10.58742/bmj.v2i2.91 Full text PDF XML Read abstract — read the abstract for Predatory Publishing Lists: A Review on the Ongoing Battle Against Fraudulent Actions Review Articles Predatory Publishing Lists: A Review on the Ongoing Battle Against Fraudulent Actions Hiwa O. Abdullah, Berun A. Abdalla, Fahmi H. Kakamad, Jafaar O. Ahmed, Hiwa O. Baba, Marwan N. Hassan, Rawa Bapir, Hawbash M. Rahim and 13 more Predatory journals challenge the scholarly community by muddling the boundary between legitimate and dubious publishing practices. Despite the awareness of predatory publishers, there are no globally accepted criteria for identifying them. Various warning lists have emerged as predatory practices evolve, but they are not impervious to criticism despite their utility. This study reviewed the most common of the predatory lists. Beall's list, the pioneer in exposing predatory publishers, received criticism for its inclusion criteria. It is now anonymously managed and poorly updated. Cabells' list has a broad range of inclusion criteria; however, some have been criticized for redundancy and lack of alignment with predatory practices. Kscien's list shows promise as an alternative for spotting predatory journals and publishers. However, it requires refinement since the included journals, based on their core criteria, are not distinguished from those included using traditional criteria. The Early Warning List of International Journals is a recent compilation with diverse criteria. Despite attracting the scientific community's attention, there are questions about the reliability of its inclusion criteria. However, these lists are crucial in flagging predatory publishers; researchers can depend on them while preparing their manuscripts. Keywords Predatory publishers · Predatory journals · Beall’s list · Cabells’ list · Kscien’s list · Early Warning List of International Journals All subjects Barw Medical Journal. 2024;2(3) Read the article PDF XML
