Renaming the Problem: Why ‘Non-Recommended Journals’ Is Preferable To ‘Predatory’ in Academic Publishing Frederick M. Tiesenga, Daniel Rodger, Benjamin Saracco, Baichang Zhong, Andrea Cortegiani, Sjaak Pouwels, Rawezh Qadir M. Salih, Ayman M. Mustafa and 37 more (on the original article) This article has a Corrigendum. Please see the Corrigendum at: https://doi.org/10.58742/bmj.v4i1.225 The term "predatory journals" is widely used to describe publishing practices that exploit authors, compromise research quality, and mislead readers. Its use, however, has frequently led to… 2025 6,384 reads 5 citations doi:10.58742/bmj.v4i1.213 Full text PDF XML Read abstract — read the abstract for Renaming the Problem: Why ‘Non-Recommended Journals’ Is Preferable To ‘Predatory’ in Academic Publishing Review Articles Renaming the Problem: Why ‘Non-Recommended Journals’ Is Preferable To ‘Predatory’ in Academic Publishing Frederick M. Tiesenga, Daniel Rodger, Benjamin Saracco, Baichang Zhong, Andrea Cortegiani, Sjaak Pouwels, Rawezh Qadir M. Salih, Ayman M. Mustafa and 37 more The term "predatory journals" is widely used to describe publishing practices that exploit authors, compromise research quality, and mislead readers. Its use, however, has frequently led to legal threats and professional conflicts for individuals and institutions who call out such deceptive practices. Most notably, Jeffrey Beall, the creator of Beall’s List, faced legal threats and personal harassment, which ultimately led him to discontinue his work. To address these challenges, scholars have proposed replacing “predatory journals” with more neutral alternatives, such as “questionable journals”. This study recommends using the term “non-recommended journals,” which similarly avoids accusatory language while signaling the need for caution by scholars and institutions. By avoiding direct allegations of unethical conduct, the term "non-recommended" reduces the likelihood of legal repercussions and professional disputes. Adopting this terminology enables researchers and institutions to continue addressing concerns about low-quality or deceptive publishing practices while fostering a more constructive dialogue. This reframing encourages constructive dialogue, broader institutional engagement, and stronger collective efforts to uphold high ethical publishing standards and protect academic integrity. Keywords Scholarly Publishing · Predatory Publishing · Journal Evaluation · Non-recommended journal All subjects Barw Medical Journal. 2025;3(5):33–41 Read the article PDF XML
