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
