Non-Recommended Publishing Lists: Strategies for Detecting Deceitful Journals

Abstract 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. Introduction Many scholars agree that one of the main ways to evaluate an academic’s performance is by looking at their published research in scientific journals and conferences [1]. In recent years, academic publishing has increasingly shifted toward open access publishing (OAP). This model uses digital platforms to make research freely available to everyone. Readers can access, download, copy, and share the work without restrictions. Because open access articles are widely available, they often receive more attention and citations. For this reason, OAP is attractive to both authors and journals. However, in most cases, researchers must pay article processing charges (APCs) to publish their work [2]. Although OAP has many advantages and is expected by many to become the standard model for academic publishing, its rapid growth has also led to serious problems. One major issue is the rise of non-recommended journals (NRJs) and non-recommended publishers (NRPs). The term “predatory” originally comes from biology and refers to harming or exploiting others for personal gain. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it involves intentional exploitation for profit. In 2010, Jeffrey Beall first used the term to describe journals and publishers that claim to conduct peer review but either do not perform it properly or skip it entirely [3]. Today, many journals are run by unethical publishers whose main goal is to collect fees from researchers who are eager to publish their work [4]. Non-recommended journals harm researchers, damage the integrity of science, and weaken the communication of reliable knowledge. Under the open access model, publishers earn more money for every article they publish. However, a proper peer review process often results in the rejection of weak or low-quality manuscripts. This conflicts with the financial interests of NRPs. As a result, they may bypass or rush the peer review process and ignore reviewers’ comments to accept more papers and increase their profits [5]. This weakness in the OAP system has led to the publication of a large number of low-quality papers that now fill the scientific literature. It has also encouraged the growth of publishers who focus more on making money than on maintaining scientific standards. In some cases, it has become difficult to clearly distinguish between real scientific research and pseudoscience [5]. In response to these challenges, scholars have sought more precise terminology to describe problematic journals. The term “non-recommended journals” was first introduced by Kakamad et al. during the 18th meeting of the European Association of Science Editors held in Oslo, Norway. In that context, the authors argued that this terminology provides a broader and more practical framework for classifying journals that do not meet acceptable standards of scientific publishing. Unlike the term “predatory journals,” which implies clear misconduct, “non-recommended journals” encompasses the expanding gray zone of journals that lie between fully legitimate and clearly predatory entities those with variable or minimal peer review and questionable editorial practices. Additionally, the adoption of NRJs was proposed as a strategic approach to reduce potential legal challenges, as it avoids direct accusations while still allowing institutions and researchers to make informed and cautious publication decisions [6]. The present study aims to review existing lists that identify NRJs. It will analyze their strengths and weaknesses and evaluate how effective and comprehensive they are in detecting such journals. Through this review, the study seeks to provide useful insights into the value of these lists and to support ongoing efforts to reduce the impact of NRPs in academia. Non-Recommended Publishing Lists Non-Recommended publishing lists have emerged as strategic tools to identify and discourage journals and publishers that engage in deceptive scholarly practices. These lists were developed in response to the rapid expansion of OAP and the increasing exploitation of researchers through inadequate peer review, fabricated metrics, and misleading editorial policies [7]. Provides a comparative overview of major NRP lists (Table 1). Table 1. Comparative overview of major non-recommended publishing lists. List / Platform Year Introduced Responsible Entity Type Accessibility Evaluation Method Main Focus Key Strength Main Limitation Beall’s List 2008 Jeffrey Beall, University of Colorado Denver Blacklist Public (archived/ replicated sites) Manual evaluation using qualitative criteria Predatory publishers, standalone journals, hijacked journals, misleading metrics First systematic attempt to document predatory publishers Criticized for subjectivity and lack of transparent methodology Cabells’ List 2017 Cabells International Commercial blacklist Subscription-based Structured evaluation using 70+ violation criteria Predatory journals and unethical publishing practices Formalized and criteria-based assessment system Limited accessibility due to subscription and opaque review process Kscien’s List 2020 Kscien Organization (research NGO) Public blacklist Open access Committee-based evaluation and research-driven criteria Non-recommended publishers, journals, hijacked journals, Conference Focus on protecting researchers in developing countries Criteria still evolving and coverage may be incomplete Predatory Reports Unknown Anonymous volunteer researchers Public blacklist Open access Compilation of publicly available evidence Predatory publishers, Stand-alone journals Freely accessible and community-driven Limited transparency regarding governance and evaluation procedures Academic Journal Predatory Checking (AJPC) 2023 Academic researchers Automated detection system Public tool Machine learning and natural language processing Identification of predatory journal websites Scalable and data-driven evaluation approach Dependent on training datasets and may produce classification errors Early Warning List of International Journals 2020 Chinese Academy of Sciences (NSL) Risk-alert system Public access Bibliometric indicators and expert review Predatory Journals Institutional authority and data-driven evaluation Limited transparency of weighting methodology Kanalregister (Norwegian Register) 2010 Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and Skills National registry Public access NA Predatory Publishers, Predatory Journals Strong institutional governance and quality control Designed primarily for the Norwegian research evaluation system Open Access Journal List 2017 Undisclosed private platform Public blacklist Open access Website-based reporting Journals suspected of predatory practices Easily accessible awareness tool Limited transparency of inclusion criteria Journal Insights Predatory List 2024 Journals Insights platform Public blacklist Open access Website-based reporting Journals with questionable publishing practices Simple and publicly available reference Methodology and governance details are limited International Journals Blacklist Unknown Journal Index platform Public blacklist Open access Website-compiled reports Journals suspected of deceptive practices Easy access and quick verification Lack of detailed evaluation methodology These initiatives employ different strategies to identify questionable journals and publishers. Some systems rely primarily on expert evaluation and manual assessment, while others apply structured criteria, bibliometric indicators, or automated computational techniques to detect irregular publishing patterns [7,8]. Summarizes the main methodological approaches used by these systems (Table 2). Table 2. Methodological approaches used by major non-recommended publishing detection systems. System / List Detection Approach Key Indicators Used Level of Automation Transparency of Criteria Beall’s List Expert judgment Editorial board legitimacy, peer-review practic