Top 10 Most Overrated Academic Journals 2026

The Lancet published the fraudulent Andrew Wakefield autism-vaccine study that fueled decades of anti-vax hysteria, and its retraction took 12 years — long enough to cause immeasurable public health damage.

AAAS's flagship journal has been plagued by high-profile retractions including fabricated stem cell research and manipulated psychology studies, yet its brand prestige remains virtually untouched.

Cell's impact factor obsession has created a publish-or-perish culture in biology where researchers spend years chasing the journal's aesthetic preferences rather than pursuing genuinely important questions.

HBR's thought leadership articles rarely undergo rigorous peer review yet are cited as authoritative research, blurring the line between evidence-based findings and well-written management opinion pieces.

The flagship social psychology journal published Daryl Bem's notorious precognition study and countless priming experiments that failed to replicate, becoming ground zero for psychology's credibility crisis.

NEJM's editorial conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies have been documented for decades, yet it remains the most influential medical journal for treatment guidelines worldwide.

PNAS's controversial "contributed" track lets National Academy members essentially self-publish with hand-picked reviewers, creating a two-tier system that bypasses the rigorous review other researchers face.

Elsevier charges universities millions in subscription fees for research funded by public grants, generating 37% profit margins while paying editors and peer reviewers nothing — the most extractive model in academic publishing.

IEEE's sprawling portfolio of engineering journals has been infiltrated by paper mills and citation cartels, particularly from conferences that accept virtually all submissions for a steep registration fee.

The Lancet published the fraudulent Andrew Wakefield autism-vaccine study that fueled decades of anti-vax hysteria, and its retraction took 12 years — long enough to cause immeasurable public health damage.

AAAS's flagship journal has been plagued by high-profile retractions including fabricated stem cell research and manipulated psychology studies, yet its brand prestige remains virtually untouched.

Cell's impact factor obsession has created a publish-or-perish culture in biology where researchers spend years chasing the journal's aesthetic preferences rather than pursuing genuinely important questions.

HBR's thought leadership articles rarely undergo rigorous peer review yet are cited as authoritative research, blurring the line between evidence-based findings and well-written management opinion pieces.

The flagship social psychology journal published Daryl Bem's notorious precognition study and countless priming experiments that failed to replicate, becoming ground zero for psychology's credibility crisis.

NEJM's editorial conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies have been documented for decades, yet it remains the most influential medical journal for treatment guidelines worldwide.

PNAS's controversial "contributed" track lets National Academy members essentially self-publish with hand-picked reviewers, creating a two-tier system that bypasses the rigorous review other researchers face.

Elsevier charges universities millions in subscription fees for research funded by public grants, generating 37% profit margins while paying editors and peer reviewers nothing — the most extractive model in academic publishing.

IEEE's sprawling portfolio of engineering journals has been infiltrated by paper mills and citation cartels, particularly from conferences that accept virtually all submissions for a steep registration fee.