The NKJV is not translated from
Textus Receptus (nor, technically, was the KJV - it was translated from Beza's Greek text, with reference to Scrivener's Latin, and a preference for the TR when departing from Beza and sometimes from the earlier text of Erasmus of Rotterdam), the NKJV is translated from an eclectic range of Greek texts with a notable preference for the Majority Text through the influence of Arthur Farstad, the head of the project. It was originally intended to be a simple syntactical revision of the KJV but it was discovered that this would not allow Thomas Nelson, the publisher, to take out a copyright. So, they commissioned some fresh translation.
The NKJV is not taken seriously by critical scholars because it has retained the traditional readings of the KJV in disputed passages such as the ending of Mark and the Johannine comma. It was largely marketed as a modern language replacement for public reading in churches that were accustomed to the KJV. One of the notable features of the work is that a parishioner in the pew of a normal level of literacy can follow the verbal reading in either version without much trouble.
Unlike the school
@Kiterius attends, my seminary encourages work to be done from the KJV, NKJV, RSV, or ESV. So there are academic settings where it is used. It is primarily a text for use in public worship though. I think it's okay, but I prefer the RSV(preferably Catholic Edition) and ESV. Still, we bought NKJV for the church to use in Bible classes.