ArticleHeliyon2023
Development and validation of an instrument to assess the knowledge and perceptions of predatory journals.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of the community development competency scale (ComDe-scale) for public health nurses in Japanese community general support centers: A Nationwide study.Japan journal of nursing science : JJNS · 2026Article
- Knowledge, practices, and perception of predatory journals among North-African Dental University Hospital Doctors.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Public sector innovation in transition economies through hybrid entrepreneurship and the techno industry nexus.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Predatory Publishing Awareness Among Dental Interns in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The main aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable instrument to assess levels of knowledge and perceptions of predatory journals. Methods: The current study employed successive methods framework including (1) item generation through a literature review and theoretical framework development, (2) validity testing in terms of face, content, and construct validity for perceptions construct as well as item analysis for knowledge scale, and (3) reliability testing in terms of Cronbach's alpha, Kuder-Richardson (KR-20), item-to-total correlations, corrected item-to-total correlations, Cronbach's alpha if item deleted, and test-retest reliability. A total of 304 participants were recruited from King Fahad Medical City (KFMC) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to evaluate its construct validity and reliability. This was established using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principal axis factoring (PFA) and varimax rotation as well as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for perception construct. Results: An instrument was developed from this study called the "Predatory Journals KP Assessment Questionnaire". The results of EFA and CFA confirmed the construct validity of the perception construct. Item analysis confirmed the construct validity of the knowledge scale. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability were achieved for the knowledge scale items, consisting of 13 items. The results of EFA confirmed the measured constructs of perceptions toward predatory journals. The results of EFA and CFA for perception construct resulted in only one factor with 9 items. Conclusion: This study has successfully developed a valid and reliable questionnaire to measure knowledge and perceptions of predatory journals among researchers in the clinical and health disciplines. This instrument serves as a valuable guide for future studies that aim to assess researcher's knowledge and perceptions about predatory journals and examine the differences in these measured constructs according to their demographic and professional characteristics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.