ArticleScientific reports2025
Research literacy and its predictors among university students and graduates identified by machine learning and spatial analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
38 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The landscape of academic publishing has evolved dramatically, leading to a surge in publications and journals. The 'publish or perish' culture has resulted in undesirable practices, such as many researchers publishing in predatory journals due to institutional pressures and lack of awareness. While numerous studies have investigated knowledge of predatory journals, overall research literacy has remained underexplored. This study is the first to assess research literacy comprehensively, incorporating GIS and machine learning techniques alongside traditional statistical analyses. This study utilized a cross-sectional survey method with a questionnaire collecting information on socio-demographics, academic information, research training and experience, and research literacy. Traditional statistical analyses were performed using SPSS, while machine learning models were developed with Python and Google Colab. Supervised classification algorithms and mapping with R statistical software's 'bangladesh' package. The findings revealed that over half of the participants had poor research literacy. Significant predictors of higher research literacy included satisfaction with research courses at university education, research course taken outside university , and research-related professional engagement. Machine learning analysis identified that taking research courses outside of university was the most impactful factor for research literacy, while researchers within family members had minimal influence. The Random Forest and CatBoost models performed strongly in predicting literacy, achieving accuracy rates of 73.04% and 71.57%, respectively, and precision values of 73.29% and 71.69%, respectively, with low log loss values of 0.57 and 0.56. GIS-based spatial analyses revealed regional disparities in research literacy (χ²=9.234, p = 0.236), with certain divisions exhibiting a higher prevalence of lower literacy. This study highlights that a substantial portion of the participants lack research literacy, which is associated with multiple factors. The findings suggest the need for intervention programs to enhance research practices and awareness among students and professionals, fostering a culture of academic excellence.
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.