ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2025
Predatory Publishing Awareness Among Dental Interns in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on "Predatory Publishing Awareness Among Dental Interns in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study" [Response to Letter].Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- Comment on "Predatory Publishing Awareness Among Dental Interns in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study" [Letter].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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The proliferation of predatory open-access journals poses a significant threat to scientific integrity, especially among early-career researchers unfamiliar with deceptive publishing practices. This study aimed to assess dental interns' awareness of predatory journals in Riyadh and to identify factors associated with awareness, including research interest and familiarity with journal evaluation tools. Methods: An analytical cross-sectional survey was conducted among 155 dental interns across six institutions in Riyadh. A self-developed, psychometrically validated electronic questionnaire assessed participants' demographic profiles, research experience, and awareness of predatory journals. Statistical analyses included Cronbach's alpha, exploratory factor analysis, chi-square tests, t-tests, and logistic regression. Results: Only 47.7% of interns recognized the term "predatory journal", and 74.8% were unfamiliar with Beall's List. Awareness was significantly associated with research interest (OR = 7.18, *p* < 0.001) and prior invitations from predatory journals (OR = 8.82). Demographic factors such as gender, marital status, and university affiliation showed no significant associations with awareness. Awareness was moderately correlated with prior publication activity (r = 0.38, p < 0.001) but was not significantly predicted by publication count in regression models. Conclusion: The findings reveal moderate yet inconsistent awareness of predatory publishing practices among dental interns in Riyadh. While many exhibit strong research interest, gaps remain in ethical journal evaluation and identification. Targeted educational initiatives, including institutional workshops and curriculum integration, are essential to foster ethical publishing literacy among emerging dental professionals.
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.