Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Effect of educational intervention on physicians and researchers' knowledge, practices and perceptions towards predatory journals: an interventional study.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the current scholarly landscape, predatory journals have increasingly emerged along with open-access journals. These journals aim for profit rather than trusted science. Therefore, the main purpose of the current study is to assess the impact of an educational intervention on physicians' and researchers' knowledge, practices, and perceptions regarding predatory journals.
methodsThis is an interventional, randomized, pretest–posttest, control group study. Physicians and researchers from King Fahad Medical City were randomly assigned either to an intervention group (received educational training) or a control group without training. A structured questionnaire was developed and validated to assess knowledge, practices, and perceptions toward predatory journals was used.
resultsA total of 304 participants enrolled in the study at baseline were allocated equally to intervention and control groups (n = 152, each). The distributions of baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Post-intervention, participants in the intervention group showed significantly higher adjusted mean knowledge scores compared to the control group (10.26 ± 2.9 vs. 7.12 ± 4.1; p < 0.001) with moderate effect size; [Formula: see text] = 0.095. Post-intervention practice scores were also significantly higher in the intervention group (45.81 ± 10.3) than in the control group (40.61 ± 12.1; p = 0.001), although the effect size was small (ƞₚ2 = 0.0048). Perception scores showed no significant difference between groups post-intervention (32.83 ± 3.9 vs. 33.55 ± 3.8; p = 0.316; ƞₚ2 = 0.005).
conclusionsThe educational intervention significantly improved participants’ knowledge and practices but not their perceptions. Moreover, the post-intervention knowledge and practice scores reflected a moderate to small effect size, suggesting a room for further enhancement through sustained educational efforts.
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.