ArticleBMC medical education2026
Knowledge, practices, and perception of predatory journals among North-African Dental University Hospital Doctors.
Article 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPredatory journals are referred to illegitimate journals that threaten scientific integrity by publishing low-quality research. This study aimed to assess the knowledge, practices, and perceptions regarding these journals among Dental University Hospital Doctors (DUHD) in Tunisia. MATERIAL AND
methodsA cross-sectional and descriptive study was conducted from September 1 to 26, 2025, at the Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Monastir (Tunisia). All DUHD, including academic staff and residents from various dental specialties, were invited to complete the validated Predatory Journals Knowledge and Practices Assessment Questionnaire via Google Forms. DUHD were not given a time limit for completing the questionnaire but they received standard follow-up emails reminder after receiving their original invitation to participate.
resultsAmong 339 potential participants, 178 (77% were women) completed the questionnaire. Over half (53.9%) reported no prior training on predatory journals. While more than 50% of DUHD correctly identified predatory journals in most questions, residents demonstrated lower knowledge than academic staff. Regarding practices, 52.2% had never submitted to predatory journals and 57.3% had never published in them. However, only 16.9% reported checking blacklists before submission. Most respondents perceived predatory journals as deceptive (74.7%) and believed they mainly attract academics seeking rapid promotion (75.9%).
conclusionAlthough DUHD showed relatively good awareness of predatory journals, significant gaps persist, especially among residents. Targeted training programs and institutional policies are needed to prevent unintentional submissions.
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.