An analysis of dental articles in predatory journals and online engagement

Predatory publishers have been described as those willing to publish any article for payment. These journals therefore represent a threat to the veracity of the scientific framework and the long-standing fabric of peer-reviewed research. Beall's list was developed as a means of disclosing “potential, possible or probably predatory publishers”. It included just 18 publishers in 2011 but had expanded exponentially to 923 by the end of 2016 [1]. Moreover, a five-fold increase in the number of predatory journals in nursing arose over a 4-year period [2]. In a recent study, over half of the dental journals identified were presumed predatory [3].

The lack of academic rigor associated with PP publishers risks the publication of substandard research of poor methodological quality with suboptimal reporting, thereby contributing to dental research waste [3], [4], [5]. It is also possible that genuinely misleading information can be published given the lack of necessary scrutiny. These risks are further complicated by the lack of indexing of predatory journals in reputable databases rendering it difficult to identify these articles [6]. To this end, the perils of predatory publications particularly in the medical and dental literature are undisputed.

The term “predatory journals and publishers” was first introduced in 2010 being recently re-defined as: “… entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship… characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices” [7]. Among their associated practices includes mimicking the website of the original journal, as has been reported in dentistry [8]. It is important, therefore, to raise awareness especially among unexperienced researchers and academics who may be vulnerable to unsolicited e-mail invitations from predatory publishers [3]. For instance, a faculty in a dental school received over 1800 unsolicited e-mails over a 1-year period requesting manuscript submission [8].

Predatory publishers are known to be deft and often persistent in attracting submissions by creating the illusion of “academic trustworthiness”. Moreover, predatory publishers often make promises of rapid review and acceptance for publication to increase their appeal to academics. They are also known to present fake metrics and to lack long term archives, with the majority publishing just 1 to 2 volumes during their entire lifespan [2, 9]. As such, in one study 60% of articles published in predatory journals had no citations over a 5-year period, this was 7 times less likely in reputable peer-reviewed journals [10]. Furthermore, predatory dental journals are often not officially indexed in PubMed, but occasionally manage to leak into PubMed [3, 11]. Although the short life-span of predatory journals along with limited citation counts and restricted access to trustworthy databases might limit dissemination and access to these publications, this constraint can be subverted by social media sharing [8]. The latter is known to increase dissemination regardless of the source journal [12]. For example, endorsement of non-peer reviewed and unpublished study findings on social media was thought to have contributed to the use of a specific medication during the COVID-19 pandemic to such an extent as to limit its supplies [13], [14], [15].

Undoubtedly, concerns exist in relation to the accuracy and legitimacy of the information available on influential social media platforms [16]. Healthcare providers and patients alike need to be vigilant to the source of research findings, particularly given the obvious limitations associated with many of these publications. The extent to which predatory dental publications are disseminated on social media has not been previously assessed. The aim of this research was to assess the sharing of presumed predatory dental publications on social media and to compare levels of social media engagement, type of accounts, and characteristics of the article between presumed predatory and legitimate dental publications.

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif