An analysis of dental articles in predatory journals and associated online engagement

• Published in: Journal of dentistry 2023-02, Vol.129, p.104385-104385, Article 104385
• Main Authors: Al-Moghrabi, Dalya, Albishri, Rana S, Alshehri, Rahaf D, Arqub, Sarah Abu, Alkadhimi, Aslam, Fleming, Padhraig S
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bibliometrics; Editorial policies; Esthetics, Dental; Ethics in publication; Humans; Medical ethics; Open access publishing; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing; Research Personnel; Scientific publishing; Transparency
• ISSN: 0300-5712; 1879-176X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104385

•Dental articles are published within presumed predatory journals.•Comparable online reach of presumed legitimate and predatory publications.•Infiltration of over one-third of presumed predatory journals in PubMed.•The majority of PP publications were identified in non-specialty dental journals.•Researchers and readers need to vigilantly evaluate journal of publication. We aimed to assess the extent of social media sharing of presumed predatory (PP) dental journals and to compare level of engagement, type of accounts and characteristics of the articles published in presumed legitimate (PL) and PP journals. Six hashtags were searched across three social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook and Twitter). Data extraction was performed and journals were classified into PP or PL in a multistep approach using MEDLINE, Beall's list and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). A checklist was created and used for studies not found in the aforementioned recognized databases. A total of 1742 posts were identified, with the majority (94%) found on Instagram. Of the identified journals, 15.6% were PP. Over one-third of articles from PP journals (35.42%) were indexed on PubMed. The majority of presumed legitimate publications were published in dental specialty only journals (56.44%), compared to 24% in the PP group. The majority of accounts were those of healthcare professionals with most publications related to prosthodontics and implantology (26.3%) and restorative and esthetic dentistry (14.4%), in PL and PP groups, respectively. Similar median number of followers/friends and comments were found among the PL and PP groups. Our findings highlight that presumed predatory publications have comparable reach to PL journals on social media risking the sharing of unreliable and misleading information. Researchers, students and social media users should be capable of identifying presumed predatory dental publications. Means of moderating the influence of these publications should be explored.