Knowledge, practices, and perception of predatory journals among North-African Dental University Hospital Doctors
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22423906 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Abir Mannai (University of Monastir), Islam Khadmi (University of Monastir), Ibtissam Grira (University of Monastir), Mehdi Khemiss (0000-0001-7366-9934, University of Monastir, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Publication date | 2026-03-31 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | BMC Medical Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1472-6920 • E-ISSN: 1472-6920 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-026-08895-4 |
| PMID | 41918092 |
| OpenAlex | W7147269539 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 27 |
INTRODUCTION: Predatory 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 METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Among 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%). CONCLUSION: Although 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.
Dental education · Descriptive statistics · Perception · Publishing · University hospital · Academic integrity and plagiarism · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews · scientometrics and bibliometrics research
| Highly cited | No |
|---|