Do orthopaedics surgeons have any idea what predatory journals are?:(cross-sectional study)

Abstract

Objective: The legitimacy of published research confronts a real challenge posed by predatory journals. These journals not only distribute inadequately written articles but also undermine the prospects of acknowledgment and citation for high-quality content. It is essential, nevertheless, to differentiate between predatory journals and reputable open-access ones. A worldwide anti-predatory movement seeks to enhance awareness about such journals. Hence, our objective was to assess the awareness, attitudes, and practices of Sudanese orthopedic surgeons concerning both predatory and open-access publishing.

Methods: Conducted between January and April 2023, this cross-sectional electronic survey involved Sudanese orthopedic surgeons. The survey, comprising five domains to gauge knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to predatory and open-access publishing, was shared via the Sudanese Orthopedic Surgeons Association email distribution list among the 561 registered surgeons. The targeted sample size was 286. Categorical variables were reported using frequencies, while continuous variables were presented as medians and interquartile ranges. Nonparametric tests and ordinal regression were employed for inferential statistics.

Results: Of the 561 surgeons, 104 participants completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 18.5 %. Approximately 49% exhibited poor knowledge, with 56% unfamiliar with the term "predatory journals," and 74% unaware of Beall's list. Overall attitudes toward publication in open-access and predatory journals were neutral for 60% of participants, and only 26% demonstrated good overall publication practices. Higher knowledge scores positively correlated with attitude and practice scores. Ordinal regression analysis identified variables such as employment in university hospitals, higher academic rank, publication experience, and working in well-resourced countries as factors increasing the likelihood of higher knowledge, attitude, and practice scores.

Conclusion: The majority of the study participants reported very low knowledge of predatory journals and their possible detrimental consequences on the integrity and quality of scientific publications. Therefore, educational efforts on the negative impact of predatory publication practices in orthopedics are needed.

Keywords: Attitude; Knowledge; Open-access journals; Orthopedics; Practice; Predatory journals.

Figure (1)

Shows the measurement model and factor loadings for each questionnaire construct. Yellow rectangular shapes represent questions (Factors, Items), while blue circular shapes represent constructs (Latent variables, Domains). Large arrows between circles represent the relationship between latent variables, while small arrows between rectangles and circles represent factor loadings in latent variables.

Figure (2)

Bar chart showing the frequencies of respondents' answers to the knowledge questions (N = 104).

Figure (3)

Bar chart showing the frequencies of respondents' answers to the general publication attitude questions (N = 104).

Figure (4)

Bar chart showing the frequencies of respondents' answers to the attitude toward publication in open access journal questions (N = 104).

Figure (5)

Bar chart showing the frequencies of respondents' answers to questions about the attitude toward publication in predatory journals (N = 104).

Figure (6)

Bar chart showing the frequencies of respondents' answers to the practice in publication questions (N = 104).