Nieminen, P.; Uribe, S.E. The Quality of Statistical Reporting and Data Presentation in Predatory Dental Journals Was Lower Than in Non-Predatory Journals. Entropy 2021, 23, 468. https://doi.org/10.3390/e23040468
The quality of statistical reporting and data presentation in predatory dental journals was lower than in non-predatory journals
|Author:||Nieminen, Pentti1; Uribe, Sergio E.2,3,4|
1Medical Informatics and Data Analysis Research Group, University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland
2Department of Conservative Dentistry and Oral Health, Riga Stradins University, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia
3School of Dentistry, Universidad Austral de Chile, Rudloff, Valdivia 1640, Chile
4Baltic Biomaterials Centre of Excellence, Headquarters at Riga Technical University, LV-1658 Riga, Latvia
|Online Access:||PDF Full Text (PDF, 0.9 MB)|
|Persistent link:|| http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi-fe2021070541115
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute,
|Publish Date:|| 2021-07-05
Proper peer review and quality of published articles are often regarded as signs of reliable scientific journals. The aim of this study was to compare whether the quality of statistical reporting and data presentation differs among articles published in ‘predatory dental journals’ and in other dental journals. We evaluated 50 articles published in ‘predatory open access (OA) journals’ and 100 clinical trials published in legitimate dental journals between 2019 and 2020. The quality of statistical reporting and data presentation of each paper was assessed on a scale from 0 (poor) to 10 (high). The mean (SD) quality score of the statistical reporting and data presentation was 2.5 (1.4) for the predatory OA journals, 4.8 (1.8) for the legitimate OA journals, and 5.6 (1.8) for the more visible dental journals. The mean values differed significantly (p < 0.001). The quality of statistical reporting of clinical studies published in predatory journals was found to be lower than in open access and highly cited journals. This difference in quality is a wake-up call to consume study results critically. Poor statistical reporting indicates wider general lower quality in publications where the authors and journals are less likely to be critiqued by peer review.
|Type of Publication:||
A1 Journal article – refereed
|Field of Science:||
113 Computer and information sciences
S.E.U. acknowledges financial support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the grant agreement No 857287.
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).