Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The rise in predatory journals poses a significant risk to academic integrity, particularly for inexperienced researchers. This research aimed to evaluate awareness, knowledge, and perceptions of predatory journals in the western region of Saudi Arabia. This cross-sectional survey was conducted between January and May 2024 using an anonymous, self-administered, online validated questionnaire distributed to medical students in their clinical years in the western region of Saudi Arabia. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and associations between sociodemographic factors and knowledge of predatory journals were assessed utilizing chi-square and Fisher exact tests; all analyses were unadjusted. A total of 405 medical students participated in the study. Most participants (72.6%) regularly participated in faculty-mentored research activities, and over half (51.9%) published research in scientific journals. The primary reason for conducting this research was institution/program requirements (84.7%). Participation in faculty-mentored research and prior publication in scientific journals were strongly associated with predatory journal awareness ( P < .001). Important factors for choosing a journal for publication were indexing in the major database (54.8%), rapid publication (48.9%), and a high journal impact factor (36.0%). Most participants (62.2%) had heard the term “predatory journal,” with common sources being friends/colleagues (34.1%); only 54.3% reported knowing how to identify potentially predatory journals. Medical students in the western region of Saudi Arabia demonstrated moderate awareness of predatory journals, with gaps in knowledge regarding identifying characteristics. These findings underscore the need for targeted educational initiatives, including workshops and mentorship programs, to enhance understanding and promote ethical research practices. Improving awareness of predatory journals is essential for protecting academic integrity and fostering high-quality scientific contributions.
Samargandi et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: