The Quality of Statistical Reporting and Data Presentation inPredatory Dental Journals Was Lower Than inNon-Predatory Journals

Abstract: Proper peer review and quality of published articles are often regarded as signs of reliablescientific journals. The aim of this study was to compare whether the quality of statistical reportingand data presentation differs among articles published in ‘predatory dental journals’ and in otherdental journals. We evaluated 50 articles published in ‘predatory open access (OA) journals’ and100 clinical trials published in legitimate dental journals between 2019 and 2020. The quality ofstatistical 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) forthe predatory OA journals, 4.8 (1.8) for the legitimate OA journals, and 5.6 (1.8) for the more visibledental journals. The mean values differed significantly (p< 0.001). The quality of statistical reportingof clinical studies published in predatory journals was found to be lower than in open access andhighly 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 andjournals are less likely to be critiqued by peer review.