Open Access Physical Therapy Journals: Do Predatory Journals Publish Lower-Quality Randomized Controlled Trials?

Area of Science:

• Physical Therapy
• Medical Research Ethics
• Scholarly Publishing

Background:

• Predatory journals pose a threat to scientific integrity by publishing research without rigorous peer review.
• Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in physical therapy is crucial for evidence-based practice.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the quality of physical therapy randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in predatory versus non-predatory journals.
• To evaluate differences in peer review duration between these journal types.

Main Methods:

• RCTs published between 2014-2017 were extracted from 18 journals (9 predatory, 9 non-predatory/DOAJ).
• The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale assessed trial quality.
• Peer review duration, PubMed indexing, and journal origin were recorded.

Main Results:

• RCTs in non-predatory journals had significantly higher mean PEDro scores (5.8±1.7) than those in predatory journals (4.5±1.5).
• Peer review duration was substantially longer in non-predatory journals (145.2±92.9 days) compared to predatory journals (45.4±38.8 days).
• PubMed indexing and non-predatory status were independently associated with higher trial quality.

Conclusions:

• Potentially predatory journals publish lower-quality physical therapy RCTs.
• These journals also exhibit significantly shorter peer review processes compared to reputable, non-predatory journals.