Search

Abstract Background This study aimed at investigating the predatory publishing phenomenon in orthodontics by analyzing the content of unsolicited e-mail invitations received within 12 months. Methods All electronic invitations for manuscript submission, review and editorial membership received between 1 October 2021 and 30 September 2022 were collected from an orthodontist’s inbox. The following data were recorded for each e-mail: date, journal title and origin, requested contribution, e-mail language, relevance to the researcher’s discipline, journal characteristics (claimed metrics, editorial services, article types accepted, and publication fees), journal/publisher contact information and online presence. Journal/Publisher legitimacy and publishing standards were evaluated by listing in the Beall’s list of potential predatory journals and publishers, the Predatory Reports of Cabell’s Scholarly Analytics, and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Results A total of 875 e-mail invitations deriving from 256 journals were retrieved within the observation period, with most of them soliciting article submissions. More than 76% of the solicitations originated from journals and publishers included in the blocklists used in the study. Salient features of predatory journals like flattering language, abundant grammatical errors, unclear publication charges and wide variety of article types and topics accepted for publication were confirmed for the examined journals/publishers. Conclusions Nearly 8 out of 10 unsolicited e-mail invitations sent to orthodontists for scholarly contribution may be related to journals suspicious for publishing malpractices and suboptimal standards. Excessive flattering language, grammatical errors, broad range of submissions, and incomplete journal contact information were commonly encountered findings. Researchers in orthodontics should be alert to the unethical policies of illegitimate journals and their harmful consequences on the scientific literature.

Abstract Background The aims of this bibliometric study were to determine author self-citation trends in high-impact orthodontic literature and to investigate possible association between self-citation and publication characteristics. Methods Six orthodontic journals with the highest impact factor as ranked by 2017 Journal Citation Reports were screened for a full publication year (2018) for original research articles, reviews, and case reports. Eligible articles were scrutinized for article and author characteristics and citation metrics. Univariable and multivariable negative binomial regression was used to examine associations between self-citation incidence and publication characteristics. Results Medians for author self-citation rate of the most self-citing authors and self-citations were 3.03% (range 0–50) and 1 (range 0–19), respectively. In the univariable analysis, there was no association between self-citation counts and study type (P = 0.41), article topic (P = 0.61), number of authors (P = 0.62), and rank of authors (P = 0.56). Author origin (P = 0.001), gender (P = 0.001) and journal (P = 0.05) were associated with self-citation counts and in the multivariable analysis only origin and gender remained strong self-citation predictors. Asian authors and females self-cited significantly less often than all other regions and male authors. Conclusions Authors in orthodontics do not self-cite at a frequency that suggests potential citation manipulation. Author origin and gender were the only variables associated with citations counts. More bibliometric research is necessary to draw solid conclusions about author self-citation trends in orthodontic literature.

Abstract Background The aim of the study was to investigate the popularity, content of Invisalign patient testimonials on YouTube, as well as the sentiment of the related comments. Methods Using the term “Invisalign experience,” the top 100 results on YouTube by view count were screened for English spoken patient videos that attracted comments. Video information (time since video upload, sponsorship), engagement metrics (comments, likes, dislikes, subscriptions), and views were collected. Videos were rated for information completeness (ICS), and comments were classified by origin and content. The emotional loading of the comments was measured using automated sentiment analysis. Results The 40 reviewed testimonials scored an average ICS of 3.78 (SD 0.97). ICS, time since upload, and video duration did not appear to significantly influence the number of views, subscriptions, likes, dislikes, and comments. There was a statistically significant difference (P = 0.03) between mean positive (2.01, SD 0.95) and negative sentiment scores (− 1.90, SD 1.14). Commenter’s status and overall comment on video were significantly associated with positive sentiment scores. There was a significant association between sponsorship, commenter’s status, overall comment on video, focus of concern, perceived Invisalign’s disadvantages, and increased negative sentiment scores. Conclusions Engagement of audience and views of the most popular Invisalign patient testimonials were not significantly influenced by completeness of information, video duration, and lifespan. The sentiment of viewers’ comments about Invisalign treatment was significantly more positive and was significantly associated with their status, content, and sponsorship of videos. Orthodontic trends on YouTube need to be cautiously monitored for planning interventions that improve patients’ knowledge about orthodontics.