Comment on “Predatory Publishing Awareness Among Dental Interns in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study” [Response to Letter]

Dear editor

We thank Abdalla, Mohammed, and Kakamad for their thoughtful and constructive commentary on our article, “Predatory Publishing Awareness Among Dental Interns in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.”^1,2 Their engagement highlights the importance of strengthening publishing literacy within health professions education.

We agree that deceptive publishing practices have become increasingly sophisticated. Our study focused on assessing baseline awareness among dental interns rather than evaluating the expanding tactics of predatory journals. The authors’ observations reinforce the need to continually update educational materials as publishing practices evolve.

The commentary raises important points about the limitations and discontinuation of Beall’s List. In our study, familiarity with Beall’s List was included only as one item within the awareness domain, reflecting whether participants had previously encountered discussions related to predatory publishing. It was not presented as an evaluative tool, nor did our study endorse its use.

The strong association observed in our regression analysis represents previous exposure to the topic, rather than advocacy of the list itself. We agree with the authors that structured frameworks such as Think. Check. Submit. provide more reliable guidance for training early-career researchers.

We acknowledge the ongoing discussion around terminology and emerging alternatives such as “non-recommended journals.” The term “predatory publishing” remains widely used in biomedical and educational literature and is familiar to trainees and educators. We therefore employed it for clarity in an instructional context, while recognizing that terminology may continue to evolve.

The commentary appropriately highlights broader influences, such as publication pressures, mentorship, and research culture, that shape researchers’ vulnerability to questionable outlets. These factors were beyond the scope of our cross-sectional study but represent important areas for future research and for strengthening publishing ethics education in dental programs.

We appreciate the authors’ insights and their contribution to advancing dialogue on publishing integrity. Their comments align with our recommendation that structured, curriculum-integrated training on journal evaluation, ethical publishing, and scholarly communication is needed to support early-career researchers.