Given the prominence of artificial intelligence (AI) in academia in recent years, there is interest in appreciating whether AI-driven tools have the ability to differentiate between scholarly and unscholarly (or “predatory”) dentistry journals. In January 2024 and in March 2025, an AI-driven tool (the AJPC System) that claims to be able to distinguish “normal” (i.e., scholarly) from “suspected predatory” (i.e., unscholarly) journals was used to assess top-ranked (first quartile of the SJR) dentistry journals. In 2024, the AJPC System found that 22/57 (39%) were “suspected predatory”, and 16/22 (73%) of those were published by Wiley. A replication of the test in March 2025 revealed a higher percentage of “suspected predatory” journals (25/57; 44%), mostly (15/25; 60%) by Wiley. From 2024 to 2025, seven journals were downgraded from a “normal” to a “suspected predatory” status, while four journals were upgraded from a “suspected predatory” to a “normal” status. The AJPC System does not offer a reason or explanation for either status for any dentistry journal. the author’s knowledge, there are no reliable AI-driven tools, including the AJPC System, that are able to guide dentistry researchers to appreciate whether an indexed or non-indexed dentistry journal is scholarly or unscholarly (“predatory”), but such a tool would benefit the dentistry community.Keywords: Blacklists or watchlists, erroneous criteria, opacity, predatory journal detector, transparency, whitelists or safelists
Jaime A. Teixeira Da Silva (Mon,) studied this question.