Is there a link between journal quality and evaluation quality in road safety research?

• Data for meta-analyses may be biased by evaluation quality and journal quality. • We explored this in the context of effectiveness of physical road safety measures. • We combined CMF Clearinghouse (1000 + evaluations) and 8 journal ranking lists. • Most rankings showed that the better journal ranking, the better evaluation ranking. • The finding is critical with regards to predatory journals impacts on meta-analyses. Meta-analyses are an important source of road safety evidence. However, their source data may be biased by both evaluation quality and journal quality. This motivated us to explore the link, focusing on the effectiveness of physical road safety measures. We collected and combined two kinds of datasets: evaluation quality of research (seven samples) and journal quality (eight ranking lists). In the end, only the CMF Clearinghouse dataset of more than 1000 evaluations could be used. Despite some inconsistencies, six of eight rankings showed the expected positive relationship: the better journal ranking, the better evaluation ranking (and vice versa). This calls for the attention of authors and readers, as well as meta-analysts, particularly in the context of predatory journals and their potential impacts on the quality of road safety meta-analyses.