EVIDENCE-BASED PERIODONTOLOGY: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION

• The exact prevalence of retractions in periodontology remains uncertain; a preliminary PubMed search suggests a retraction rate of approximately 0.11%, while many leading journals lack explicit guidelines for issuing retraction notices. • The expansion of the open-access publishing model has created opportunities for exploitation; predatory journals exist in periodontal research and commonly display well-recognized characteristic features. • The literature addressing conflicts of interest and funding disclosures in periodontology is limited. This narrative review examines key ethical challenges in periodontal research, focusing on retractions, predatory publishing, conflicts of interest (COI), funding-related bias, and additional concerns such as patient consent, data sharing, and authorship integrity. We synthesised evidence from existing literature, including meta-research across biomedical and dental fields, and conducted exploratory searches to contextualise ethical concerns within periodontology. Targeted bibliometric assessments using PubMed quantified retractions and systematic reviews; and predatory journals were screened using the original and updated Beall’s list. Methodological details are provided in Supplementary Materials 1 and 2. Periodontology has experienced steady growth in publication volume, accompanied by increasing numbers of systematic reviews and an overall rise in retractions, particularly after 2020. Many recent retractions were linked to suspected paper-mill activity or systemic manipulation, revealing vulnerabilities in editorial oversight. Predatory publishing poses additional risks, with several questionable dental journals exhibiting misleading indexing claims, poor peer review, or unstable online presence. Conflict of interest and funding disclosures remain inconsistent, and sponsorship bias may affect reported outcomes. Further ethical concerns involve inadequate consent reporting, low data-sharing rates, and problematic authorship practices. Ethical vulnerabilities in periodontal research—ranging from unreliable publications to limited transparency in COI, funding, and data sharing—pose risks to evidence-based practice. Strengthening research integrity requires clearer retraction policies, more robust editorial safeguards, enhanced ethical education, and systemic measures to detect and prevent predatory and fraudulent practices. These steps are essential to ensure the quality, reliability, and clinical applicability of periodontal evidence.