Category: honesty in scholarly affairs

A failure of peer review

A copy of a copy – or plagiarism taken to the extreme

The journal 'Acta Scientific Pharmaceutical Sciences' is a research journal which describes itself as

"a scientific, multidisciplinary journal with 1.020 Impact factor, that strongly desires to disseminate knowledge in the field of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology"

The journal has been publishing since 2017 – one of a great number of new scientific journals competing for researchers' work. As well as the quite decent impact factor for such a new journal it also claims two other metrics – a 32% acceptance rate and period from acceptance to publication of 20-30 days.

Impact factor

The usual (that is, accepted, canonical) way of measuring impact factors is in terms of the average number of times articles in a journal are cited in other articles. Usually it is calculated over a set period (say within 5 years of publication) and based only on citations in articles in a database of journals that are considered to meet quality criteria. Some journal articles may never get cited, whilst others are cited a great deal, and the impact factor reflects an average for a journal.

However, I am wary of claims of impact factors unless I see how they are derived, as I have seen journals claiming 'impact factors' that are based on a completely different set of criteria – a bit like claiming the room temperature is 300K because the display of a chemical balance indicated '300'. (See 'Publish at speed, recant at leisure'.)

The timescale of review and publication

In the past some journals took months, even years to publish a submitted manuscript. Clearly for an author the quicker the time from submission to publication the better – at least all things being equal. They are not always equal however.

It is usually considered better to publish in a recognised high status journal where work is likely to get more attention from others working in a field, and where the publication brings more prestige to the authors and their institutions. So, an author may well feel that slow publication in a 'good' journal is preferable to quicker publication in a nondescript one.

However, time from acceptance to publication is perhaps not the most useful metric to guide authors. By the time I stepped down from editing the Royal Society of Chemistry's education journal, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, it was often publishing an advanced version of an accepted article on the day I accepted it (and the final version of record within about a week or so). Yet that ignores the time a submission spends in review.

That is the time it takes for an editor to

  • screen the submission (make sure it is within the scope of the journal and includes sufficient detail for a careful evaluation),
  • identify and invite expert reviewers,
  • receive back their reports,
  • consider these and reach a decision
  • ask authors to make any revisions seen necessary
  • receive back a corrected/revised submission
  • decide whether this seems to meet the changes needed
  • and whether the revised revisions also needs to go back to reviewers
  • …

Sometimes this process can be quick – sometimes it may be drawn out with a number of cycles of revision before authors satisfy reviewers/editors and a manuscript is accepted. Expert reviewers who are highly respected in their fields are often very busy and get many request to review.

So, average time from submission to acceptance would seem to be a key metric both because it may help authors avoid journals where editors and reviewers are very slow to turn around work, and because if this period is very short then it may bring into question whether there is rigorous review.

Acceptance rate

In this regard, the journal's claimed acceptance rate, 32% looks healthy. Two thirds of material submitted to the journal is (by deduction) rejected as not suitable for publication. Assuming this figure is accurate, this does suggests that peer review is taken seriously. (One likes to trust in the honesty of others, but sadly there are many predatory journals not above being dishonest, as I have discussed in a range of postings.)

Peer review

The publisher's site certainly suggests that the publisher recognises the importance of careful peer review undertaken by "eminent reviewers", with guidance for reviewers.

"Acta Scientifica believes that, thorough peer review process is a critical factor to yield immense quality literature to be published in the journal."

https://www.actascientific.com/reviewer.php

Among the points made here, potential reviewers are guided that

"The study should possess novelty and should present the results of original research. It is required that the reported results are not published elsewhere."

The benefits of peer review are said to be

  •  "The author receives detailed and constructive feedback from experts in the field.
  •  The process can alert authors to errors or gaps in literature they may have overlooked.
  •  It can assist with making the paper more applicable to the journal readership.
  •  It may enable a discussion (between the author, reviewers, and editor) around a research field or topic.
  •  Readers can be assured that the research they are reading has been verified by subject experts." (https://www.actascientific.com/peerreview.php)

The peer review process is said to assure

  • "Submitted article is original work which has not been previously published nor is under consideration by another journal, in part or whole;
  • The article meets all applicable standards of ethics;
  • The paper is relevant to the journal's aims, scope, and readership;
  • A submitted article presents original research findings;
  • A submitted article offers a comprehensive critical review and evaluation of key literature sources for a given topic; and
  • The article is methodologically and technically sound"(https://www.actascientific.com/peerreview.php)

The publisher offers a flow chart showing the stages of the editorial and review process. The publisher also explains the advantages of the double blind peer review process (the reviewers are not told who wrote the submission, and the author is not told who reviewed their work) they operate in order to ensure "evaluation of work in the manuscripts by peers who have an expertise in the relevant field."

Checking for plagiarism

The flow chart shows that before submission are sent for review there is a screening to ensure that at least 80% of the manuscript is 'unique content' – that is, that material has not just been copied from the author's previous publications – or even someone else's

All of this seems encouraging. The impression is that Acta Scientific are genuine in their aspiration to publish quality work, and to use a rigorous peer review process to ensure this quality. This is despite the reason why I came TO be looking into their processes.

Which came first…

I recently posted in this blog about a short article in the Journal of Chemistry: Education and Research (not to be confused with the journal Chemistry Education Research and Practice) that I found to be incoherent and filled with mistakes.

When I was evaluating that article I came across another article with the same title, by the same author, in Acta Scientific Pharmaceutical Sciences. It soon became clear that these were (this was?) the same short article, published in both journals. Both articles have the same muddled language and the same errors (running words together and the like – for more details see 'Can deforestation stop indigenous groups starving?')

The chronology seems to be:

  • 14th May 2019 – da Silva submits to Acta Scientific Pharmaceutical Sciences
    • 16th May 2019 – da Silva sends the same manuscript to Journal of Chemistry: Education and Research
    20th May 2019 – Journal of Chemistry: Education and Research accepts the article for publication (4 days after submission!)
    28th May 2019 – Journal of Chemistry: Education and Research publishes the article
    7th June 2019 – Acta Scientific Pharmaceutical Sciences publishes paper
    Was da Silva frustrated with not getting his article accepted within two days of first submission? (An acceptance date for Acta Scientific Pharmaceutical Sciences is not given)

    So, the article was submitted first to Acta Scientific Pharmaceutical Sciences, but had already been published in Journal of Chemistry: Education and Research by the time it was published in Acta Scientific Pharmaceutical Sciences. Given that authors are not supposed to publish the same material in several journals, this might raise the interesting question of which journal should require the work to be retracted, and which should allow it to stand.

    A copy of a copy

    However this would be a rather pointless question, as neither of the articles can claim to be original. As I discuss in 'Can deforestation stop indigenous groups starving?', virtually the entire text is simply lifted from three prior, unacknowledged publications written by other authors – odd paragraphs have been taken from parts of more detailed papers on the topic and simply collated (in a somewhat incoherent manner) into da Silva's manuscript. Any reputable journal that spotted this would require retraction because the work is not original but is plagiarised – it is the intellectual property of other scholars.

    Why was this not spotted?

    Although the opening of the article is simply copied word for word from the abstract of a published work (which is likely to be spotted by the tool used to screen to check for 'unique content') the rest of the material (that is, more than the critical 80%) is translated from texts which are in Portuguese.

    When an expert translator produces a new version of a work in a different language, and this is done with permission, the translator is entitled to credit and the translation is considered to be a work (albeit a derivative work) in its own right. Good translations are more than mechanical substitutions, and skillful translators are much appreciated.

    However, here we have works translated, without expertise (the English is full of mistakes), presumably without permission and certainly without attribution to the original authors. The software will not have recognised the translated text as not being 'unique content'.

    However, the process of peer review is supposed to evaluate the quality of the work, and identify areas for improvement. It is difficult to believe anyone who read this very short article carefully (for either journal) could have thought it was making a coherent argument, or that it did not at least need restructuring, clarifications and corrections.

    "We ensure that all the articles published in Acta Scientific undergo integrated peer review by peers and consequent revision by authors when required."

    https://www.actascientific.com/peerreview.php

    So, despite Acta Scientific's efforts to claim careful peer review processes, and what seems a genuine aspiration to ensure article originality and quality through peer review by those with expertise in the field, somehow the journal published the copy-and-paste job that is 'The Chemistry of Indigenous Peoples'.

    Of course, for peer review to work, those asked to review have to take the role seriously.

    "Acta Scientific trusts the genuine peer review process that the reviewers carry out so that it helps us to publish the content with good essence."

    https://www.actascientific.com/reviewer.php

    I would like to believe that Acta Scientific's fine claims about peer review ARE sincere, and perhaps in this case it was just that their trust was betrayed by sloppy reviewers.

    Work cited:
    • da Silva, M. A. l. G. (2019). The Chemistry of Indigenous Peoples. Acta Scientific Phamaceutical Sciences, 3 (7), 20-21.
    • da Silva, M. A. G. (2019) The Chemistry of Indigenous Peoples. Journal of Chemistry: Education Research and Practice, 3 (1), 1-2

    Laboratory safety – not on the face of it

    An invalid research instrument for testing 'safety sign awareness'

    Keith S. Taber

    I was recently invited to write for the 'Journal of Chemistry: Education Research and Practice' (not to be confused with the well-established R.S.C. Journal 'Chemistry Education Research and Practice') which describes itself as "a leading International Journal for the publication of high quality articles". It is not.

    From the Journal Homepage

    I already had reason to suspect this of being a predatory journal (one that entices authors to part with money to publish work without adhering to the usual academic standards and norms). But as I had already reached that judgement before the journal had started publishing, I decided to check out the quality of the published work.

    The current issue, at the time of writing, has five articles, only one of which is educational in nature: 'Chemistry Laboratory Safety Signs Awareness Among Undergraduate Students in Rivers State'.

    Below I describe key aspects of this study, including some points that I would have expected to have been picked-up in peer review, and therefore to have been addressed before the paper could have been published.

    Spoiler alert

    My main observation is that the research instrument used is invalid – I do not think it actually measures what the authors claim it does. (As the article is published with a open-access license1, I am able to reproduce the instrument below so you can see if you agree with me or not.)

    'Chemistry laboratory safety signs awareness among undergraduate students in Rivers State'

    A study about chemistry laboratory safety signs awareness?

    Laboratory safety is very important in chemistry education, and is certainly a suitable topic for research. A range of signs and symbols are used to warn people of different types of potential chemical hazard, so learning about these signs is important for those working in laboratories; and so investigating this aspect of learning is certainly a suitable focus for research.

    Motivating a study

    As part of a published research study authors are expected to set out the rationale for the study – to demonstrate, usually based on existing literature, that there is something of interest to investigate. This can be described as the 'conceptual framework' for the study. This is one of the aspects of a study which is usually tested in peer-review where manuscripts submitted to a journal are sent to other researchers with relevant expertise for evaluation.

    The authors of this study, Ikiroma, Chinda and Bankole, did begin by discussing aspects of laboratory safety, and reporting some previous work around this topic. They cite an earlier study that had been carried out surveying second-year science education students at Lagos State University, Nigeria, and where:

    "The result of the study revealed 100% of the respondents are not aware of the laboratory sign and symbols" 2

    Ikiroma, Chinda & Bankole, 2021: 50

    This would seem a good reason to do follow-up work elsewhere.

    Research questions and hypotheses

    A study should have one or more research questions. These will be quite general in more open-ended 'discovery research' (exploratory enquiry), but need to be more specific in 'confirmatory research' such as experiments and surveys. This study had both specific research questions and null hypotheses

    "Research Questions

    1. What is the percentage awareness level of safety signs among undergraduate Chemistry students?

    2. What is the difference in awareness level of safety signs between undergraduate Chemistry Education students and Chemistry Science students?

    3. To what extent do the awareness levels of safety signs among undergraduate Chemistry students depended on Institutional types?"

    Hypotheses

    1. There is no significant difference in awareness level of safety signs between undergraduate Chemistry Education students and Chemistry Science students

    2. The awareness levels of safety signs among undergraduate Chemistry students are not significantly dependent on Institutional types."

    Ikiroma, Chinda & Bankole, 2021: 50

    These specific questions and hypotheses do not seem to be motivated in the conceptual framework. That is, a reader has not been given any rationale to think that there are reasons to test for differences between these different groups. There may have been good reasons to explore these variables, but authors of research papers are usually expected to share their reasoning with reader. (This is something which one would expect to be spotted in peer review, leading to the editor asking the authors to revise their submission to demonstrate the background behind asking about these specific points.)

    It is not explained quite what 'institutional types' actually refers to. From the way results are discussed later in the paper (p.53), 'Institutional types' seems to be used here simply to mean different universities

    Sampling – how random is random?

    The sample is described as:

    "A total of 60 year three undergraduate students studying Chemistry Education (B.Sc. Ed) and Pure Chemistry (B.Sc.) were randomly drawn from three universities namely; University of Port Harcourt (Uniport), Rivers State University (RSU) and Ignatius Ajuru University of Education (IAUE) with each university contributing 20 students."

    Ikiroma, Chinda & Bankole, 2021: 50

    This study was then effectively a survey where data was collected from a sample of a defined population (third undergraduate students studying chemistry education or pure chemistry in any of three named universities in one geographical area) to draw inferences about the whole population.

    Randomisation is an important process when it is not possible to collect data from the whole population of interest, as it allows statistics to be used to infer from the sample what is likely in the wider population. Ideally, authors should briefly explain how they have randomised (Taber, 2013) so readers can judge if the technique used does really give each member of the population (here one assumes 3rd year chemistry undergraduates in each of the Universities) an equal chance of being sampled. (If the authors are reading this blog, please feel free to respond to this point in the comments below: how did you go about the randomisation?)

    Usually in survey research an indication would be given of the size of the population (as a random sample of 0.1% of a population gives results with larger inherent error than a random sample of 10%). That information does not seem to be provided here.

    Even if the authors did use randomisation, presumably they did not randomise across the combined population of "year three undergraduate students studying Chemistry Education (B.Sc. Ed) and Pure Chemistry (B.Sc.)…from three universities" as they would have been very unlikely to have ended up with equal numbers from the three different institutions. So, probably this means they took (random?) samples from within each of the three sub-populations (which would be sensible to compare between them).

    It later becomes clear that of the 60 sampled students, 30 were chemistry education students and 30 straight chemistry students (p.53) – so again it seems likely that sampling was done separately for the two types of course. There does not seem to be any information on the break down between university and course, so it is possible there were 10 students in each of 6 cells, if each University offered both courses:

    chemistry educationpure chemistrytotal
    University of Port Harcourt??20
    Rivers State University??20
    Ignatius Ajuru University of Education??20
    total303060
    Sample

    Clearly this distribution potentially matters as there could be interactions between these two different variables. Consider for example that perhaps students taking pure chemistry tended to have a higher 'awareness level of safety signs' than students taking chemistry education: then (see the hypothetical example in the table below), if a sample from one university mostly comprised of pure chemistry students, and that from another university mostly of chemistry education students, then this would likely lead to finding differences between institutions in the samples even if there were no such differences between the combined student populations in the two universities. The uneven sampling from the two courses within the universities would bias the comparison between institutions.

    course 1course 2total
    University A20020
    University B101020
    Education C02020
    total303060
    A problematic sample for disentangling factors

    My best guess is the the authors appreciated that, and that all three universities taught both types of course, and the authors sampled 10 students from each course in each of the universities. Perhaps they even did it randomly – but it would be good to know how as I have found that sometimes authors who claim to have made random selections have not used a technique that would strictly support this claim. (And if a sample is not random we can have much less confidence about how it reflects the population sampled.)

    The point is that a reader of a research report should not have to guess. Often researchers (and research students) are so close to their own project that it becomes easy to assume others will know things about the work that have become taken for granted by the research team. This is where a good editor or peer reviewer can point out, and ask for, missing information that is not available to a reader.

    Ethical research?

    Sampling can also be impacted by ethics. It is one thing to select people randomly, but not all people will volunteer to help with research and it is general principle of educational research that participants should offer voluntary informed consent. Where some people agree to participate, and others do not, this may bias results if people's reasons for accepting/declining an invitation are linked to the focus of the research.

    Imagine inviting students to some research to test whether cheating (copying homework, taking reference material into examinations) can be detected by using a lie detector to questions students about their behaviours. Are those who cheat and those who are scrupulously honest likely to volunteer to take part in such research to the same extent, or might we expect most cheats to opt out?

    It is normal practice in educational research to make a brief statement that the research was carried out ethically, e.g., that participants all volunteered freely having had the purpose and nature of the research clearly explained to them. I could not find any such statement in the article, nor any requirement for authors to include this in the journal's author guidelines.

    Lack of face validity

    In research, validity is about measuring what you think you are measuring. In the school laboratory, if we saw a student completing the 'potential difference/V' column of a results table when taking readings with an ammeter we would consider the recorded results were invalid.

    I once gave a detention to a first year (Y7) student who had done something naughty that I forget now, and as we were working on a measurement topic I set her to measure the length of the corridor outside the lab. with a metre rule. Although this was an appropriate instrument, I found that she did not appreciate that in order to get a valid result she had to make sure she moved the metre stick on by the right amount (that is, one metre!) for each counted metre – instead she would move the metre stick by about half its length! Some pupils may resent being in detention and deliberately respond with sloppy work, but in this case it seemed the fault was with the teacher who had overestimated prior knowledge and consequently given an insufficiently detailed explanation of the task!

    In research we have to be confident that an instrument is measuring what it is meant to. This may mean testing and calibrating – using the instrument somewhere where we already have a good measure and checking it gives the expected answers (like checking a clock against the Greenwich pips on the radio) before using it in research to measure an unknown.

    In educational studies we can sometimes spot invalid instruments because they lack face validity – that is, 'on the face of it' an instrument does not seem suitable to do the job. Certainly when 'we' are people with relevant expertise. Consider an instrument to test understanding of trigonometry which consisted of the item: "discuss five factors which contributed to the 'industrial revolution' in eighteenth century Britain". We might suspect this could be used to measure something, but probably not understanding of trigonometry. This would be an invalid test to use for that purpose.

    Awareness level of safety signs?

    The focus of Ikiroma, Chinda & Bankole's study was 'awareness level of safety signs'. Strictly this only seems to mean being aware of such signs3, but I read this to mean that the authors wanted to know if students recognised the meaning of different signs commonly used: whether they were aware what particular signs signified.

    The 'Chemistry Laboratory Test on Safety Signs' instrument:

    The authors report they used:

    A well validated and researchers['] constructed test instrument, titled, Chemistry Laboratory Test on Safety Signs (CLTSS) which had an internal reliability index of 0.94 via Cronbach Alpha was used for data collection in the study. The questions in the test required the students to match a list of 20 chemicals in column A and of nine safety signs accompanied with a short description in column B. This aimed to reduce the wrong response because the students incorrectly considered only the symbol.

    Ikiroma, Chinda & Bankole, 2021: 50
    Validation

    A key question that an editor would expect peer reviewers to consider is whether the instrumentation used in research can provide valid findings. Where this is not clear in a manuscript submited to a journal, the editor should (if not rejecting the paper) ask for this to be addressed in a revision of the manuscript. Validity is clearly critical, and research should not be published it if makes claims based on invalid instrumentation.

    Therefore when reporting research instruments it is usually expected that authors explain how they tested for validity – simply stating something is well-validated does not count! Face validity might be tested by asking carefully identified experts to see if they think the instrument tests what is claimed (so here, perhaps asking university chemistry lecturers – "do you think these questions are suitable for elciiting undergraduate students' awareness levels of safety signs?").

    If an instrument passed this initial test, more detailed work would be undertaken. Here perhaps a small sample of students from a closely related poopulation to that being studied (pehaps second year chemistry students in the same universities; or third year chemistry students from another university) would be asked to complete the instrument using a 'think aloud' protocol where they explain their thinking as they answer the questions – or would be interviewed about their awareness of safety signs as well as comepleting the instrument to triangulate reponses to the instrument against interview responses.

    Cronbach's alpha measures the internal consistency of an scale (Taber, 2018), but offers no assurance of validity. (If a good set of items meant to test enjoyment of school science were used instead to measure belief in ghosts the set of items would still show the same high level of internal consistency despite being used for a totally invalid purpose.)

    Chemistry Laboratory Test on Safety Signs (Ikiroma, Chinda & Bankole, 2021: 51)

    So, what the students had to do was match a chemical (name) with the appropriate hazard sign.What was being tested was knowledge of the hazards associated with laboratory chemicals (an important enough topic, but not what was promised).

    Had the signs not been labelled, then the items would have required BOTH knowing about the hazards of specific chemicals AND knowing which sign was used for the associated hazards. However, Ikiroma, Chinda & Bankole had actually looked "to reduce the wrong response because the students incorrectly considered only the symbol" (emphasis added). That is, they had built into the test instrument a means to ensure it did not test awareness of 'safety signs' (what they were supposedly interested in) and only measured awareness of the hazards associated with particular substances.

    What Ikiroma, Chinda & Bankolehad tested was potentially useful and interesting – but it was not what they claimed. The paper title, the research questions, and the hypotheses (and consequently their statements of findings) were all misleading in that regard. One would have expected the editor and peer reviewers should have noticed that and required corrections before publication was considered.

    Quality assurance?

    The journal's website claims that "Journal of Chemistry: Education Research and Practice is an international peer reviewed journal…" Peer review involves the editor rejecting poor submissions, and ensuring that the quality of what is published by arranging that experts in the field scrutinise submissions to ensure they meet quality standards. Peer reviewers are chosen for expertise related to the specific topic of the specific submission. In particular, reviewers will ask for changes where these seem to be needed, and the editor of a journal decides to publish only when she is satisfied sufficient changes have been made in response to review reports.

    Publishing poor quality work, especially work with glaring issues, reflects badly on the authors, the journal, and the editor.4

    The journal accepted the paper about 9 days after submision

    In this case the editor – Professor Nour Shafik Emam El-Gendy of the Environmental Sciences & Nanobiotechnology Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute in Egypt – appears to have taken just over a week to

    • arrange peer review,
    • receive and consider the referee reports, and
    • report back to the authors asking them for any changes she felt were needed, and (once she received any revisions that may have been requested) then
    • decide the paper was ready for publication in this supposed 'leading international journal'.

    That could be seen as impressive, but actually seems incredible.

    Peer review is not just about sorting good work from bad, it is also about supporting authors by showing them where their work needs to be improved before it is put on public display. Peer review is as much about improving work as selecting.

    I do not know if Ikiroma, Chinda & Bankole were expected to pay the standard charge for publishing – that is $999 for this journal – but, if so, I do not think they got value for money. Given the level of support they seem to have received from the peer review process, I think they should be entitled to a refund.

    Work cited:
    • Ikiroma, B., Chinda, W., & Bankole, I. S. (2021). Chemistry Laboratory Safety Signs Awareness Among Undergraduate Students in Rivers State. Journal of Chemistry: Education Research and Practice, 5(1), 47-54.
    • Oludipe, O. S., & Etobro, B. A. (2018). Science Education Undergraduate Students' Level of Laboratory Safety Awareness. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 23(4), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.9734/JESBS/2017/37461
    • Taber, K. S. (2013). Non-random thoughts about research. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 359-362. doi: 10.1039/c3rp90009f. [Free access]
    • Taber, K. S. (2014). Ethical considerations of chemistry education research involving "human subjects". Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(2), 109-113. [Free access]
    • Taber, K. S. (2018). The Use of Cronbach's Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273-1296. doi:10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

    Notes:

    1: "All works published by 'Journal of Chemistry: Education Research and Practice' is [sic, are] under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License. This permits anyone to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt the work provided the original work and source is appropriately cited." (https://opastonline.com/journal/journal-of-chemistry-education-research-and-practice/author-guidelines)

    2: This is indeed what these authors claim – by which they seem to mean none of the students tested reaches a score of half-marks. (I infer that from the way they report other results in the same study.) They report that, of 50 respondents,

    "21 (42%) could not identify correctly all [sic, could not identify correctly any of] the eight symbols presented in the survey. 24 (48%) was only able to identify one out of eight symbols presented, and 5 (10%) could identify just two. Thus, it is alarming to discover that *100% of the respondents are not aware of the laboratory signs and symbols"

    Oludipe & Etobro, 2018: 5

    (The asterisk seems to indicate which rows from a result table are being summed to give 100%.)

    3. If we simply wanted to test for awareness of safety signs we might think of displaying some jars of reagents and asking something like "is there any way you would know about which of these chemicals present particular risks?" or "how might we find out about special precautions we should take when working with these reagents?" and see if the respondents pointed out the safety signs printed on the labels.

    4. Journals that attract high volumes of submissions may have a team of editors to share the work. Some journals with several editors acknowledge the specific editor who handles each published study.

    I suspect that some predatory journals appoint editors who do not actually see the submissions (as it is difficult to see how qualified editors would approve some of the nonsense published in some journals), which are instead handled by administrators who may not be experts in the field (and so may not be in a position to judge the expertise of peer reviewers). If this is so, the editor should be described as an 'honorary editor' as misrepresenting a journal as edited by a subject expert is dishonest.

    Can deforestation stop indigenous groups starving?

    One should be careful with translation when plagiarising published texts

    Keith S. Taber


    The mastering of the art of deforestation is what enables the inhabitants of the Amazon not to die of hunger.


    Marcos Aurélio Gomes da Silva, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Brazil

    I have been reading some papers in a journal that I believed, on the basis of its misleading title and website details, was an example of a poor-quality 'predatory' journal. That is, a journal which encourages submissions simply to be able to charge a publication fee, without doing the proper job of editorial scrutiny. I wanted to test this initial evaluation by looking at the quality of some of the work published.

    One of the papers I decided to read, partly because the topic looked of particular interest, was 'The Chemistry of Indigenous Peoples'.

    Image by 139904 from Pixabay 

    It is important to learn and teach about the science of indigenous populations

    Indigenous science is a very important topic for science education. In part this is because of the bias in many textbook accounts of science. There are examples of European scientists being seen as discovers of organisms, processes and so on, that had been long known by indigenous peoples. It is not even that the European's re-discovered them as much as that they were informed by people who were not seen to count as serious epistemic agents. Species were often named after the person who could afford to employ collectors (often paid a pittance) to go and find specimens. This is like a more serious case of the PhD supervisor claiming the student's work as the student worked for them!

    Indigenous cultures often encompass knowledge and technologies that have worked effectively, and sustainable, for millennia but which do not count as proper science because they are not framed in terms of the accepted processes of science (being passed on orally and by example, rather than being reported in Nature or Science). Of course the situation is more nuanced that that – often indigenous cultures do not (need to) make the discriminations between science, technology, myth, ritual, art, and so forth that have allowed 'modern' science to be established as a distinct tradition and set of practices.

    But science education that ignores indigenous contributions to formal science and seems to dismiss cultural traditions and ecological knowledge offers both a distorted account of science's history, and an inherent message about differential cultural worth to children.

    That is a rather brief introduction to a massive topic, but perhaps indicates why I was keen to look at the paper in the so-called 'Journal of Chemistry: Education Research and Practice' on 'The Chemistry of Indigenous Peoples' (da Silva, 2019)

    Sloppy production values

    "The Chemistry of Indigenous Peoples" had moved from submission to acceptance in 4 days, and had been published just over a week later.

    Not a lot of time for a careful peer review process

    This 'opinion article' was barely more than one page (I wondered if perhaps the journal charges authors by the word – but it seems to charge authors $999 per article), and was a mess. For example, consider the two paragraphs reproduced below: the first starts in lower case, and ends with the unexplained 'sentence', "art of dewatering: cassava"; and the second is announced as being about development (well, 'devel- opment' actually) which seems to be considered the opposite of fermentation, but then moves straight to 'deworming' which is said to be needed due to the toxic nature of some plants, and ends up explaining that deforestation is essential for the survival of indigenous people (rather contrary to the widespread view that deforestation is destroying their traditional home and culture).

    The closing three paragraphs of the article left me very confused:

    "In this sense, we  [sic – this is a single authored paper] will examine the example of the cassava root in more detail so that we can then briefly refer to other products and processes. The last section will address some of the political implications of our perspective.

    In Brazil, manioc (Manihot esculenta) is known under different names in several regions. In the south of the country, it is also called "aipim", in central Brazil, "maniva", "manaíba", "uaipi", and in the north, "macaxeira" or "carim".

    In this essay, we intend to show that, to a certain extent, companies,
    a process of invention of the Indian Indians of South America, and
    still are considerable, as businesses, until today, millions of people and institutions benefit in the Western world. We seek to provide information from a few examples regarding chemical practices and biochemical procedures for the transformation of substances that
    are unknown in Europe."

    da Silva, 2019, p.2

    My first reading of that last paragraph made me wonder if this was just the introduction to a much longer essay that had been truncated. But then I suspected it seemed to be meant as a kind of conclusion. If so, the promised brief references to 'other products and processes' seem to have been omitted after the listing of alternative names in the paragraph about manioc (cassava), whilst the 'political implications' seemed to refer to the garbled final paragraph ("…to a certain extent, companies, a process of invention of the Indian Indians of South America, and still are considerable, as businesses…").

    I suspected that the author, based in Brazil, probably did not have English as a first language, perhaps explaining the odd phrasing and incoherent prose. But this paper is published in a (supposed) research journal which should mean that the submission was read by an editor, and then evaluated by peer reviewers, and only published once the editor was convinced it met quality standards. Instead it is a short, garbled, and in places incoherent, essay.

    Plagiarism?

    But there is worse.

    da Silva's article, with the identifed sources (none of which are acknowledged) highlighted. (The paper is published with a licence that allows reproduction.)

    I found a paper in the Portuguese language journal Química Nova called 'A química dos povos indígenas da América do Sul (The chemistry of indigenous people of Southamerica)' (Soentgen &  Hilbert, 2016).  This seems to be on a very similar topic to the short article I had been trying to make sense of – but it is a much more extensive paper. The abstract is in English, and seems to be the same as the opening of da Silva's 2019 paper (see the Table below).

    That is plagiarism – intellectual theft. Da Silva does not even cite the 2016 paper as a source.

    I do not read Portuguese, and I know that Google Translate is unlikely to capture the nuances of a scholarly paper. But it is a pretty good tool for getting a basic idea of what a text is about. The start of the 2016 paper seemed quite similar to the close of da Silva's 2019 article, except for the final sentence – which seems very similar to a sentence found elsewhere in the 'New Chemistry' article.

    This same paper seemed to be the source of the odd claims about "deworming" and the desirability of deforestation in da Silva's 2019 piece. The reference to the "opposite process" (there, poisoning) makes sense in the context of the 2016 paper, as there it follows from a discussion of the use of curare in modern medicine – something borrowed from the indigenous peoples of the Amazon.

    In da Silva's article the 'opposite process' becomes 'development', and this now follows a discussion of fermentation- which makes little sense. The substitution of 'deworming' and 'deforestation' as alternatives for 'poisoning' ('desenvenenamento') convert the original text into something quite surreal.

    So, in the same short passage:

    • desenvenenamento (poisoning) becomes development (desenvolvimento)
    • desenvenenamento (poisoning) becomes deworming (vermifugação – or deparasitamento)
    • desenvenenamento (poisoning) becomes deforestation (desmatamento)

    I also spotted other 'similarities' between passages in da Silva's 2019 article and the earlier publication (see the figure above and table below). However, it did not seem that da Silva had copied all of his article from Soentgena and Hilbert.

    Rather I found another publication by Pinto (possibly from 2008) which seemed to be the source of other parts of da Silva's 2019 paper. This article is published on the web, but does not seem to be a formal publication (in an academic journal or similar outlet), but rather material prepared to support a taught course. However, I found the same text incorporated in a later extensive journal review article co-written by Pinto (Almeida, Martinez & Pinto, 2017).

    This still left a section of da Silva's 2019 paper which did not seem to orignate in these two sources. I found a third Portuguese language source (Cardoso, Lobo-santos, Coelho, Ayres & Martins, 2017) which seemed to have been plagiarised as the basis of this remaining section of the article.

    As this point I had found three published sources, predating da Silva's 2019 work, which – when allowing for some variation in translation into English – seemed to be the basis of effectively the whole of da Silva's article (see the table and figure).

    Actually, I also found another publication which was even closer to, indeed virtually identical to, da Silva's article in the Journal of Chemistry: Education Research and Practice. It seems that not content with submitting the plagiarised material as an 'opinion article' there, da Silva had also sent the same text as a 'short communication' to a completely different journal.

    (Read 'A failure of peer review: A copy of a copy – or plagiarism taken to the extreme')

    Incredible coincidence? Sloppy cheating? Or a failed attempt to scam the scammers?

    Although da Silva cited six references in his paper, these did not include Cardoso et al. (2017), Pinto (2008)/Almeida et al. (2017) or Soentgena & Hilbert (2016). Of course there is a theoretical possibility that the similarities I found were coincidences, and the odd errors were not translation issues but just mistakes by da Silva. (Mistakes that no one at the journal seems to have spotted.) It would be a very unlikely possibility. So unlikely that such an explanation seems 'beyond belief'.

    It seems that little, if anything, of da Silva's text was his own, and that his attempt to publish an article based on cutting sections from other people's work and compiling them (without any apparent logical ordering) into a new peice might have fared better if he too had taken advantage of Google Translate (which had done a pretty good job of helping me identify the Portuguese sources which da Silva seemed to have been 'borrowed' for his English language article). In cutting and pasting odd paragraphs from different sources da Silva had lost the coherence of the original works leading to odd juxtapositions and strangely incomplete sections of text. None of this seems to have been noticed by the journal editor or peer reviewers.

    Or, perhaps, I am doing da Silva an injustice.

    Perhaps he too was suspicious of the quality standards at this journal, and did a quick 'cut and paste' article, introducing some obvious sloppy errors (surely translating the same word,'desenvenenamento', incorrectly in three different ways in the same paragraph was meant as some kind of clue), just to see how rigorous the editing, peer review and production standards are?

    Given that the article was accepted and published in less than a fortnight, perhaps the plan backfired and poor da Silva found he had a rather unfortunate publication to his name before he had a chance to withdraw the paper. Unfortunate? If only because this level of plagiarism would surely be a sacking offence in most academic institutions.

    Previously published materialEnglish translation (Google Translate)The Chemistry of Indigenous Peoples (2019)
    Marcos Aurélio Gomes da Silva
    The contribution of non-European cultures to science and technology, primarily to chemistry, has gained very little attentions until now.[Original was in English]The contribution of non-European cultures to science and technology, primarily to chemistry, has gained very little attentions until now.
    Especially the high technological intelligence and inventiveness of South American native populations shall be put into a different light by our contribution.Especially, the high technological intelligence and inventiveness of South American native populations shall be put into a different light by our contribution.
    The purpose of this essay is to show that mainly in the area of chemical practices the indigenous competence was considerable and has led to inventions profitable nowadays to millions of people in the western world and especially to the pharmacy corporations.The purpose of this study was to show that mainly in the area of chemical practices; the indigenous competence was considerable and has led to inventions profitable nowadays to millions of people in the western world and especially to the pharmacy corporations.
    We would like to illustrate this assumption by giving some examples of chemical practices of transformation of substances, mainly those unknown in the Old World.We would like to illustrate this assumption by giving some examples of chemical practices of transformation of substances, mainly those unknown in the old world.
    The indigenous capacity to gain and to transform substances shall be shown here by the manufacture of poisons, such as curare or the extraction of toxic substances of plants, like during the fabrication of manioc flower.The indigenous capacity to gain and to transform substances shall be shown here by the manufacture of poisons, such as curare or the extraction of toxic substances of plants, like during the fabrication of manioc flower.
    We shall mention as well other processes of multi-stage transformations and the discovery and the use of highly effective natural substances by Amazonian native populations, such as, for example, rubber, ichthyotoxic substances or psychoactive drugs.
    		We shall mention as well other processes of multi-stage transformations and the discovery and the use of highly effective natural substances by Amazonian native populations, such as, for example, rubber, ichthyotoxic substances or psychoactive drugs.
    Soentgena & Hilbert, 2016: 1141
    A partir disso, os povos indígenas da América do Sul não parecem ter contribuído para a química e a tecnologia moderna.From this, the indigenous peoples of South America do not seem to have contributed to modern chemistry and technology.The indigenous peoples of South America do not seem to have contributed to modern chemistry and technology.
    Em contraponto, existem algumas referências e observações feitas por cronistas e viajantes do período colonial a respeito da transformação, manipulação e uso de substâncias que exigem certo conhecimento químico como,6 por exemplo: as bebidas fermentadas, os corantes (pau-brasil, urucum), e os venenos (curare e timbó).In contrast, there are some references and observations made by chroniclers and travelers from the colonial period about the transformation, manipulation and use of substances that require certain chemical knowledge,6 for example: fermented beverages, dyes (pau-brasil, annatto), and poisons (curare and timbó).
    		In contrast, there are some references and observations made by chroniclers and travelers from the colonial period regarding the transformation, manipulation and use of substances that require certain chemical knowledge, such as fermented beverages, dyes (pigeon peas, Urucum), and the poisons (Curare and Timbó).
    Mesmo assim, estas populações acabam sendo identificadas como "selvagens primitivos" que ainda necessitam de amparo da civilização moderna para que possam desenvolver-se.Even so, these populations end up being identified as "primitive savages" who still need the support of modern civilization so that they can develop.Even so, these populations end up being identified as "primitive savages" who still need the support of modern civilization in order for them to develop.
    (Soentgena & Hilbert, 2016: 1141)
    A pintura corporal dos índios brasileiros foi uma das primeiras coisas que chamou a atenção do colonizador português.The body painting of Brazilian Indians was one of the first things that caught the attention of the Portuguese colonizer.  Body painting of the Brazilian Indians was one of the first things that caught the attention of the Portuguese colonizer.  
    Pero Vaz de Caminha, em sua famosa carta ao rei D.
    Manoel I, já falava de uns "pequenos ouriços que os índios traziam nas mãos e da nudeza colorida das índias.    		Pero Vaz de Caminha, in his famous letter to King D. Manoel I, already spoke of "small hedgehogs that the Indians carried in their hands and the colorful nudity of the Indians.Pero Vaz de Caminha, in his famous letter to King D. Manoel I, already talked about little hedgehogs that the Indians carried in their hands.
    Traziam alguns deles ouriços verdes, de árvores, que na cor, quase queriam parecer de castanheiros; apenas que eram mais e mais pequenos.They brought some of them green hedgehogs, from trees, which in color, almost they wanted to look like chestnut trees; only that they were smaller and smaller.They brought some of them green hedgehogs, trees, who in color almost wanted to appear of chestnut trees; just that they were more and more small.
    E os mesmos eram cheios de grãos vermelhos, pequenos, que, esmagados entre os dedos, faziam tintura muito vermelha, da que eles andavam tintos; e quando se mais molhavam mais vermelhos ficavam"And they were full of small, red grains, which, crushed between the fingers, made a very red tincture, from which they were red; and when they got more wet the redder they turned"And the same were filled with red, small [sic], which, crushed between the fingers, made very red dye from the [sic] that they walked red [sic]; and when the more they wet the more red they stayed.
    (Pinto, 2008: pp1.1-2; also Almeida, Martinez & Pinto, 2017)
    Os índios do Alto Xingú pintam a pele do corpo com desenhos de animais, pássaros e peixes.The Indians of Alto Xingu paint the skin of their bodies with drawings of animals, birds and fish.The Indians of Alto Xingú paint thebody [sic] skin with animal drawings, birds and fish.
     Estes desenhos, além de servirem para identificar o grupo social ao qual pertencem, são uma
    maneira de uní-los aos espíritos, aos quais creditam sua felicidade.    		These drawings, in addition to serving to identify the social group to which they belong, are a way to unite them with the spirits, to whom they credit their happiness.These drawings besides serving to identify the social group at thewhich [sic] they belong, are a way of unite them with the spirits, to whom they credit their happiness.
    A tinta usada por esses índios é preparada com sementes de urucu, que se colhe nos meses de maio e junho.The ink used by these Indians is prepared with annatto seeds, which are harvested in May and June.The ink used by these Indians is prepared with urucu seeds , which is collected in the monthsof [sic] May and June.
    As sementes são raladas em peneiras finas e fervidas em água para formar uma pasta.The seeds are grated into fine sieves and boiled in water to form a paste.The seeds are grated in fine [sic] and boiledwater [sic] to form a paste.
    Com esta pasta são feitas bolas que são envolvidas em folhas, e guardadas durante todo o ano para as
    cerimônias de tatuagem.    		This paste is used to make balls that are wrapped in sheets, and kept throughout the year for the
    tattoo ceremonies.    		With this paste balls are made which, involved in sheets, are stored throughout the year for the tattoo ceremonies.
    A tinta extraída do urucu também é usada para tingir os cabelos e na confecção de máscaras faciais.The dye extracted from the annatto is also used to dye hair and make facial masks.The ink extracted from Urucu is also used dyeing hair and making tion [sic] of facial masks.
    (Pinto, 2008: p.4; also Almeida, Martinez & Pinto, 2017)
    O urucu é usado modernamente para colorir manteiga, margarina, queijos, doces e pescado defumado, e o seu corante principal – a bixina – em filtros solares.  
    		Annatto is used in modern times to color butter, margarine, cheeses, sweets and smoked fish, and its main coloring – bixin – in sunscreens.Urucu is used coloring page [sic] butter, margarine, cheeses, sweets andsmoked [sic] fish, and its colorant main – bixina – in solar filters.
    (Pinto, 2008: p.4; also Almeida, Martinez & Pinto, 2017)
    Assim, foram identificados possíveis conteúdos de Química que poderiam estar relacionados com a preparação do Tarubá, como misturas, separação de misturas e processos de fermentação.  Thus, possible contents of Chemistry were identified that could be related to the preparation of Tarubá, such as mixtures, separation of mixtures and fermentation processes.  it was possible to identify possible contents of Chemistry that could be related to the preparation of Tarubá, such as mixtures, separation of mixtures and fermentation processes.
    O processo de preparação da bebida feita da mandioca ralada, envolve a separação da mistura entre o sólido da massa da mandioca e o líquido do tucupi, feito através do processo de filtração com o tipiti, instrumento tradicional indígena.The process of preparing a drink made from grated cassava involves separating the mixture between the solid of the cassava mass and the liquid from the tucupi, made through the filtration process with tipiti, a traditional indigenous instrument.The process of preparation of the beverage made from grated cassava involves the separation of the mixture between the solid of the cassava mass and the liquid of the tucupi, made through the filtration process with the tipiti, a traditional Indian instrument.
    A massa é peneirada, assada e colocada em repouso por três dias, quando ocorre o processo de fermentação, em que o açúcar, contido na mandioca, é processado pelos microrganismos e transformado em outras substâncias, como álcool e gases.The dough is sifted, baked and put to rest for three days, when the fermentation process takes place, in which the sugar, contained in the cassava, is processed by microorganisms and transformed into other substances, such as alcohol and gases.The dough is sieved, roasted and put to rest for three days, when the fermentation process occurs, in which the sugar contained in cassava is processed by microorganisms and transformed into other substances such as alcohol and gas.
    Após esse período, se adicionam água e açúcar à massa coada, estando a bebida pronta para ser consumida.After this period, water and sugar are added to the strained mass, and the drink is ready to be consumed.After this period, water and sugar are added to the batter, and the beverage is ready to be consumed.
    (Cardoso, Lobo-santos, Coelho, Ayres, Martins, 2017).
    art of dewatering: cassava
    Agora gostaríamos de voltar a atenção para o processo oposto, o desenvenenamento.  Now we would like to turn our attention to the opposite process, the poisoning.  Now we would like to turn our attention to the opposite process, the devel- opment [sic].  
    Ainda que não exija técnicas tão sofisticadas quanto a produção de substâncias, o desenvenenamento é um proce- dimento fundamental para as pessoas que vivem e queiram sobreviver na floresta tropical amazônica, tendo em vista que muitas plantas de lá produzem veneno em virtude de seu metabolismo secundário.Although it does not require such sophisticated techniques as the production of substances, poisoning is a fundamental procedure for people who live and want to survive in the Amazon rainforest, considering that many plants there produce poison due to their secondary metabolism.Although it does not require techniques as sophisticated as the production of substances, the deworming is a fundamental procedure for the people who live and want to survive in the rainforest Amazon, since many plants of there produce poison by virtue of its secondary metabolism.
    Afinal, a forma que muitas espécies de plantas possuem para evitar a mordida de insetos é a produção de recursos químicos defensivos.After all, the way that many plant species have to avoid insect bites is the production of defensive chemical resources.After all, the way that many plant species have to avoid insect bite is the production of defensive chemical resources.
    Quem quer sobreviver na floresta tropical precisa saber como neu- tralizar ou afastar essas substâncias tóxicas produzidas pelas próprias plantas.Anyone who wants to survive in the rainforest needs to know how to neutralize or remove these toxic substances produced by the plants themselves.Whoever wants to survive in the rainforest needs to know how to neutralize or ward off these toxic substances produced by the plants themselves.
    O domínio da arte do desenvenenamento é o que possibilita os habitantes da Amazônia a não morrerem de fome. Mastering the art of poisoning is what makes it possible for the inhabitants of the Amazon not to starve.The mastering of the art of deforestation is what enables the inhabitants of the Amazon not to die of hunger.
    (Soentgena & Hilbert, 2016: 1145)
    Nesse sentido, examinaremos o exemplo da raiz de mandioca de maneira mais detalhada para então, na sequência, fazermos referência sumária a outros produtos e processos.  In this sense, we will examine the cassava root example in more detail and then, in the sequence, make a brief reference to other products and processes.In this sense, we will examine the example of the cassava root in more detail so that we can then briefly refer to other products and processes.  
    A última seção tratará de algumas implicações políticas de nossa perspectiva.
    		The last section will deal with some policy implications from our perspective.The last section will address some of the political implications of our perspective.
    No Brasil, a mandioca (Manihot esculenta) é conhecida sob diversos nomes em diversas regiões.In Brazil, cassava (Manihot esculenta) is known under several names in different regions.In Brazil, manioc (Manihot esculenta) is known under different names in several regions.
    No sul do país, ela também se chama "aipim", no Brasil central, "maniva", "manaíba", "uaipi", e no norte, "macaxeira" ou "carim".In the south of the country, it is also called "casino" [sic], in central Brazil, "maniva", "manaíba", "uaipi", and in the north, "macaxeira" or "carim".In the south of the country, it is also called "aipim", in central Brazil, "maniva", "manaíba", "uaipi", and in the north, "macaxeira" or "carim".
    (Soentgena & Hilbert, 2016: 1145)
    Neste ensaio, pretendemos mostrar que, no que concerne ao conhecimento relativo às práticas químicas, a criatividade e a inteli- gência técnica dos povos indígenas da América do Sul, são compe- tências consideráveis até os dias de hoje.  
    Os povos ameríndios, em especial os da bacia amazônica, desenvolveram práticas que levaram a invenções das quais, até hoje, milhões de pessoas se beneficiam.    		In this essay, we intend to show that, with regard to knowledge related to chemical practices, creativity and technical intelligence of the indigenous peoples of South America are considerable competences to this day.  
    The Amerindian peoples, especially those from the Amazon basin, developed practices that led to inventions from which, to this day, millions of people benefit.    		In this essay, we intend to show that, to a certain extent, companies,
    a process of invention of the Indian Indians of South America, and
    still are considerable, as businesses, until today, millions of people and institutions benefit in the Western world.
    (Soentgena & Hilbert, 2016: 1141)
    Gostaríamos de documentar essas afirmações com alguns exemplos, limitando-nos a apresentar apenas produtos feitos a partir de substâncias que eram inteiramente desconhecidos na Europa.We would like to document these claims with a few examples, limiting ourselves to presenting only products made from substances that were entirely unknown in Europe.We seek to provide information from a few examples regarding chemical practices and biochemical procedures for the transformation of substances that
    are [sic!] unknown in Europe.
    (Soentgena & Hilbert, 2016: 1142)
    Text of da Silva's 2019 article (in its published sequence) is juxtaposed against material that seems to have been used as unacknowledged sources (paragraphs have been broken up to aid comparisons).

    Works cited:
    • Almeida, M. R., Martinez, S. T &  Pinto, A. C.(2017) Química de Produtos Naturais: Plantas que Testemunham Histórias. Revista Virtual de Química, 9 (3), 1117-1153.
    • Cardoso, A.M.C., Lobo-santos, V., Coelho, A.C.S., Ayres, J.L., Martins, M.M.M.(2017) O Processo de preparação da bebida indígena tarubá como tema gerado para o ensino de química. 57th Congresso Brasileiro de Química. http://www.abq.org.br/cbq/2017/trabalhos/6/11577-25032.html
    • da Silva, M. A. G. (2019) The Chemistry of Indigenous Peoples. Journal of Chemistry: Education Research and Practice, 3 (1), pp.1-2
    • Pinto, A. C. (2008) Corantes naturais e culturas indígenas: http://www.luzimarteixeira.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/corantes-curiosidades.pdf
    • Soentgena, J. & Hilbert, K. (2016) A química dos povos indígenas da América do Sul. Química Nova, 39 (9), pp.1141-1150

    Guiding the work of palliative care

    Keith S. Taber

    I recently heard from the journal 'Archives of Palliative Care' who claim to be able to "enhance the quality" of my work. As – to the best of my knowledge – palliative care is an area of medical work seeking to make life as comfortable as possible for the terminally ill, this is not a journal I've tended to read.
    From Editorial Assistant– Archives of Palliative Care Call for paper: community engaged Dear Dr. Taber Keith S I enjoyed your recent paper with the title Secondary students' values and perceptions of science-related careers: responses to vignette-based scenarios. We would like to continue working in this area under your guidance. Would you please tell me whether you have any new manuscripts available in your area of site? Thank you for your time
    I have written back to see how the journal feels I can contribute…as surely Sherline would not have written to me to tell me she had read my work and feels it is relevant to her journal unless that is indeed true?
    Dear Sherline Thank you for your kind message. It was so good to hear that you enjoyed our article 'Secondary students' values and perceptions of science-related careers: responses to vignette-based scenarios'. It was quite a small piece of work arising from a larger collaborative project, but I was rather proud of it. It is always rewarding to hear that someone has found time to engage with the work and has got something useful from it. I was intrigued to learn that 'Archives of Palliative Care' is interested is working in this area under my guidance, as I do not think we would likely have considered the journal an obvious outlet for our work. I am not sure we have anything else worked up for submission at this time, but perhaps if you could tell me what aspects of 'Secondary students' values and perceptions of science-related careers: responses to vignette-based scenarios' you found especially relevant, and how you feel our work can best contribute to 'Archives of Palliative Care' then I could give some serious consideration to whether we might have anything yet to be worked up which it might be suitable. Best wishes

    Keith

      The article Sherline enjoyed does include some comments of young people reflecting on whether they would be comfortable in entering medicine as a career (as one of a number of focal areas of scientific work discussed in the study), but that link seems a little tenuous to think our research fits in a journal on palliative care. But perhaps Sherline will get back to me and enlighten me.

    Update:

    Sherline has indeed got back to me: On 15/07/2021 11:39, Archives of Palliative Care wrote:
    Dear Dr. Taber Keith S, Greetings!! Thank you for your immediate response towards our journal. The knowledge present in your published manuscript is so useful to future researchers . this was the reason we want to publish your manuscript in our journal. Awaiting for your response. Best Regards,
    This response remains at a very general level, indeed the kind of repsonses that Sherline could have made even if she was not an honest person, and had not even read the article ('Secondary students' values and perceptions of science-related careers: responses to vignette-based scenarios') she had claimed to have enjoyed so much. So, I remain unconvinced, but await clarification of how my work is relevant.
    Dear Sherline Thank you for your comments. It is obviously gratifying that you see so much of value in our work, and flattering that you want to publish a manuscript from me in your journal 'on spec' (that is, without even seeing what I might write). I imagine I could write something developing my thoughts further on this topic, but do you really feel that this would fit in your journal? (And would it not be a matter for referees to evaluate the relevance and quality of the work in peer review – or do you include invited papers?) Of course, I would like to contribute if that were viable, if I were to be persuaded that my work was relevant to your readers, but I am busy with other ongoing writing and despite your very kind evaluation of my recent work I would need some convincing that there really is a good fit with Archives of Palliative Care. Best wishes Keith
    Sadly, whilst my initial response to the invitation was that this was an entirely incongruent request as anything I could write would not be relevant to the journal, as I composed this response I started to actually think about how I could devleop something building on the the publsihed work which might exlpore how young people might feel about going to work in palliative care medicine… Perhaps there would be a role for me in enticing submissions for dodgy journals?

    Read about 'Secondary students' values and perceptions of science-related careers: responses to vignette-based scenarios'

    Read about journals and poor academic practice

    Read about more examples of illogical connections between published work and invitations from journals and conferences

    Developing intellectual sophistication – but not in data services

    Keith S. Taber

    Dear Alka

    Thank you for your email on the subject of 'Developing Intellectual Sophistication and Scientific Thinking–The Schemes of William G. Perry and Deanna Kuhn', a topic that is of some considerable interest to me. Indeed, amazingly, I have written on this very topic.

    I understand you are trying to sell me some kind of data services – including 'Web Data Scraping' and 'Healthcare Data Mining' and even 'Medical billing' – which all sounds wonderful, even if I have no idea why I would want to make any use of (let alone pay you for) these services.

    I was pleased to read that you provide "Data Scraping & Data Processing service provider with an immaculate track record of delivering services to clients in USA, Canada, Australia, UK and Europe."

    I assume that 'data scraping' involves using machine algorithms to locate information on the web which can help locate and connect those who have common interests? I imagine that you have used you own "immaculate … services" to identify my article on 'Developing Intellectual Sophistication and Scientific Thinking–The Schemes of William G. Perry and Deanna Kuhn' as a tag line to get my attention and to identify me as someone who might have a need for and budget for buying into your services.

    There is a convention shared among honest users of the internet which is that a subject line should relate to the content of an email – so an email with the subject heading "Developing Intellectual Sophistication and Scientific Thinking–The Schemes of William G. Perry and Deanna Kuhn' would be expected to have something to do with, well, developing intellectual sophistication and scientific thinking and/or the schemes of William G. Perry and Deanna Kuhn. As your email message body has no connection with the subject heading, this suggests that either:
    a) your company is just not very good at extracting and interpreting data from the Internet, or
    b) in common with most emails I get which try to attract my attention with irrelevant subject headers, your services are actually a scam – and that you have simply sent messages to a vast number of email addresses hoping that some of the recipients may actually have some use for such services and be willing to send you money.

    After all, if your organisation had any competence in data processing services, I imagine it would not be targeting a retired academic with services such as 'medical billing' which clearly have absolutely no relevance.

    Yours,

    Keith

    An honest reply

    Shortly after I fired off the reply above, and then posted it here, I received a personal response (and apology) assuring me that the company are genuinely seeking to offer their services and working hard to build up clientele – not out to scam anyone. Had this had been a scam I imagine they would have just ignored my response as the process works by sending out blanket emailing (to as many addresses as possible) and then identifying potential 'marks' (people susceptible to parting with their money) from any responses to focus on. Other responses would just be ignored, as (unlike a genuine business that would be expected to respond to all genuine correspondence) scammers focus their energy on the most likely targets. So I am happy to accept this was just ill-judged, rather than anything underhand.

    [I have noticed that the footer of the original email told me "This email may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. It may not be used by, or its contents copied or disclosed to, persons other than the address(ees)" so it seems I should not have shared it here –  but then sending out unsolicited emails with such claims is another questionable practice that I've commented on before: 'It's a secret conference invitation: pass it on…'.]

    An International Conference on Chemistry (Education and Research)?

    Invitation to be an Honorable speaker, but perhaps at a dishonourable conference?

    Keith S. Taber

    Dear  *****  *****  (Program Coordinator: 'Chemistry Education 2021')

    Thank you for the invitation on behalf of the organising committee, to be the Honorable Speaker at your upcoming 4th International Conference on Chemistry Education and Research, and for sending me the link so I could check out the details of the conference. Thank you, also, for suggesting that I share my thoughts on the conference. As someone who has become quite concerned about academic standards, and, in particular, how new academics find their way in the current chaotic scholarly environment, I am happy to do that.

    Given the excessive number of invitations I receive to write or edit or talk in areas where I clearly have no expertise, it was reassuring to be invited to talk on a conference that, on the face of it at least, is related to my own area of research.

    Despite this I feel I must decline the invitation for a number of reasons.

    A very practical reason is that you have invited me to talk at less than four weeks' notice. When I do present, I take this responsibility rather seriously, and would want to plan and prepare a talk carefully. Whilst it is not impossible to produce something of quality on a short time-scale, I have various existing commitments that would need to be put to one side to concentrate on preparing a talk on such a time-scale. I would need a very good reason to do that – and so would need to feel this was indeed an important place to present.

    In that regard, you tell me this is a "prestigious" conference, but I am not convinced.  This is not just because I feel I am familiar with the prestigious conferences in my area of work, and this is not one of them. This is also based on the evidence available in response to the kinds of questions I advise research students and new researchers to consider when evaluating conferences they might consider committing their time to attending.

    The first point is that this conference seems to be organised by a commercial company, 'Conferenceseries LLC Ltd'. Whilst it is certainly not impossible for a serious and worthwhile conference to be convened by such an organisation, the more prestigious conferences are usually organised by professional societies and learned bodies and research associations in specific fields and disciplines. Your site refers to having "support from 1000 more scientific societies" which sounds at once both impressive, and yet vague. The link you give lists organisations publishing with 'OMICS International' – so is that another name for the same organisation?

    More substantively, you refer to the invitation being from the organising committee. When I taught research methods sessions on presenting research I would recommend that students interrogated the membership lists of scientific or organising committees of conferences they were unsure about. Do they include well-known academics in the field – people who they are confident are leading names in the area and who suggest the conference has sufficient prestige to commit valuable time (and often money) to a meeting? I cannot find the list of the committee on the website. It does not seem to be there, suggesting you do not have a list of top people in the field prepared to be publicly associated with this conference. (If the listing is there and I have missed it, I would appreciate being directed to it.) This is often a sign of a predatory conference (that is one whose primary purpose is making money for its sponsors, not furthering knowledge.)

    This impression is reinforced by details of the conference programme itself.

    For one thing there is some ambiguity about the conference name and theme – something I associate with predatory conferences which are not managed and organised by experts in a field. How is 'Chemistry Education and Research' to be parsed? (n.b. "It is also an opportunity for researchers, chemistry professors, students to present and discuss the most recent advances and challenges on Chemistry Education and Chemistry Research.") The conference details are listed under the subheading 'CHEMISTRY EDUCATION 2021', and the first track is 'Chemistry Education' – but there are 21 other tracks which seem to be about other aspects of the chemical sciences, not education.

    Under the first track, 'Chemistry Education' a number of specific 'sub-tracks' are listed:

    Track 1-1 Developing theories Science and math ability
    Track 1-2 Conduct research Perseverance
    Track 1-3 Attending to data Analytical skills
    Track 1-4 Curiosity Follow through skills
    Track 1-5 Utilizing formulas Perform experiments
    Track 1-6 Process data Observation and decision making
    Track 1-7 Work independently and in groups Technological skills
    Track 1-8 Oral and written communication Remain objective

    I find it very difficult to believe that any experts in chemistry education would have devised that set of convoluted and incoherent themes for conference sessions. It reads more like a list that has been put together by a child asked to undertake an internet search in a subject that they have never studied. Presumably there are 16 items here which have been inadvertently paired-up on no particular basis. Indeed this list seems to appear, with exactly the same flaw, at the website of an American University where it is described as "interests and values … related to Chemistry Education". Surely your organisation has not simply copied and pasted from another website without anyone checking to see that that an already questionable list of features of undergraduate chemistry had lost half of its bullets?

    Major to Career: Chemistry Education (Brigham Young University-Idaho website)

    To return to your association with formal learned societies, I see you list an apparently impressive collection of international societies under the Chemistry Education track: – including the Royal Society of Chemistry (of which I am a Fellow, so I know it is not based in Belgium as your site suggests).

    • European Chemical Sciences
    • Society of Austrian Chemists
    • Royal Society of Chemistry
    • Chemical Society of France
    • Society of German Scientists
    • Association of Greek Chemists
    • Association of Hungarian Chemists
    • Italian Chemical Society
    • Polish Chemical Society
    • Portuguese Society of Chemistry
    • Slovak Chemical Society
    • Swedish Chemical Society
    • Swiss Chemical Society
    • Royal Dutch Chemical Society
    • Norwegian Chemical Society
    • American Chemical Society
    • American Institute of Chemists
    • American Institute of Chemical Engineers
    • Association of Analytical Communities
    • Canadian Society for Chemical Technology
    • Chemical Society of Japan
    • Chemical Research Society of India
    • Japan Association for International Chemical Information
    • Korean Chemical Society
    • The Chemical Society of Thailand

    The implication would seem to be that these societies from around the world have some formal association with the conference and are, if not supporting it as such, at least offering it some credence by allowing their names to be used in this way. But I wonder if that would be correct?

    Your site does not actually specify ANY formal linkage at this point – it just presents a list under the subheading 'Societies'. I therefore assume that although you would like it to be read as a form of accreditation or recommendation of your conference by relevant organisations, it is actually no such thing – rather the list should be read simply as societies whose members you would hope might be interested in your conference. Am I wrong?

    In all then, I am unable to find any indicators here of the "prestigious" conference you suggest. Rather I see an inept and incoherent presentation that does not seem to have been developed or informed by experts in the field. Indeed, there are several signs that commonly indicate the kind of predatory conference that is designed to take money from delegates who are misled into signing up for something that has a veneer of academic respect, or who choose to share in the pretence as they wish to expand their own c.v./résumés with conference presentations (and perhaps cannot get their papers accepted at well-respected conferences) and so enter into the conceit and collude with the organisers to mislead others who may assume from the title that this is indeed a prestigious academic conference.

    You will appreciate that in the circumstances I would not wish to attend your conference as an honorable (or even honoured) speaker, both as in my evaluation this would not be a good use of my time, and as my involvement could be used to mislead other more junior colleagues in the field to assume this was a conference they should consider investing in and attending themselves.

    Best wishes

    Keith

    A special waiver for my paper in 'The Educaitonal Review, USA'

    I have been critical in this blog and elsewhere about the behaviour of predatory journals that use dishonest methods and/or which short-cut proper peer review to attract business. I just received an invitation that at first sight seemed to fit into this category, although on closer inspection  I suspect is actually something more sinister.

    The message was as follows:

    As the screen-shot above shows, the email was from [email protected], but the email was set up to send replies to [email protected]. That seems odd as the email is from a completely different domain name (and from a time zone ahead of the UK, so not the US) – a common indicator of some kind of scam.

    Another predatory journal?

    At face value I was being asked to submit a paper for publication, by November 10th for publication on November 16th, apparently with no peer review and so avoiding all that delay and extra work of modifying a perfectly good paper in order to meet the misjudged and idiosyncratic suggestion of reviewers who clearly have not read the work carefully and do not really understand the topic. Well, sometimes it seems like that – but if we want the credit of publishing in peer reviewed outlets then the cost is peer review.

    [Read about 'Peer review in academic publishing']

    This was not the first invitation of that kind I had received, so 'The Educational Review, USA' (or if you prefer, 'The Educaitonal [sic] Review, USA') seemed to be just another predatory journal, albeit one which was considerate enough to apparently be "dedicated to improve [my] paper's impact".

    The logic of such journals is that academics have to publish to get promoted, sometimes to keep their jobs, and even to get appointed in the first place, so they will surely pay good money for publication. If the focus of the journal is to maximise income, then it needs to publish as many papers as possible, and peer review would just get in the way by slowing things down and even losing some contributions. The logic here is to persuade an author of an easy publication, so they are prepared to pay a substantial fee.

    [Read more about 'Predatory journals']

    Yet here I was being offered a waiver.

    So, was this one of those offers that I would find had finished yesterday and my paper could still be published but at cost, or was the offer only available on my third publication, or was some other condition attached? Well, there was at least one condition attached: I had to submit my paper by replying to [email protected].

    There was still a credible explanation: sometimes when journals are relatively new, or not getting much interest, they may try to increase their impact by inviting and publishing well-established authors (which perhaps increases internet traffic, or reassures other authors that this is a decent journal). So, offering waivers to particular authors at specific times might still be a tactic that is consistent with an overall strategy to maximise income by selling publication.

    I learnt more

    The email had a link to find out more. I went where angels fear to click. This led me to the webpages of 'The Educational Review, USA' published monthly by Hill Publishing Group with the ISSN identification shown in the email.

    I was able to find from the website that normally being published in that journal would lead to a fee (f0r someone in a high income country) of $400 for a paper up to 15 pages, with a further charge of $50 for each additional page. Given my verbose nature, the waiver being offered would save me many hundreds of US dollars. If I had something ready to publish, and was not sure where to send it, or was worried it might be too weak to survive peer review, then this was looking like a good option.

    A waiver on peer review?

    However, I was also able to find on the website details of the peer review process. After initial screening,

    an Associate Editor with appropriate expertise in the subject area or study design… is responsible for identifying at least 2 external peer reviewers with expertise in the topic or specialty [sic, speciality] of the paper. The peer review process may require 2 to 4 weeks before the decision is reached…
    After the authors submit their revision, the manuscript undergoes another peer-review, or it will be sent to the Editor-in-Chief for a final decision, if appropriate.

    This did not sound so different to a serious journal, one that actually sought to only publish work of reasonable quality.

    So perhaps by avoiding the on-line submission and replying directly to [email protected] I not only got a waiver on the fee, but avoided peer review altogether. Sometimes even decent journals publish invited contributions identified as such without full peer review. This would normally be an article from an especially distinguished scholar. Obviously [sic] my status as a giant in the field (I was being enticed to think) meant I was being asked to make an invited contribution that would not need peer review.

    Some kind of scam?

    But I am fairly sure this is actually some kind of scam, although I've not yet worked out how this is meant to work to the scammer's advantage – unless after I submit my paper I twill hen get told there will be a fee after all. Apart form the different domain name of the actual sender, I also noticed a redirect on the link to find out more.

    The embedded link was to http://i7q.cn/5LFrGY – a form of address which both shortens the full URL, and in doing so also hides any domain information. Although it did take me to the Hill Publishing Company (where there does indeed seem to be a Jim Morrison operating, spoiling my illusion that the scammer worked alongside Janis and Jimi and Sandy, and maybe even Elvis), only after being redirected from a page telling me

    出错啦！！ 您访问的内容不存在或被安全软件禁止了…

    which Google Scholar kindly suggested might mean

    Something went wrong! ! The content you are visiting does not exist or is banned by security software…

    Another clue is that although replying to education@hillpublisher.com seems to be sending a message to the Hill Publishing Group, the journal's actual email address is edu@hillpublisher.com. Now it is certainly possible for organisations to have multiple email addresses assigned to the same department (e.g., journal), but a websearch suggests education@hillpublisher.com is not used publicly anywhere – although, intriguingly the 'The Educational Review, USA' seems to have previously used the email address education@hillpublishing.org.

    A definite scam?

    So this looks like a definite scam. Even quite unsophisticated schemes of this kind can be effective as if enough emails addresses are targeted, then even a very tiny response rate may be productive. But would serious scholars really believe that they might be able to get their work published in a research journal without peer review, and in less than a week after submission? Sadly there are enough journals out there which seem to have little concern for academic standards and are just about extracting money from authors by making such offers that this approach could have been seen as quite convincing.

    The state of academic publishing has become so degraded that it has become difficult to distinguish a genuine invitation to pay to publish without regard to quality standards, from actual criminal activity!

     

     

     

     

    The chemistry curriculum, mental health, and self-regulation

    Keith S. Taber

    Dear [Assistant Editor]

    Thank you for your message about the special Issue entitled "Mental Health Intervention and Self-Regulation in Childhood and Adolescents", to be published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

    I am honoured, of course, that you think that, based on my expertise in this field, I could make an excellent contribution.

    I was, however, rather unsure on what grounds that you considered I have expertise in "the field" – assuming the field you refer to here is one of Mental Health, Self-Regulation, Environmental Research, or Public Health.

    Whilst I am very happy to be contacted in relation to the expertise I do actually have, the lack of any obvious basis for your evaluation of my expertise in relation to this particular special issue theme made me suspect that your message is really just direct marketing for your business rather than a genuine attempt to reach out to a scholar engaged in relevant work. I have been subjected to my fair share of shoddy approaches of that kind (https://science-education-research.com/academic-standards/journals-and-poor-academic-practice/).  

    So, I have done a search to see if I could find the earlier message that you refer to. I find that in your previous message you had explained that you ("we", so I assume you and Profs. Pichardo Martínez and Romero López) thought that I could make an excellent contribution based on my expertise and my paper "Conceptual confusion in the chemistry curriculum: exemplifying the problematic nature of representing chemical concepts as target knowledge", published in 'Foundations of Chemistry'.

     I would like to think that you were really impressed with 'Conceptual confusion in the chemistry curriculum: exemplifying the problematic nature of representing chemical concepts as target knowledge' and could see some obvious link between this work and the topic of how self-regulation can become a fundamental element that underlies much of the behaviour, both adapted and maladaptive, which develops during childhood and adolescence. Sadly, I am not seeing the connection.

    Perhaps this is a failure of my imagination, in which case I would be very happy to hear from you, or from one of Prof. Pichardo Martínez or Prof. Romero López, about how you see my expertise as potentially offering insight into the special issue.

    If I do not hear back from you with a feasible explanation, then I will simply conclude your messages are dishonest and that you see no more connection between my paper and your journal issue than I do, and this is yet another example of a journal that does not adhere to normal academic standards of conduct (presenting itself as if a serious scholarly endeavour whilst actually treating academic publishing as no more than selling a commodity).

    I look forward to hearing what you found so interesting and pertinent about "Conceptual confusion in the chemistry curriculum: exemplifying the problematic nature of representing chemical concepts as target knowledge". I would be very pleased to find my cynicism is misplaced and that your approach was truthful: that you have indeed studied my paper and found something of genuine interest in my analysis of the presentation of chemistry concepts in the English school curriculum that you feel suggests I am in a position to make an original contribution about the influence of self-regulation on the personal, social, and academic development of children and adolescents. I look forward to your reflections on my paper.  

    Best wishes

    Keith

                            On 22/10/2020 12:10, [Assistant Editor] wrote:  

    Dear Dr. Taber,

We contacted you on 10th of August, regarding a Special Issue entitled "Mental Health Intervention and Self-Regulation in Childhood and Adolescents", to be published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (ISSN 1660-4601, IF 2.849). Prof. Dr. M. Carmen Pichardo Martínez and Prof. Dr. Miriam Romero-López are serving as Guest Editors for this issue. Based on your expertise in this field, we think you could make an excellent contribution.

The main objective of this Special Issue is to explore how self-regulation can become a fundamental element that underlies much of the behavior, both adapted and maladaptive, which develops during childhood and adolescence. In general, this Issue aims to collect original contributions that work on issues related to the influence of self-regulation on the personal, social, and academic development of children and adolescents.

...


We look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

...
Assistant Editor

          On 10/08/2020 11:02, [Assistant Editor] wrote:  

    Dear Dr. Taber,

The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (ISSN 1660-4601, IF 2.849) is currently running a Special Issue entitled "Mental Health Intervention and Self-Regulation in Childhood and Adolescents". Prof. Dr. M. Carmen Pichardo Martínez and Prof. Dr. Miriam Romero-López are serving as Guest Editors for this issue. We think you could make an excellent contribution based on your expertise and your following paper:

Conceptual confusion in the chemistry curriculum: exemplifying the problematic nature of representing chemical concepts as target knowledge. FOUNDATIONS OF CHEMISTRY 2020, 22, 309-334.

The main objective of this Special Issue is to explore how self-regulation can become a fundamental element that underlies much of the behavior, both adapted and maladaptive, which develops during childhood and adolescence.

...
We look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,
...
Assistant Editor

    Update: a response to my letter

    Dear [Assistant Editor]

    Thank you for getting back to me.

    I am surprised that you found 'some contents related to learning behaviours in children in [my] published work "Conceptual confusion in the chemistry curriculum: exemplifying the problematic nature of representing chemical concepts as target knowledge"' as the paper was a philosophical analysis of some aspects of a curriculum document in relation to canonical disciplinary knowledge. I do not recall any specific content that was substantially about learning behaviours in children.

    However, I am pleased that you were able to find something of interest in your reading of the paper.

    Best wishes

    Keith

          On 10/08/2020 11:02, [Assistant Editor] wrote:  

    Dear Dr. Taber,

Thank you for your kind feedback.

We found that there are some contents related to learning behaviors in children in your published work "Conceptual confusion in the chemistry curriculum: exemplifying the problematic nature of representing chemical concepts as target knowledge". We now understand that there may be a deviation between them.

We are sorry if this Special Issue does not fit into the scope of your research.

Kind regards,
...
Assistant Editor

    At least the journal did me the courtesy of replying, and behaving politely. I chose to ignore the 'disclaimer' that "You may not copy this message in its entirety or in part, or disclose its contents to anyone" as I am not prepared to receive unsolicited emails on that basis. If people do not wish me to share their messages then they have the option of not bothering me in the first place. [Read: "It's a secret conference invitation: pass it on…"]

    Responding to a misconception about my own teaching

    Keith S. Taber

    There are many postings here about things that learners said, and so presumably thought, about curriculum topics that would likely surprise, if not shock, the teachers who had taught them those topics. I am certainly not immune from being misunderstood. Today, I reflect on how someone seems to have understood some of my own teaching, and indeed seriously objected to it.

    When I have called-out academic malpractice in this blog the targets have usually been conference organisers or journal administrators using misleading (or downright dishonest) techniques, or publishers mistreating authors. I feel somewhat uneasy about publicly contradicting a junior scholar. However, I also do not appreciate being publicly described as deliberately misleading a student, as has happened here, and my direct challenge to the blog author was rejected.

    The accusation

    A while back some Faculty colleagues referred me to a blog that included the following comments:

    In the Faculty of Education students pursuing the MPhil or PhD take a research ethics lecture that presents the Tuskegee Syphilis Study as ethically sound, but only up to the year 1947 when penicillin was actively being used to treat syphilis. According to the Cambridge lecturer, that's the point when the study became unethical.

    When I interrupted his lecture to object to his presentation, I was told by that lecturer that he'd never received any objections in his many, many years of teaching the same slides on the same course. That was not true. He knew and the Faculty knows and yet that false information continues to be disseminated to students, many of whom will go on to complete research in developing countries where their only reference for their ethical or unethical behavior is this lecture.

    I am not named, but virtually anyone in my Faculty, or having taken graduate studies there in the last few years, would surely know who was being discussed. As is pointed out in our Educational Research course, and the Research Methods strand of other graduate courses, if you want to avoid someone being identified in your writing, it is not enough to not name them. I can be fairly confident the author of the comments above should have known that: it is a point made in the very lecture being criticised.

    This blog posting seems to have received quite a lot of attention among students at the University Faculty where I worked. Yet the two claims here are simply not correct. The teaching is seriously misrepresented, and I certainly did not lie to this student.

    The blog invited me to 'Leave a Reply', so I did. My comments were subject to moderation – and the next morning I found a response in my email in-box. My comments would not be posted, and the claims would not be amended: I was welcome to post my reply elsewhere, but not at the site where I was being criticised. So, here goes:

    The (rejected) reply

    I hope you are well.

    I was directed to your blog by a group of scholars in the Faculty (Of Education at Cambridge). It is an impressive blog. However, I was rather surprised by some of what you have posted. I was the lecturer you refer to in your posting who taught the lecture on research ethics. I do indeed remember you interrupting me when I was presenting the Tuskagee syphilis study as an example of unethical research. I always encouraged students to participate in class, and would have welcomed your input at the end of my treatment of that example.

    However, having read your comments here, I do need to challenge your account. I do not consider that the Tuskegee syphilis study was initially ethically sound, and I do not (and did not) teach that. I certainly did make the point that even if the study had been ethical until antibiotics were widely available, continuing it beyond that point would have been completely unjustifiable. But that was certainly not the only reason the study was unethical. Perhaps this would have been clearer if you had let me finish my own comments before interjecting – but even so I really do not understand how you could have interpreted the teaching that way.

    Scheme (an annotated version of 'the ethical field', Taber, 2013a, Figure 9.1) used to summarise ethical issues in the Tuskegee syphilis study in my Educational Research lecture on ethical considerations of research.

    The reference to 1947 in the posting quoted above relates to the 'continue' issue under research quality – the research (which involved medical staff periodically observing, but not treating, diseased {black, poor, mostly illiterate} men who had not been told of the true nature of their condition) was continued even when effective, safe treatment was available and any claims to the information being collected having potential to inform medical practice became completely untenable.

    I may well have commented that no one had ever raised any objections to the presentation when I had given the lecture on previous occasions over a number of years – because that is true. No one had previously raised any concerns with me regarding my teaching of this example (or any aspect of the lecture as far as I can recall). I am not sure why you seem to so confidently assume otherwise: regarding this, you are simply wrong.

    Usually in that lecture I would present a brief account of the Milgram 'learning' experiment, which would often lead to extended discussion about the ethical problems of that research in relation to its motivation and what was usefully learnt from it. Then, later in the session, I would talk about the Tuskegee study, which normally passed without comment. I had always assumed that was because the study is so obviously and seriously problematic that no one would see any reason to disagree with my critique. Then I would go on to discuss other issues and studies. I can assure you that no one had previously, before you, raised any concerns about my teaching of this example with me. If anyone in earlier cohorts had any concerns about this example they would have been welcome to talk to me about them – either in class, or privately afterwards. No one ever did.

    I have no reason to believe that colleagues at Cambridge are deliberately disseminating false information to students, but then I do not audit other teaching officers' lectures, and I cannot speak for them. However, I can speak for myself, just as you rightly speak up for yourself. I have certainly always taken care to do my best not to teach things that are not the case. Of course, as a school and college science teacher I was often teaching models and simplifications, and not the 'whole' truth, but that is the nature of pedagogy, and is something we should make clear to learners (i.e., that they are being taught models and simplifications that can later in their studies be developed through more sophisticated treatments).

    In a similar way, I used simplifications and models in my research methods lectures at Cambridge – for example, in terms of the 'shape' of a research project, or contrasting paradigms, or types of qualitative analysis, and so on, but would make explicit to the class that this is what they were: 'teaching models'. I entered the teaching profession to make a positive difference; to help learners develop, and to acquire new understandings and perspectives and skills; not to misinform people. I very much suspect that on occasions I must have got some things wrong, but, if so, such errors would always have been honest mistakes. I have never knowingly taught something that I thought was untrue.

    So, whilst I admire your courage in standing up for what you believe, and I certainly wish you well, what you have written is not correct, and I trust my response will be posted so that your inaccurate remarks will not go unchallenged. I suspect that you are not being deliberately untruthful (you accuse me of telling you something I knew was not true: I try to be charitable and give people the benefit of doubt, so I would like to think that you were writing your comments in good faith), but I do not understand how you managed to come to the interpretation of my teaching that you did, and wish that you would have at least heard me out before interrupting the class, as that may have clarified my position for you. The Tuskegee syphilis study was a racist, unethical study that misled and abused some of those people with the lowest levels of economic and political power in society: people (not just the men subjected to the study, but also their families) who were betrayed by those employed by the public health service that they trusted (and should have been able to trust) to look after their interests. I do not see how anyone could consider it an ethically sound study, and I struggle to see why you would think anyone could.

    Your claim that I lied about not having previously received complaints about my teaching of this topic before is simply untrue – it is a falsehood that I hope you will be prepared to correct.

    What should a 'constructivist' teacher make of this?

    I should be careful about criticising a student for thinking I was teaching something quite different from what I thought I was teaching. I have spent much of my career telling other teachers that learners will make sense of our teaching in terms of the interpretive resources they have available, and so they may interpret our teaching in unexpected ways. Learners will always be biased to understand in terms of their expectations and past experiences. We see it all the time in science teaching, as many of the posts here demonstrate.

    I have described learning as being an incremental, interpretive, and so iterative, process and not a simple transfer of understanding (Taber, 2014). Teaching (indeed communication) is always a representation of thinking in a publicly accessible form (speech, gesture, text, diagrams {what sense does the figure above make out of the context of the lecture?}, models, etc.) – and whatever meaning may have informed the production of the representation, the representation itself does not have or contain meaning: the person accessing that presentation has to impose their own interpretation to form a meaning (Taber, 2013b). After teaching and writing about these ideas, I would be a hypocrite to claim that a learner could not misinterpret my own teaching as I can communicate perfectly to a room full of students from all around the world with different life experiences and varied disciplinary backgrounds!

    Even so, I am still struggling to understand the interpretation put on my teaching in this case, despite going back to revisit the teaching materials a number of times. Most of the points I was making must have been completed disregarded to think I did not consider the study, which ran from 1932 to 1972 (Jones, 1993) unethical until 1947. So, even for someone who claims to be a constructivist teacher and knows there is always a risk of learners misconceiving teaching, this example seems an extreme case.

    The confident claim that it was not true that I had not received previous complaints about my teaching of this example is even harder to understand. It is at least a good reminder for me not to assume I know what students are thinking or that they know what I am thinking, or can readily access the intended meaning in my teaching. I've made those points to others enough times, so I will try to see this incident as a useful reminder to follow my own advice.

    Sources cited:

    Just come to talk at our conference – don't worry what it's about

    Keith S. Taber

    Image by 정훈 김 from Pixabay 

    Dubious conference invitations

    I have raised the issue of dodgy conference invitations – such as being asked to talk at a conference in a field far from one's own, and to pay for the privilege of doing so – before in this blog, BUT a recent invitation from Kostas Chiotopoulos takes the top prize for the most desperate and pointless attempt by a commercial conference organiser to tempt academics who have given up the will to engage in meaningful scholarship.

    The subject line of the email was:

    "Rome, Italy, May 26-28, 2018. Malta Island, June 22-24, 2018. Mallorca Island, Spain, July 14-17, 2018 [email protected] Hard Copy of Proceedings available again* [email protected] A Certificate from the University will be given to all the Invited Speakers.."

    Not exactly succinct, but then I'm sitting writing this while listening to (Rick Wakeman's excellent) 'The Myths and Legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table' so I cannot claim to be inherently adverse to a long title!

    Perhaps Kostas Chiotopoulos knows about some very clever marketing principles, but I could not help wondering:

    • why does my email address need to appear twice in the subject of the email?
    • what does the asterisk indicate – was the subject even longer originally and Kostas Chiotopoulos took pity on me?
    • Does a second full stop at the end of a sentence add emphasis?

    Of course, one thing that was missing from the subject line was the topic of the conferences. Were these conferences on science education, or some closely related field? Perhaps that was the clever marketing ploy – Kostas Chiotopoulos got me intrigued enough to read the whole email in the expectation that the conferences would not actually be relevant to me, but wanting to check just in case he might prove me wrong!

    However, it seems Kostas Chiotopoulos is even more wily than that! So I carefully read the email and find that I am invited to be an 'invited lecturer' at conferences in:

    • Paris, or in Rome, Italy
    • or in Malta Island, or in Mallorca Island, Spain
    • or even [sic] in Corfu Island, Greece, or in Dubrovnik, Croatia
    • or in any London, UK [n.b., there is only one London, UK I'm aware of] or in Rome, Italy
    • or in Bern, Switzerland, or in Madrid, Spain
    • or in Cambridge, UK, or in Venice, March 2019 …

    I'm told that "A certificate from the Universities that sponsor each particular event will be given to" (I'm guessing my University, Cambridge, is not issuing the certificate for the Cambridge conference!)

    I'm told my contributions can be published in journals published by the likes of "…SAGE, Springer Verlag, Elsevier…" – publishers one might expect would have their own editorial and peer review procedures.

    So what information is missing?

    Well I cannot complain that Kostas Chiotopoulos is inviting me to talk at a conference outside my field, as the invitation contains absolutely no information about the fields, subjects, disciplines, themes, or topics, of any of these conferences.

    So it seems that things have got so bad (cf. Taber, 2018) that commercial companies are now prepared to sell 'invited lecturer' status to anyone who is prepared to pay, to talk about anything they like, without any pretence that these are serious academic conferences that are actually about something.

    Retirement, take me soon.

    Source cited:
    • Taber, K. S. (2018). The end of academic standards? A lament on the erosion of scholarly values in the post-truth world. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(1), 9-14. doi:10.1039/C7RP90012K [Free access]

    Read about 'Conferences and poor academic practice'

    First published 5th April 2018 at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/

    An unpublished Theory of Everything

    Keith S. Taber

    A TOE? (Image by congerdesign from Pixabay)

    Dear Dr. Prof. Tambara Federico


    Thank you for sending me your manuscript reporting your "revolutionary" paper

    offering your

    "own comprehensive, mass-related physical-mathematical Research Study, proposing new scientific data and formulas [sic] with a view to making it possible to unify the four universal interaction fields…, which as a matter of fact cover all possible physical as well as scientific-mathematical aspects and domains of reality itself…"

    and incorporating your "FOUR REMARKABLE CONCLUSIVE THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS".

    You ask that I (and the others among the "500 SCIENTIFIC ADDRESSEES" to whom you sent the paper) "will kindly agree to publish" your "Research Study in Your worldwide famous scientific Reviews and / or Journals as soon as possible". I assume you have contacted me, inter alia, seeking publication in Chemistry Education Research and Practice?

    I must decline your request, on several grounds.

    Your paper does not seen to be within the scope of the journal. That may seem odd when you propose a TOE (Theory of Everything). I am certainly open to the argument that in principle all academic fields could be reduced to fundamental physics, but not that this is always sensible. So for example in chemistry we have concepts such as acidity, resonance, hyperconjugation, oxidation, and so forth. These are probably, in principle, capable of being redescribed in terms of fundamental physics – but any such description is likely to be too cumbersome to be of practical value in chemistry. We have these specifically chemical concepts because the complexity of the phenomena leads to emergent properties that are most usefully considered at the level of chemistry, not physics.

    How much more so the concepts related to teaching and learning chemistry! Perhaps pedagogy could (again, in principle) be reduced to physics – but that would be little more than an impressive technical achievement of no practical value. Sadly, a theory of everything tells us very little of value about most things.

    Secondly, the journal has peer review processes that need to be followed, and editorial fiat is not used to publish a paper without following these processes. You may well have made major breakthroughs in this fundamental area of science, but science is communal, and your work has no status in the field until other experts have critiqued and evaluated it.

    So, thirdly, any submission needs to be made through the journal's on-line review system, allowing proper editorial screening and then – should it be considered suitable (which it would not in this case, see above) allowing it to be sent to review.

    However, submitting a manuscript for formal review requires you to make a number of declarations. One of these is that the manuscript you wish to be considered is not published, under review or consideration, or has been submitted to, any other journal. As you have adopted a 'scatter gun' approach to submitting your work, you would need to wait until you have received formal notification that the other 499 scholarly outlets approached are declining your manuscript before you could make a formal submission.

    As you are concerned that unless your work is published it may be plagiarised, I suggest you deposit your paper in one of the many repositories now available for posting unpublished documents. This will make your work available and will demonstrate your priority in anything that may later be judged (in peer review) by experts in the field as novelty in your work.


    First published 12th March 2017 at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/

    Keith S. Taber – acclaimed polymath (apparently)!

    Keith S. Taber

    Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay 

    I've always admired those people who seem to be able to turn their hand to a wide range of activities and master them at will: people like Jonathan Miller. Most of us, however, are best advised to find something we are reasonably good at, and that we have a strong interest in, and then to work hard to develop some worthy level of expertise. I always thought that it was realistic to settle for that, but I am increasingly finding that in this post-truth world (where if we say something with conviction often enough it can be treated as reality) I have aimed too low.

    The idea that the scholarly world adheres to values of honesty, integrity, balance and so forth seems pretty passé. Rather those arranging conferences, founding journals or setting up book proposals, seem to feel that hyperbole, exaggeration, guesswork, flattery, and other cheap marketing tactics are fair game as they fish (or should that be phish) for contributors.

    At least that is the only explanation I've come up with for my apparent reputation as a polymath…

    Keith Taber: Eminent biologist

    In a previous blog posting I reported how I was surprised to be invited as an eminent Plenary Speaker at an International Conference on Synthetic Biology. I am clearly not qualified to be considered an expert in synthetic biology, so considered this invitation had to be a scam. My reply to the conference organisers (and some of the eminent scientists on the scientific committee) asking why they thought I was suitable to be a plenary speaker on synthetic biology did not get a response.

    However, I have just been having one of my periodic attempts to sort my email in-box and could not help but notice that my reputation for expertise is not restricted to science education (which I would claim) and synthetic biology (which I struggle to find a justification for), but rather that I seem to be a recognised authority across a range of scientific fields.

    My immense contributions to physics

    So I can add areas of chemistry and physics to biology. To be fair I am a chartered chemist and chartered physicist, but had always seen my expertise within these disciplines as limited to chemistry education and physics education. It seems I am selling myself short. Rather, it would appear that I have made "immense contribution to the field" of atomic and nuclear physics. I am not sure what these contributions are, but presumably the organisers of the "International Conference on Atomic and Nuclear Physics" must have something specific in mind?

    My eminent contributions to chemistry

    I feel I have made some modest contributions to chemistry (and am very proud that this was recognised through the RSC Education Award) – but would certainly not claim anything that goes beyond my educational work. A mild fantasy that the degassing that occurs when dissolving salt displaces dissolved air from water might become know as the Taber effect has yet to come to fruition. Yet apparently I have made "eminent contribution in [the] field" of computational chemistry. Perhaps my undergraduate project on computerised orbital calculations for TTF-TCNQ was not as flawed as I had suspected at the time. Certainly the editors of the Frontiers in Computational Chemistry book series were interested in calling upon my expertise.

     Keith Taber: An expert in computer science

    Indeed it appears that my work in computing is more widely recognised. I was invited to join the committee for a conference where the organisers were "very interested in the contributions you have made in Computer Science", considering me "an expert". Amazing considering that I am so 'fingers and thumbs' that I often have to have several attempts at the passwords to get into my personal computers.

    Keith Taber: Eminent researcher with excellent contributions to medical sciences

    Moreover it seems my strengths are not limited to the so-called pure sciences. Additionally I am told that I have made such "excellent contributions to the field of medical sciences" that  "the scientific committee of the conference [on HIV & AIDS] is aware of your published works in this field". I'm struggling to identify which publications they are referring to, but then my memory is not so good. 

    Indeed it seems that I am considered such an "eminent researcher" in Otolaryngology that I have been invited to join the editorial board of a new international journal in the specialism. That, on getting this invitation, I felt the need to check exactly what Otolaryngology is, merely reinforces just how unreliable my memory has become. Indeed, I'm wondering if there are any other areas of expertise I have developed a reputation for, that my modesty has allowed me to forget. 

    Addendum: it seems I am considered, at least by by a specialist journal inviting my "prominent contribution", to also be "eminent" in the area of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.

    First published 3rd December 2016 at at http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/kst24/

    (Read about 'Journals and poor academic practice')

    (Read about 'Conferences and poor academic practice')

    Addendum:

    My significant contributions to psychotherapy

    It seems from an invitation to join the editorial board of another new journal that I am also known as an expert in psychotherapy where I "have made significant contributions, worth mentioning" with "achievements in various stages" indeed. It seems such expertise is very time-sensitive as the invitation "is valid only for one week and expires if no communication is received from" me.

    Further addendum: more than a month after that time-sensitive request, I had another invitation to join the editorial board of this 'International Journal' of psychotherapy as my "knowledge of the subject and the contributions to field are noteworthy". I feel a bit bad about not accepting joining the journal as they think my "expertise will surely take it to great heights".

    My prominence in immunodiagnostics

    I was honoured to be "cordially invite[d] … to be … an Editorial Board Member for the Journal of Immunodiagnostics" considering that the journal manager, Maria Carla was able to "assure [me] of international quality and standards of our articles published in our journals, using state-of-the-art prominent reviewers and editorial board". Good to be considered prominent and state of the art.

    My remarkable achievements in human resources

    I have been invited to join the Editorial Board of Modern Management Forum, a new journal from Universe Scientific Publishing. This invitation has been made "In light of [my] remarkable achievements in Human Resources", which apparently were discernible when reading my review published in Science & Education of a science education handbook.

    Is there no end to my (supposed) achievements?

    Well, the praise keeps rolling in, as I get asked to write, chair, edit, talk, etcetera in a vast range of fields where, despite claims to the contrary, I clearly have no experise, or where someone (or some machine) imagines that my writngs about science education demonstrate eminence in unrelated areas…

    (Read about the faint parise

    (Read about the Illogical connections between what is cited, and what they consequently invite you to do)

    (Read about examples of vague praise used to justify invitations)