Swipe left, swipe right, publish

A dating service for academics?


Keith S. Taber


A new service offers to match authors and journals without all that messy business of scholars having to spend time identifying and evaluating the journals in their field (Image by Kevin Phillips from Pixabay )

I was today invited to join a new platform that would allow an author "the opportunity to get the best Publishing Offers from different Journals"; and would also allow journal editors to "learn about new scientific results and make Publishing Offers to Authors". Having been an author and an editor my immediate response was, "well how could that work?"



Publishing offers?

I was a little intrigued by the notion of publishing 'offers'. In my experience what matters are 'publication decisions'.

You see, in the world of academic journals I am familiar with,

  • authors choose a journal to submit their manuscript to (they have to choose as journals will only consider work not already published, under consideration or submitted, elsewhere)
  • the editor decides if the manuscript seems relevant to the journal and to be, prima facie, a serious piece of scholarship. If not, it is rejected. If so, it is sent to expert reviewers for careful scrutiny and recommendations.
  • then it is accepted as is (rare in my field); accepted subject to specified changes; returned for revisions that must then be further evaluated; rejected but with a suggestion that a revised manuscript addressing specified issues might be reconsidered; or rejected.1
  • if the editor is eventually satisfied with the manuscript (perhaps after a number of rounds of revision and peer review) it is accepted for publication – this might be considered a publishing offer, but usually by this point the author is not going to decline!
  • if the process does not lead to an accepted manuscript, the author can decide her work is not worth publishing; use the feedback to strengthen the manuscript before submitting elsewhere, or simply move on to another journal and start again with the same manuscript.

Read about the process of submitting work to a research journal

Read about selecting a journal to submit your work to

Read about the peer review process used by serious research journals

Similarly, in the world of academic journals I am familiar with,

  • an editor becomes aware of a paper available for publication because the author submits it for consideration;
  • editors may sometimes offer informal feedback to authors who are not sure if their work fits the scope of the journal – but the editor certainly does not actively seek to check out manuscripts that are not being considered for that journal.

Though editors may engage in general promotion of their journal, this does not usually amount to trawling the web looking for material to make offers on.

So how does the platform work?

So, I looked at the inexsy site to see how the service managed to help authors get published without having to submit their work to journals, and how journals could fill their pages (and, these days, attract those juicy publication fees) even if authors did not fancy submitting their work to their journal.

This is what I learned.


Step 1. Put yourself out there.

(Image by Dean Moriarty from Pixabay)


Make a show of your wares

The process starts with the author uploading their abstract as a kind of intellectual tease. They do not upload the whole paper – indeed at this stage they do not even have to have written it.

"Researchers submit Abstracts of their manuscripts to the INEXSY platform and set their Publishing Statuses:

#1 – "Manuscript in progress" or

#2 – "Manuscript ready, looking for publisher".

https://inexsy.com

(Indeed, it seems an author could think up a number of article ideas; write the abstracts; post them; and wait t0 see which one attracts the most interest. No more of all that laborious writing of papers that no one wants to publish!)


Step 2. Wait to be approached by a potential admirer.

(Image by iqbal nuril anwar from Pixabay)


Wait to be approached

Now the author just has to wait. Journal editors with nothing better to do (i.e., editors of journals that no one seems to be sending any work to) will be going through the abstracts posted to see if they are interested in any of the work.

"All journals from the corresponding science area view the Abstract of the manuscript and determine the relevance of the future article (quick editorial decision)."

https://inexsy.com

The term 'quick editorial decision' is intriguing. This term most commonly refers to a quick decision on whether or not to publish a manuscript, but presumably all it means here is a quick editorial decision on "the relevance of the future article" to the journal.

Editors of traditional journals are used to making quick decisions on whether a manuscript falls within the scope of the journal. I have less confidence in the editors of many of the glut of open-access pay-to-publish journals that have sprung up in recent years. Many of these are predatory journals, mainly concerned with generating income and having little regard for academic standards.

In some cases supposed editors leave the editorial work to administrators who do not have a strong background in the field. Sometimes journals are happy to publish material which clearly has no relevance to the supposed topic of their journal. 2

Read about predatory journals


Step 3. Start dating

(Image by Sasin Tipchai from Pixabay) 


Enter into a dialogue with the editor

inexst acknowledge that even the journals they attract to their platform might not immediately offer to publish an article on the basis of an author's abstract for a paper they may not have written yet.

So, the platform allows the two potential suitors to enter into a dialogue about developing a possible relationship.

 "If the text of the Abstract and supplementary materials (video, figures) are not enough for journals to make Publishing Offers to authors, then the INEXSY platform provides the [sic] Private Chat to discuss the full text of a future article."

https://inexsy.com

Step 4. Get propositioned by the suitor

(Image by bronzedigitals from Pixabay)


4. Consider moving the relationship to the next level

If after some back and forth in the virtual world, the editor likes the author's images and videos they may want to take the relationship to a new level,

 "If the potential article is interesting to journals, these journals make Publishing Offers to authors in 1 click."

https://inexsy.com

Step 5. Choose a keeper

(Image by StockSnap from Pixabay) 


5. Decide between suitors

Now the idea of a 'publishing offer' is clarified. Having had an idea for a paper, and written an abstract and perhaps posted some pics and a video talking about what you want to write, and having been approached by a range of editors not too busy to engage in some social intercourse, the author now find herself subject to a range of propositions.

  • But which suitor does she really have a connection with?
  • Which one is the best prospect for a happy future?

But this is not about good looks, tinderness, pension prospects, or reliably remembering birthdays, but which journal is more prestigious (good luck with expecting prestigious journals to register on such sites), and how quickly the competing journals promise to publish the paper, and, of course, how much will they charge you for this publication escort service.

"Authors choose the optimal offer (best publication time, IF [impact factor], OA [open access] price) and submit their manuscripts to the website of the selected journal."

https://inexsy.com

Do dating services check the details provided by member? Impact factors are useful (if not perfect) indicators of a journal's prestige. But some predatory journals shamelessly advertise inaccurate impact factors. (See, for example, 'The best way to generate an impressive impact factor is – to invent it'). Does inexsy do due diligence on behalf of authors here, or is a matter of caveat emptor?


Step 6. And ride off into the sunset together

(Image by mohamed Hassan from Pixabay)


Live happily ever after with a well-matched journal

So, there it is, the journal dating nightmare solved. Do not worry about reading and evaluating a range of journals to decide where to submit, just put up your work's profile and wait for those journal editors who like what they see to court you.

You do not have to be exclusive. Put the goods on public show. Play the field. See which suitors you like, and what they will offer you for exclusive rights to what you want to put out there. Only when you feel you are ready to settle down do you need to make a choice.

Publish your work where you know it will really be appreciated, based on having entered into a meaningful relationship with the editor and found your article and the journal have much in common. Demonstrate your mutual commitment by publicly exchanging vows (i.e., signing a publishing agreement or license) that means your article will find an exclusive home in that place for ever after.

(Well, actually, if you publish open access, it might seem more like an open marriage as legally you are free to republish as often as your like. However, you will likely find other potential partners will consider an already published work as 'damaged goods' and shun any approaches.)

So, now it is just the little matter of getting down to grindring out the paper.


Back to earth

(Image by Pexels from Pixabay )


Meanwhile, back in the real world

This seems too good to be true. It surely is.

No editor of a responsible journal is going to offer publication until the full manuscript has been (written! and) submitted, and has been positively evaluated by peer review. Even dodgy predatory journals usually claim to do rigorous peer review (so authors can in turn claim {and perhaps sometimes believe} that their publications are in peer reviewed journals).

This leads me to moot a typology of three types of journal editor in relation to a platform such as inexsy:

1.
Absent partners
Editors of well-established and well-regarded journals.


These are busy with the surfeit of submissions they already receive, and are not interested in these kinds of platforms.
2.
Desperate romantics
Principled editors of journals struggling to attract sufficient decent papers to publish, but who are committed to maintain academic standards.


They may well be interested in using this platform in order to attract submissions – but the offers they will make will be limited to 'yes, this topic interests us, and, if you submit this manuscript, we will send the submission to peer review'.

They will happily wait till after a proper legal ceremony before consummating the relationship.
3.
Promiscuous predators
Editors of predatory journals that are only interested in maximising the number of published papers and so the income generated.


They will make offers to publish before seeing the paper, because, to be honest there is not much (if anything) they would reject anyway as long as the author could pay the publication fees. Once they have your money they are off on the prowl again.

So, this may well bring some authors together with some editors who can offer advice on whether a proposed paper would be seriously considered by their journals (category 2) – but this achieves little more than would emailing the editor and asking if the proposed paper is within the scope of that journal.

If any authors find they are inundated by genuine offers to publish in any journals that are worth publishing in, I will be amazed.

Watch this space (well, the space below)

Still, as a scientist, I have to be open to changing my mind. So,

  • if you are a representative of inexsy
  • if you are an author or editor who has had positive experiences using the service

please feel free to share your experiences (and perhaps tell me I am wrong) in the comments below.

I wait with interest for the flood of responses putting me right.


Notes

1 The precise number of categories of decision, and how they are worded, vary a little between journals.


2 Consider some examples of what gets published where in the world of the dubious research journal:

"the editors of 'Journal of Gastrointestinal Disorders and Liver function' had no reservations about publishing a paper supposedly about 'over sexuality' which was actually an extended argument about the terrible threat to our freedoms of…IQ scores, and which seems to have been plagiarised from a source already in the public domain…. That this make no sense at all, is just as obvious as that it has absolutely nothing to do with gastrointestinal disorders and liver function!"

Can academic misconduct be justified for the greater good?

Sadly, some journal editors do not seem to care whether what they publish has any relevance to the supposed field of their journal: 'Writing for the Journal of Petroleum, Chemical Industry, Chemistry Education, Medicine, Drug Abuse, and Archaeology'

Not special enough

Special issues of journals are not what they used to be


Keith S. Taber


If I just consider those where the deadline is TODAY, [what] I find…covers much of the field of education just in the scope of special issues closing today!


Dear Andrei

Thank you for your message.

I did receive your mail. Unlike most of the invitations I get these days I was pleasantly surprised that it did actually relate to an area where I had some expertise. As I have plenty of ongoing projects I was not seeking another one, and I have some reservations in editing for a journal which would charge authors to publish. I appreciate that publishing is not a charity, but academic publishing is in a strange place as Open-Access slowly becomes the norm, but many scholars are not automatically supported in paying publication fees. Whilst there are still many high quality, well-established, journals in Education that do not charge authors publication fees, I would not wish to be allowing my name to be used to encourage authors to submit to a journal that charges authors about £1200 to publish their work.

However, I was intrigued enough to do some due diligence by checking out your website.

I found that 'education sciences' has a rather different take on special issues than I was used to.

When I was a journal editor (incidentally for a journal sponsored by a learned society, so it does not charge authors or readers), we used to have one themed issue per year, and made a big thing of it. We also chose topics very carefully so as not to repeat or strongly overlap with previous themes.

On your website I find that special issues are not so special.

You have a vast number of calls for papers for special issues. If I just consider those where the deadline is TODAY, I find

  • Languages and Literacies in Science Education
  • Building Resilience of Children and Youth with Disabilities: New Perspectives
  • Advances in Learning and Teaching in Medical Education
  • Opportunities and Limitations of Using E-learning in School and Academic Education
  • Education Technology and Literacies: State of the Art
  • Active Methodologies and Educative Resources Mediated by Technology
  • Educational Effectiveness and Improvement – Research, Policy and Practice from the UK, the USA, China and across the World
  • Groundings for Knowledge That Informs Education, Schooling and Teacher Preparation
  • Educational Technology's Influence in Higher Education Teaching and Learning
  • Inclusion and Disability: Perspectives on Theory, Research, and Practice
  • Educational Research and Innovation in the First Global Catastrophe of the 21st Century: Committed to Education
  • Learning Space and Environment of Early Childhood Education
  • Philosophy of Education Today: Diagnostics, Prognostics, Therapeutics and Pandemics
  • Migrant Integration in Schools: Policies and Practices
  • Health Professions Education & Integrated Learning
  • Transition to Higher Education: Challenges and Opportunities

That covers much of the field of education just in the scope of special issues closing today!

And then there is another large tranche with deadlines in July.

And another with deadlines in August.

And so on.

I am not suggesting there is anything inappropriate here, but these are hardly 'special' issues. They are themes that are used to encourage submissions, with individual articles published when ready (as open calls already have published papers) and then linked. But they do not comprise discrete issues of the journal. I see that quite a few of the closed special issues only included 5 papers, which surely reflects the sheer range of themes being pushed at once. (I did not immediately see any closed special issues with less than 5 articles, so I wonder if deadlines are extended to you have that minimum number of papers accepted?)

So, even if I had been tempted at this time to edit a special issue of a journal, it would have to be a special issue that was considerably more special than this.

Best wishes

Keith



Study reports that non-representative sample of students has average knowledge of earthquakes

When is a cross-sectional study not a cross-sectional study?


Keith S. Taber


A biomedical paper?

I only came to this paper because I was criticising the Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research's claimed Impact Factor which seems to be a fabrication. I saw this particular paper being featured in a recent tweet from the journal and wondered how it fitted in a biomedical journal. The paper is on an important topic – what young people know about how to respond to an earthquake, but I was not sure why it fitted in this particular journal.

Respectable journals normally have a clear scope (i.e., the range of topics within which they consider submissions for publication) – whereas predatory journals are often primarily interested in publishing as many papers as possible (and so attracting publication fees from as many authors as possible) and so may have no qualms about publishing material that would seem to be out of scope.

This paper reports a questionnaire about secondary age students' knowledge of earthquakes. It would seem to be an education study, possibly even a science education study, rather than a 'biomedical' study. (The journal invites papers from a wide range of fields 1, some of which – geology, chemical engineering – are not obviously 'biomedical' in nature; but not education.)

The paper reports research (so I assume is classed as 'research' in terms of the scale of charges) and comes from Bangladesh (which I assume the journal publishers consider a low income country) and so it would seem that the author's would have been charged $799 to be published in this journal. Part of what authors are supposed to get for that fee is for editors to arrange peer review to provide evaluation of, feedback on, and recommendations for improving, their work.

Peer review

Respectable journals employ rigorous peer review to ensure that only work of quality is published.

Read about peer review

According to the Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research website:

Peer review process is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published online. Independent professionals/experts/researchers in the relevant research area are subjected to assess the submitted manuscripts for originality, validity and significance to help editors determine whether a manuscript should be published in their journal. 

This Peer review process helps in validating the research works, establish a method by which it can be evaluated and increase networking possibilities within research communities. Despite criticisms, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for research validation

Only the articles that meet good scientific standards, explanations, records and proofs of their work presented with Bibliographic reasoning (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence etc.) are accepted for publication in the Journal.

https://biomedres.us/peer-review-process.php

Which seems reassuring. It seems 'Preventive Practice on Earthquake Preparedness Among Higher Level Students of Dhaka City' should then only have been published after evaluation in rigorous peer review. Presumably any weaknesses in the submission would have been highlighted in the review process helping the authors to improve their work before publication. Presumably, the (unamed) editor did not approve publication until peer reviewers were satisfied the paper made a valid new contribution to knowledge and, accordingly, recommended publication. 2


The paper was, apparently, submitted; screened by editors; sent to selected expert peer reviewers; evaluated by reviewers, so reports could be returned to the editor who collated them, and passed them to the authors with her/his decision; revised as indicated; checked by editors and reviewers, leading to a decision to publish; copy edited, allowing proofs to be sent to authors for checking; and published, all in less than three weeks.

Although supposedly published in July 2021, the paper seems to be assigned to an issue published a year before it was submitted

Although one might wonder if a journal which seems to advertise with an inflated Impact Factor can be trusted to follow the procedures it claims. So, I had a quick look at the paper.

The abstract begins:

The present study was descriptive Cross-sectional study conducted in Higher Secondary Level Students of Dhaka, Bangladesh, during 2017. The knowledge of respondent seems to be average regarding earthquake. There is a found to have a gap between knowledge and practice of the respondents.

Gurung & Khanum, 2021, p.29274

Sampling a population (or not)

So, this seems to be a survey, and the population sampled was Higher Secondary Level Students of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Dhaka has a population of about 22.5 million people. I could not readily find out how many of these might be considered 'Higher Secondary Level', but clearly it will be many, many thousands – I would imagine about half a million as a 'ball-park' figure.


Dhaka has a large population of 'higher secondary level students'
(Image by Mohammad Rahmatullah from Pixabay)

For a survey of a population to be valid it needs to be based on a sample which is large enough to minimise errors in extrapolating to the full population, and (even more importantly) the sample needs to be representative of the population.

Read about sampling

Here:

"Due to time constrain the sample of 115."

Gurung & Khanum, 2021, p.29276

So, the sample size was limited to 115 because of time constraints. This would likely lead to large errors in inferring population statistics from the sample, but could at least give some indication of the population as long as the 115 were known to be reasonable representative of the wider population being surveyed.

The reader is told

"the study sample was from Mirpur Cantonment Public School and College , (11 and 12 class)."

Gurung & Khanum, 2021, p.29275

It seems very unlikely that a sample taken from any one school among hundreds could be considered representative of the age cohort across such a large City.

Is the school 'typical' of Dhaka?

The school website has the following evaluation by the school's 'sponsor':

"…one the finest academic institutions of Bangladesh in terms of aesthetic beauty, uncompromised quality of education and, most importantly, the sheer appeal among its learners to enrich themselves in humanity and realism."

Major General Md Zahirul Islam

The school Principal notes:

"Our visionary and inspiring teachers are committed to provide learners with all-rounded educational experiences by means of modern teaching techniques and incorporation of diverse state-of-the-art technological aids so that our students can prepare themselves to face the future challenges."

Lieutenant Colonel G M Asaduzzaman

While both of these officers would be expected to be advocates for the school, this does not give a strong impression that the researchers have sought a school that is typical of Dhakar schools.

It also seems unlikely that this sample of 115 reflects all of the students in these grades. According to the school website, there are 7 classes in each of these two grades so the 115 students were drawn from 14 classes. Interestingly, in each year 5 of the 7 classes are following a science programme 3 – alongside with one business studies and one humanities class. The paper does not report which programme(s) were being followed by the students in the sample. Indeed no information is given regarding how the 115 were selected. (Did the researchers just administer the research instrument to the first students they came across in the school? Were all the students in these grades asked to contribute, and only 115 returned responses?)

Yet, if the paper was seen and evaluated by "independent professionals/experts/researchers in the relevant research area" they seem to have not questioned whether such a small and unrepresentative sample invalidated the study as being a survey of the population specified.

Cross-sectional studies

A cross-sectional study examines and compares different slices of a population – so here, different grades. Yet only two grades were sampled, and these were adjacent grades – 11 and 12 – which is not usually ideal to make comparisons across ages.

There could be a good reason to select two grades that are adjacent in this way. However, the authors do not present separate data for year 11 and year 12, but rather pool it. So they make no comparisons between these two year groups. This "Cross-sectional study" was then NOT actually a cross-sectional study.

If the paper did get sent to "independent professionals/experts/researchers in the relevant research area" for review, it seems these experts missed that error.

Theory and practice?

The abstract of the paper claims

"There is a found to have a gap between knowledge and practice of the respondents. The association of the knowledge and the practice of the students were done in which after the cross-tabulation P value was 0.810 i.e., there is not any [statistically significant?] association between knowledge and the practice in this study."

Gurung & Khanum, 2021, p.29274

This seems to suggest that student knowledge (what they knew about earthquakes) was compared in some way with practice (how they acted during an earthquake or earthquake warning). But the authors seem to have only collected data with (what they label) a questionnaire. They do not have any data on practice. The distinction they seem to really be making is between

  • knowledge about earthquakes, and
  • knowledge about what to do in the event of an earthquake.

That might be a useful thing to examine, but any "independent professionals/experts/researchers in the relevant research area"asked to look at the submission do not seem to have noted that the authors do not investigate practice and so needed to change the descriptions they use an claims they make.

Average levels of knowledge

Another point that any expert reviewer 'worth their salt' would have queried is the use of descriptors like 'average' in evaluating students responses. The study concluded that

"The knowledge of earthquake and its preparedness among Higher Secondary Student were average."

Gurung & Khanum, 2021, p.29280

But how do the authors know what counts as 'average'?

This might mean that there is some agreed standard here described in extant literature – but, if so, this is not revealed. It might mean that the same instrument had previously been used to survey nationally or internationally to offer a baseline – but this is not reported. Some studies on similar themes carried out elsewhere are referred to, but it is not clear they used the same instrumentation or analytical scheme. Indeed, the reader is explicitly told very little about the instrument used:

"Semi-structured both open ended and close ended questionnaire was used for this study."

Gurung & Khanum, 2021, p.29276

The authors seem to have forgotten to discuss the development, validation and contents of the questionnaire – and any experts asked to evaluate the submission seem to have forgotten to look for this. I would actually suggest that the authors did not really use a questionnaire, but rather an assessment instrument.

Read about questionnaires

A questionnaire is used to survey opinions, views and so forth – and there are no right or wrong answers. (What type of music do you like? Oh jazz, sorry that's not the right answer.) As the authors evaluated and scored the student responses this was really an assessment.

The authors suggest:

"In this study the poor knowledge score was 15 (13%), average 80 (69.6%) and good knowledge score 20 (17.4%) among the 115 respondents. Out of the 115 respondents most of the respondent has average knowledge and very few 20 (17.4%) has good knowledge about earthquake and the preparedness of it."

Gurung & Khanum, 2021, p.29280

Perhaps this means that the authors had used some principled (but not revealed) technique to decide what counted as poor, average and good.

ScoreDescription
15poor knowledge
80average knowledge
20good knowledge
Descriptors applied to student scores on the 'questionnaire'

Alternatively, perhaps "poor knowledge score was 15 (13%), average 80 (69.6%) and good knowledge score 20 (17.4%)" is reporting what was found in terms of the distribution in this sample – that is, they empirically found these outcomes in this distribution.

Well, not actually these outcomes, of course, as that would suggest that a score of 20 is better than a score of 80, but presumably that is just a typographic error that was somehow missed by the authors when they made their submission, then missed by the editor who screened the paper for suitability (if there is actually an editor involved in the 'editorial' process for this journal), then missed by expert reviewers asked to scrutinise the manuscript (if there really were any), then missed by production staff when preparing proofs (i.e., one would expect this to have been raised as an 'author query' on proofs 4), and then missed again by authors when checking the proofs for publication.

If so, the authors found that most respondents got fairly typical scores, and fewer scored at the tails of the distribution – as one would expect. On any particular assessment, the average performance is (as the authors report here)…average.


Work cited:
  • Gurung, N. and Khanum, H. (2021) Preventive Practice on Earthquake Preparedness Among Higher Level Students of Dhaka City. Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, July, 2020, Volume 37, 2, pp 29274-29281

Note:

1 The Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research defines its scope as including:

  • Agri and Aquaculture 
  • Biochemistry
  • Bioinformatics & Systems Biology 
  • Biomedical Sciences
  • Clinical Sciences
  • Chemical Engineering
  • Chemistry
  • Computer Science 
  • Economics & Accounting 
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Food & Nutrition
  • General Science
  • Genetics & Molecular Biology
  • Geology & Earth Science
  • Immunology & Microbiology
  • Informatics
  • Materials Science
  • Orthopaedics
  • Mathematics
  • Medical Sciences
  • Nanotechnology
  • Neuroscience & Psychology
  • Nursing & Health Care
  • Pharmaceutical Sciences
  • Physics
  • Plant Sciences
  • Social & Political Sciences 
  • Veterinary Sciences 
  • Clinical & Medical 
  • Anesthesiology
  • Cardiology
  • Clinical Research 
  • Dentistry
  • Dermatology
  • Diabetes & Endocrinology
  • Gastroenterology
  • Genetics
  • Haematology
  • Healthcare
  • Immunology
  • Infectious Diseases
  • Medicine
  • Microbiology
  • Molecular Biology
  • Nephrology
  • Neurology
  • Nursing
  • Nutrition
  • Oncology
  • Ophthalmology
  • Pathology
  • Pediatrics
  • Physicaltherapy & Rehabilitation 
  • Psychiatry
  • Pulmonology
  • Radiology
  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Surgery
  • Toxicology

Such broad scope is a common characteristic of predatory journals.


2 The editor(s) of a research journal is normally a highly regarded academic in the field of the journal. I could not find the name of the editor of this journal although it has seven associate editors and dozens of people named as being on an 'editorial committee'. Whether any of these people actually carry out the functions of an academic editor or whether this work is delegated to non-academic office staff is a moot point.


3 The classes are given names. So, nursery classes include Lotus and Tulip and so forth. In the senior grades, the science classes are called:

  • Flora
  • Neon
  • Meson
  • Sigma
  • Platinam [sic]
  • Argon
  • Electron
  • Neutron
  • Proton
  • Redon [sic]

4 Production staff are not expected to be experts in the topic of the paper, but they do note any obvious omissions (such as missing references) or likely errors and list these as 'author queries' for authors to respond to when checking 'proofs', i.e., the article set in the journal format as it will be published.

The best way to generate an impressive impact factor is – to invent it

Is the Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research falsifying its impact factor?


Keith S. Taber


A journal claiming a seemingly falsified Impact Factor

Impact factors give an indication of journal quality. However, some predatory journals will make false claims (i.e., lie) about their impact factors to attract submissions.

Read about Journal impact factors

I was therefore suspicious when a biomedical journal approached me to submit my work for a 'reputed journal' that had a decent Impact Factor, despite wanting me to publish on a field I do not do research in.

I did a quick informal calculation of what would seem a feasible impact factor, and came up with a figure that suggested the journal's claimed impact factor was completely implausible. It seemed the journal was lying. (I even found an impact factor published by a less selective organisation than that used by most prestigious journals which was much closer to my own estimate.)

Of course, I could be mistaken. So, I sent the following response to clinical@scientificpublisher.net (the source of the invitation to submit) the same day I received their invitation (19th May). I did not immediately get a reply, so I sent the message again to clinical@biomedres.us (an email address given in the footer of the invitation) two days later (21st May).

As of yet (30th May), I have had no reply – probably because the Journal staff know their claimed impact factor is fabricated. They suggested in their invitation that 'The best way to predict the future is to invent it'. I assume they took their own advice, but doubt this will help them get a genuine impact factor.


Oddly, a journal that started publishing is already inviting papers for Volume 43 (and on its website is up to Volume 44, Issue 2)1


Dear Angela
Thank you for your invitation to contribute to the 'Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research'.

I understand this journal was only established about 5 years ago, so I was very impressed to see that it already has an Impact factor of 1.229 – that seems a real achievement in such a short time. Your website suggests the journal has already published over 5000 articles, so having an impact factor of over 1.2 implies the journal's articles have already been cited over 6000 times in citation ranking outputs! I was so surprised to read this, that I went to check on Google Scholar, which is a very liberal listing of citations (it includes all kinds of things like student dissertations and webpages which are not included in the formal calculation of impact factors).

Yet, as far as I can see, Google scholar seems to list less than 200 citations of articles in 'Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research'. If that is not just my incompetence in using the search engine, that would likely suggest that the number of citations appearing in outputs included in the indices for calculating Impact Factors is many fewer than 100 – which would mean an Impact Factor over the life of the journal of certainly no more than about 0.02?

I would be grateful for your clarification. Have there really been 6000+ citations of articles in 'Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research' in journals which qualify for indexing when calculating citation indices? If not, is the journal's impact factor just one of these 'dodgy' numbers that some predatory journals quote but which have been generated by some dubious algorithm or act of necromancy, and which has no real connection with the authentic Impact Factors quoted by reputable journals?

The academic community has an accepted understanding of what genuine Impact Factors are claiming, and I cannot see any details on your site (perhaps I have missed this?) to suggest that your journal uses a different methodology to the academic norm, so it would be dishonest if the journal looked to deceive those you invite to be authors (such as myself) by pretending to have an Impact Factor that could not be substantiated and which has been heavily inflated. I am sure you would appreciate that authors are unlikely to be enticed to submit to a journal if they feel from initial contact that they are being misled by a journal that cannot be trusted to adhere to academic norms.

Perhaps I am not using Google Scholar correctly, and you can point me to the evidence for your impressive Impact Factor. I look forward to your response.

It may well be that 'The best way to predict the future is to invent it' but I hope this does not include the Impact Factor you cite.

Best wishes
Keith




On 19/05/2022 12:42, Clinical Trials & Results wrote:

Dear Dr. Keith S Taber,

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. So, lets make this year as a year of finding and fulfillment.

On behalf of Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research (ISSN: 2574-1241) with an Impact factor: 1.229, we take the great opportunity in inviting you to submit your manuscript for new issue release i.e., Volume 43 Issue 5 by 03rd of June.

We would be delighted if you would take part in this issue with your significant article being published in our reputed journal.

We look forward to hearing a positive response from your end.

Angela Roy
Biomedical Journal (BJSTR)
clinical@biomedres.us
Address: One Westbrook Corporate Center, Suite 300, Westchester, IL 60154, USA
Ph. No: +1 (502) 904-2126


Note:

By far the most common practice in journal publishing is to have one volume per year – so typically all issues published in 2021 would comprise one volume. In 2021 Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research published volumes 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and part of volume 40.

Are you still with us, Doctor Wu?

Is the editor of a dubious journal a real living person?

Keith S. Taber


A katydid on a flower (Image by Zw Ma from Pixabay)

I've become a bit worried about Dr. Wu.

That is Kuang-Ming Wu, Ph.D., who is (at least, according to a number of internet sites) Professor Emeritus at University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, USA.

To be honest, I had not heard of Dr Wu before I received an invitation to review an article for a Philosophy journal. But having been introduced to him, so to speak, in this way, and having done some 'digging' around the web, I became, initially, suspicious (did he really exist?), and, then, actually quite concerned about his well-being. Prof. Wu certainly was at one time considered a serious academic, but what I could easily find through the internet led me to ponder:

  • Are you crazy Dr Wu?
  • Or, perhaps, under the influence of some intoxicating substance?
  • Indeed, are you actually still with us, Dr Wu?
  • Or, is the persona on the internet just some kind of digital shadow of a previously respected academic?

That is, is Kuang-Ming Wu's name being used unscrupulously by various predatory organisations, perhaps without his knowledge?

But, I am getting ahead of myself.

A questionable invitation

I received an invitation to act as a peer reviewer for a research paper. Peer review is a key feature of how academic publishing works, and research journals reply upon academics being prepared to give up time to carefully read a submission, and prepare a report for the journal editor on the merits, and weaknesses, of a submitted manuscript.

Read about peer review

This task usually takes several hours (and sometimes considerably longer) and is normally completed gratis. During my career as university teaching officer I undertook hundreds of such reviews – all without payment. 1

An academic who is writing for publication and submitting their work to journals relies on other scholars being willing to undertake this task so their own work can be evaluated for possible publication. So, the system only works because authors are prepared to also act as reviewers. It is expected as part of the job of a university academic, and does get credit in the sense that it is one of the aspects (inter alia) of making a contribution to the field that are usually included on a c.v./résumé when applying for academic posts or promotion. (That said, having reviewed thousands of papers would count for little unless the academic is getting their own work published, and probably also doing a major course management role, and 'volunteering' for a few institutional committees, and showing involvement with learned societies or other aspects of their field, and involved in some way with public engagement…)

Since I have retired I have continued to undertake some reviewing, but limit this and have got more fussy about what I take on. In particular, if a journal publisher is charging authors hundreds (sometimes thousands) of pounds for publication, then why should I review for the journal for free when I am no longer receiving a stipend that I can consider makes this work 'part of the job'?

A deluge of mythical garbage

The invitation came from 'The Open Journal of Philosophy'. That was not a journal I had any association with, or indeed was familiar with. I have done some work which, if you are being very (very) generous, could be considered to have some philosophical content, but I am not recognised as a philosopher, so this was not a journal I would expect to review for. But, then again, some journals have wide scope, and some work is cross-disciplinary or inter-disciplinary, and so might involve, say, philosophy and science education, so one needs to consider specific request on their merits.

The title of the submission was long and complex and referred to the ideas of two specific scholars in relation to a topic totally unrelated to my own research. I was not familiar with the work of either of the named thinkers, neither of whom, to be best of my knowledge have contributed work to my areas of scholarship. 2

I read the abstract. It referenced "dominant interpellative historiographies…the deluge of mythical garbage…so-called facilitators of our process of humanizationalternative respiratory orifices to our survival…the aegis of commoditized auction blocksthe soft-ware of catacombic memory…" and so on. (Yes, this was just the abstract.) I was pretty sure it was not about teaching and learning in science. As a general rule, if you do not understand the abstract you probably should not volunteer to evaluate the paper.


An 'alternative respiratory orifice'? (Image by bluebudgie from Pixabay)

Perhaps this is a very worthy contribution to knowledge, but it was very clear to me that I was not qualified to evaluate it. What was not very clear to me was why anyone thought I would be so qualified. An academic invited to review has a responsibility to decline the invitation if that academic does not feel qualified to review the work: but a journal also has a responsibility to only invite referees to review where there is a prima facie case that they have the right expertise, and not to invite people arbitrarily and then rely on the person invited to make that call. (Especially as completing reviews is disproportionately useful in building the c.v. for novice and junior academics, so one can imagine the pressures for inexperienced scholars yet to develop expertise in a field but seeking an academic career to take on such work if invited.) Peer review invitations sent out without a reasonable rationale are simply a form of email spam.

It seemed that someone at the Journal had examined the manuscript and then, when considering suitable reviewers, had decided that I had the right expertise to advise on whether this manuscript was suitable for publication as a novel and substantive contribution to public knowledge.

How could they have reached that conclusion? Perhaps there was a phrase which seemed to match?

"A deluge of mythical garbage, huh.

For some reason I'm thinking Taber, in the Education Faculty at Cambridge, would be just the person to comment."

The Open Journal of Philosophy

I looked up the journal on line. I saw it was an Open Access journal that charged authors for publication. Its standard rate was $599 (but with discounts for authors from less-well resourced countries). It was not published by a scholarly society, or a university press, or even by one of the long-established commercial publishers. That cannot be considered to be sufficient reason to judge a journal will necessarily be of poor quality, but – given the profile of many dodgy predatory journals – is enough to make one suspicious.

The website claimed that

"All manuscripts must be prepared in English and are subject to a rigorous and fair peer-review process. Generally, accepted papers will appear online within 3 weeks followed by printed hard copy."

My own experience as an author and an editor suggest this was dubious – a rigorous peer review process is likely to mean most published manuscripts will pass though at least one round of revision, and that journals will need to give reviewers sufficient time to evaluate the original submissions and then later the revisions. Of course, some submissions may be excellent and need minimal revision, and some reviewers may be able to give the work their immediate attention. So, there is no reason why a good paper might not be published in a good journal three weeks after submission – and I have known this to happen – but these tend to be exceptions. A journal that generally publishes work after three weeks is unlikely to have rigourous review.

Unless, of course, the clock does not start on submission. "Generally, accepted papers will appear online within 3 weeks" seems to suggest

  • Generally, accepted papers will appear online within 3 weeks [of submission]

but could mean

  • Generally, accepted papers will appear online within 3 weeks [of acceptance]

which is not only not exceptional, but by today's standards seems a little tardy.

The website also claimed

"Submitted manuscripts adhering to journal guidelines are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an Editor, who will assign them to reviewers".

So, assuming the claimed procedures were being followed, I was selected to review this particular manuscript by either the Editor-in-Chief or one of its Editors. Now the website included the details of the Editor-in-Chief, who it appeared was the only editor (there was also an Editorial Board – consisting of people who supposedly advise on editorial policy). So, presumably, I must have been assigned to this manuscript by the Editor-in-Chief.

And the Editor-in-Chief (according to the website) is – as you may have anticipated

Prof. Kuang-Ming Wu,

Professor Emeritus at University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, USA

The editor-in-chief seems to have a hands-off approach

I sent a polite response to the invitation, copying in Prof. Kuang-Ming Wu.

"Thank you for your email.

This does not immediately seem to be in my area of expertise. I wonder if you would be kind enough to explain the Editor-in-Chief/Editor's rationale in nominating me to review this particular submission. Perhaps I am missing an obvious link, but does the journal really think my expertise is strongly enough matched that I am sufficiently qualified to review this particular manuscript?"

(I resisted a mischievous temptation to ask how much of the £599 publication fee I might be paid for reviewing.)

The next day I received a very polite and apologetic reply from the journal office explaining "I read your article on the Internet before and thought I might invite you to review the manuscript". This was from the journal's Editorial Assistant. It would seem that the task of identifying referees with appropriate expertise had been delegated to the Editorial Assistant and was not, as claimed, being carried out by an Editor. 3

Is Dr Wu incommunicado?

I failed, however, in communicating my message directly to Dr Wu.

According to the publisher's website his affiliation is:

Prof. Kuang-Ming Wu
Philosophy Department
University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, USA
Professor Emeritus, Rosebush University Professor

The website gave an email address, and some biographical details. Kuang-Ming Wu was awarded his first degree in 1960, and obtained his Ph.D. from Yale (impressive) in 1965. Unfortunately my message sent to the email address given on the publisher's website was 'undeliverable' due to a 'policy violation or system error' at the recipient's end as the "mailbox is disabled". This email address was not at any academic institution or scholarly society, but then some universities seem to forget the potential value of emeritus faculty as an extremely cost-effective potential source of academic prestige due to their continuing (unpaid) scholarly activities.

As Prof. Wu was apparently affiliated with the Philosophy Department at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh I checked the departmental website to see if I could find an institutional email contact. A page detailing 'faculty & staff' listed current faculty and also emeritus faculty, but there was no mention of a Prof. Kuang-Ming Wu.

So, this was looking a little suspicious:

  • someone else was carrying out the editor's work
  • the email address given for the editor was unserviceable
  • the claimed academic affiliation did not seem to be corroborated

Was Dr Wu a real person?

What has happened to Wu?

I soon found that some of Dr Wu's books could be purchased from well-known internet sellers. I also found evidence that Kuang-Ming Wu had indeed taught in the philosophy department at University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, USA. A university house magazine from 1991 reports that Kuang-ming Wu 'professor, philosophy' had that year given a lecture series at a University in Taiwan.


One of Kuang-Ming Wu's books – this was published by State University of New York Press in 1990 as part of its 'Religion and Philosophy' series


I also found that the "The John McNaughton Rosebush University Professorships were named for John McNaughton Rosebush" and the title is "one of the University's most coveted awards, the professorships are granted for excellence in teaching, professional achievement and public service". One of three awards made in 1992 was to Prof. Kuang-Ming Wu.

So, according to information on the worldwide web, Dr Wu was a respected academic and certainly had been in the faculty of the philosophy department at University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh – even if that was decades ago, and no such affiliation is now acknowledged on the website.

Emeritus professors are retired from academic positions in universities, but it is not automatic that such a title is granted. If Dr Wu was entitled to use the title Emeritus Professor at Wisconsin-Oshkosh one would expect this should be acknowledged on the University website, but if he was long retired and no longer in contact it is feasible his department had inadvertently failed to include him as Emeritus Faculty. 4

Beyond Philosophy?

However, the internet also gave access to more recent information on Dr Wu. This includes affiliation to journals and conferences related to philosophy and other subject areas. Some of these subjects would not usually be considered cognate with philosophy.

For example, a journal called 'Account and Financial Management Journal' included amongst its list of Board members:

Kuang-ming Wu
Ph.d. [sic]
John McN. [sic] Rosebush University Professorship, University of  Wisconsin-Oshkosh

Even further from philosophy, a member of the 'technical committees' [sic] of The 2nd International Conference on Electrical, Control and Automation (ICECA 2018) was

Prof. Kuang-ming Wu, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, USA

and similarly, a member of the 'Technological Committees' [sic] of The 4th International Conference on Electrical, Control and Automation (ICECA 2020) was

Prof. Kuang-ming Wu, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, USA

Unless another Prof. Kuang-ming Wu from an area such as electrical engineering or similar was also associated with University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, this seemed an odd association.

The 'Technological Committees' [sic] of the 3rd World Conference on Management Science and Human Social Development (MSHS 2020), which will be held during December 26 to 27, 2020 in Tianjin, China, includes

Prof. Kuang-ming Wu, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, USA

and the 'Technical Committees' of The 5th International Symposium on Application of Materials Science and Energy Materials (SAMSE 2022) to be hosted by Thailand Institute of Science and Engineering Technology during October 2022 includes:

Prof. Kuang-ming Wu, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, USA

It is by no means unlikely that an academic philosopher will be invited to be on such committees as sadly such invitations are often offered regardless of subject expertise – but it less clear why an academic philosopher would agree to be part of a committee responsible for the academic programme in a discipline or subject area they did not work in.

I have seen an example in the past of such a committee listing being posted with names, photos and c.v.s of academics who were not even aware their names were being used in this way – so inevitably I am suspicious of whether Prof. Kuang-ming Wu (if he is still even with us, as he must be in his eighties) has agreed to give his name to some of these committees – or whether his name is just being used without his active involvement (just as I was invited to review for the journal he is supposed to edit without his involvement).

Are you crazy, Dr Wu?

Unless I can find a live email address for Dr Wu, I am unlikely to ever know for sure.

I found some of his more recent published work on line.

A 2014 article (described as 'a research/review paper') in 'Global Journal of Management and Business Research: g Interdisciplinary' is entitled 'Praise, Flattery: Common Cosmopolitan'. This two page article has no academic references, and begins

"Surprisingly, things common can have cosmopolitan import, such the praise-flattery pair in a common commercial deal and beyond. Flattery is for us, praise is to others, and both appreciate to move the world. It is a common oiling of our business deal all over the globe, in "sale" in "free" in every store, to promote our win-win deal, as buyers satisfy their need to profit sellers.

Doctors also do healthcare in "bedside manners," and as scholars do so to inter-enrich. As flattery praises much, so praise prizes a person; as babies cannot be spoiled, so no one can be praised too much. Thus "flattery gets anyone anywhere," even by "I know you'd never accept flattery!" Such joy goes around coming around; we are all in smile, cosmopolitan. "

Is this the writing of an academic philosopher lauded for his excellence? Perhaps it is, but it seems to have the feel of something generated by a 'bot'. Certainly if I was a judge in the Turing test I would fail this entry. 5

Are you high?

The 2018 article 'On Tender Pain' in the International Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Journal is described as a Book review. It begins:

"Human life is constantly surrounded with pain, both as justified one and as unjustified one. Unjustified pain is violent and bestial even below innocent animals, and it is caused by offending justified pain. Justified pain is tender pain in acts of love. Love means to cherish and serve heartfelt. We are human because we love, cherish, and serve three sorts of beings precious to us.
These precious beings are our parental others, our beloved posterity, and our own self. …"

Whether this is good writing or not, there is something very odd about this article. It continues in much the same vein for about six-and-a-half pages,

"Sex is joy because sex shares its pleasures. In contrast, Hitler's mass-murder hatred is his sadistic pleasure staying one-sidedly with him alone, without sharing it with his massive victims. Of course, it took Hitler's enormous talent of demagoguery to keep up such sadistic satisfaction, but still it actually collapsed in just four years. Brutal dynasties in China's ugly history and elsewhere did last a few centuries, but they all ended in disastrous revolutions, all so bloody. Violence on the others has never lasted for ever. World history testifies to this solid fact worldwide, that no violence is everlasting."

Whether this qualifies as a carefully constructed argument or is simply rambling ("This paper roams around...") may be a matter of judgement (and as this is open access, anyone can read the work and make up their own mind) but again the article has no academic references – which seems odd for a scholarly piece.

Even stranger, however, if 'On Tender Pain' is intended as a book review, it is the only book review I recall reading which at no point lets the reader in on the secret of which book is being reviewed.

Have you done all you can do, Dr Wu?

If these works are genuinely by the Kuang-Ming Wu who had worked in the Philosophy Department at University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh and was made a Rosebush University Professor, then this seems a sad decline. Perhaps this is a sign of diminishing capacity, which I can fully appreciate. Perhaps Dr Wu is now just a shadow of the the scholar he was when he was younger?

Perhaps, however, Dr Wu is simply kindly responding to some of those emails academics arbitrarily get asking them to contribute to journals and conferences from diverse fields. Predatory journals will ask for an article, preferably by next week, and point out that it you are busy they are happy to accept a short commentary or opinion piece or a book review or a shopping list. (Well, to be fair, I've never actually had a request from a journal explicitly asking for a shopping list, but one gets the impression that as long as the author is able to pay the publication fee, it would not be ruled out of hand).

The mysterious Dr Wu

So, in conclusion, I am left wondering. Is the Dr Wu who was a respected scholar and professor of philosophy still with us? If so, is he still actively engaged in scholarly activities? Does he (sometimes at least) actively edit the Open Journal of Philosophy? Has he approved of the various uses of his name on scientific committees for fields such as electrical engineering and materials science? So,

  • Is Dr Wu a once productive academic who's intellectual powers have declined?
  • Or, is Dr Wu a retired academic who has decided to allow the use of his name for various predatory conferences and journals
  • Or, is Dr Wu the victim of having his name and affiliation 'borrowed' without his knowledge?

I suggested at the start of this piece that "I had not heard of Dr Wu before I received an invitation to review an article for a Philosophy Journal". But, perhaps, I had, and had just not immediately made the connection. I have in my music collection the track 'Dr Wu' by Steely Dan (perhaps the only successful music act to have named themselves after a fictitious dildo). This includes the lines:

"Are you with me Doctor Wu
Are you really just a shadow
Of the man that I once knew
Are you crazy are you high
Or just an ordinary guy
Have you done all you can do
Are you with me Doctor"

Walter Becker and Donald Fagen (from the lyrics of 'Dr Wu' from the album 'Katy Lied')
Steely Dan's 'Katy Lied'. (What Katydid next?)

Are you still with us Dr Wu?

Notes:

1 Book publishers (even when they are also journal publishers) tend to offer something (money or books) for reviewing book proposals or manuscripts. Funding organisations (including charities and national governments and their bodies) vary – some expect the academics to review for free, and some feel it is appropriate to pay a professional fee for their time and expertise. Reviewing is a kind of consultancy, and in most professions an expert would not expect an external organisation (especially a commercial one like most internet publishers) to ask for consultancy yet not offer to pay a fee.


2 I had intended to include the manuscript title, but think this should be treated as privileged information – even though the journal had not asked for it to be kept confidential, and I had never expressed any interest in reviewing for this journal, so it was sent to me 'on spec.'

That is, there is an ethics of peer review, and most well-respected journals will have policies asking reviewers (or potential reviewers) to treat any communications about submissions as confidential material. The invitation I was sent was not marked as private or confidential which might suggest no obligation to treat it as such exists. In any case, I am not criticising or evaluating the work here, as I do not have the right expertise to do so. However, I think the author has a reasonable expectation to confidentiality, and so I decided not to publish a complex and very specific title that may later appear in print.


3 It is possible that a scholar with great knowledge of the field could be working as an editorial assistant – however, such a role is administrative not editorial and it would be (very) unusual for an assistant to have the expertise to deputise for the editor rather than support them.


4 I emailed the Philosophy department, and have now had a reply – but they do not seem to have any current contact details for Dr Wu in their records.


5 That is, if I was asked to confirm this was written by a human being, and not an AI system designed to imitate genuine human language, I would assume this was prose put together by a machine using a crude algorithm to mine internet sites and compile a text. (Sorry Dr Wu – perhaps this was your work and this evaluation just confirms I should not be reviewing work in your field?)

Research features…but only if you can afford it

Should I pay a magazine to write a feature article about one of my book reviews?

Keith S. Taber

Dear Chris Temple

Thank you or your message with the subject 'Inquiry – Making sense of a pedagogic text', but I am a retired academic, and so do not have a publicity budget to pay you to do a feature on my research.

In any case, the publication you have selected, 'Making sense of a pedagogic text', as suitable for discussion in a feature article, presumably because [you want me to think that] you see particular merit in it, seems an odd choice, as it is an essay review of a text book. So, I immediately ask, how much thought and effort went into your selecting this article? How much of it did you read [i.e., have you read any of it?] before you decided you wanted to take up some of my time so you could "speak with you concerning your work on the Making sense of a pedagogic text paper". When I was teaching, how would I have responded to a student who wanted to have a supervision on a text, but had not themselves spent time reading it first?

However, I see from 'Linked-in'*  that you consider yourself "a Project Manager who strives on increasing new business and profit to companies through new sales and fresh thinking technical marketing strategies", so I suspect there is some 'cunning plan' (some fresh thinking technical marketing strategy) behind your selection of a book review as a target for enticing me me to spend some of my pension to help your company profit. Perhaps you do have some basis for selecting this work as being suitable for the 'feature' treatment in your magazine?

  • Perhaps you have recognised the deep insight and carefully honed judgement I apply in the review?
  • Perhaps you recognised how I have managed to apply pedagogic principles to the analysis of a book about pedagogy? (Clever, those academics.)
  • Perhaps you agree that the textbook concerned offers an approach overly focused on one factor, and that my review is crucial to offer readers of the textbook a more balanced appreciation of the field?

Or perhaps you especially like book reviews, as I quickly found that you had also invited a Prof. Julie Crupples to have one of her book reviews featured in the magazine.

Or perhaps you, or some 'bot' you employ, has simply identified the name of a recent publication that can be associated with a name and email address. That would explain the fresh thinking/bizarre choice.

As you offer no justification for the unlikely selection, I am left to suspect that no more thought went into the choice of this publication as the basis of a feature article in your magazine than all those invitations I get asking me to write or speak on nanotechnology, virology, gynaecology, psychiatry and all the rest – which seem to be based on no more that I am someone who has published something or other, on some topic or other, somewhere on the web.

Incidentally, when I read that your "email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party" this simply reinforces the impression of Research Features as a predatory publication. Perhaps I am wrong, but your email appears to be simply a standard marketing email into which you have dropped a few details into fields (email, name, article title)? It seems this is 'cold calling' by email, in the hope you will be invited to give me your sales talk. I do not find anything confidential here. You are aware of one of my publications (well, it is in the public domain) and you are making sure I am aware of your publication (which…, well you get the point). As your website invites all and sundry to get in touch to "get featured" it is clearly not a matter that the offer is only open to those directly invited.

So, that raises the question of why you would not want me to share the content of your email (and so let others know about your magazine and the PR service you offer). The only obvious reason would be that you would like recipients to feel they have been specially chosen. Like most of the weakly targeted scam emails that come my way, it is clear that the vast majority of recipients will dismiss them as irrelevant, but that does not matter as long as

  • (a) a very small proportion find the invitation convincing and
  • (b) the company engages in blanket emails so that a, say, 0.01% hit rate brings in enough sales.

You add a little bit of additional spam to the clogged-up Inboxes of the other 99.99%, but presumably (although I read on the web that UK "legislation says that organisations must only send marketing emails to individuals if you have agreed to receive them, except where there is a clearly defined customer relationship") you think you will get away with that?

(* I see that you have posted a link to a video that talks about the need for social value, ethics and responsibility in business. Hm.)

If there are academics tempted to pay you for this service, they should consider:

will this count for my publications list for appointments/tenure/promotions?clearly, no
is this the kind of publication I myself would go to to read about research?if they know what they are doing,
clearly no
is this a publication which would point me (and therefore others) to the most significant new research in my field or other fields of interest?only when the authors of that research happen to have paid to be featured, so at best it is pot luck there, and arguably the most significant work is already getting attention because it is recognised as such in its field, and so is less likely to have authors prepared to pay out for publicity

– {I hope this does not mean you have selected my article because you think it is so insignificant that no one is going to pay it any attention otherwise!}
will this increase my research impact?only if the general public, relevant professions, and policy makers, think this is something they should spent time reading to find out about the most important research – so, very unlikely that those in these groups who would be motivated to read about research would also be ignorant enough to think a 'pay to be featured' magazine is likely to be a good place to get a balanced view of the most significant new studies.

I would question the judgement of those academics who think this would be a good use of their time and money.

In summary then, this seems a dubious publication, with a very dubious marketing policy, that I would suggest serious scholars should avoid. I hope that clearly responds to your enquiry.

Best wishes

Keith

Occidently re-orienting atoms

It seems atoms are not quite as chemists imagine them not to be

Keith S. Taber

A research paper presenting a new model of atomic and molecular structure was recently brought to my attention. 1

The paper header

'New Atomic Model with Identical Electrons Position in the Orbital's and Modification of Chemical Bonds and MOT [molecular orbital theory]' 2 is published in a recently-launched journal with the impressive title of Annals of Atoms and Molecules. This is an open-access journal available free on the web – so readily accessible to chemistry experts, as well as students studying the subject and lay-people looking to learn from a scholarly source. [Spoiler alert – it may not be an ideal source for scholarly information!]

In the paper, Dr Morshed proposes a new model of the atom that he suggests overcomes many problems with the model currently used in chemistry.

A new model of atomic structure envisages East and West poles as well as North and South poles) (Morshed, 2020a, p.8)

Of course, as I have often pointed out on this blog, one of the downsides of the explosion in on-line publishing and the move to open access models of publication, is that anyone can set up as an academic journal publisher and it can be hard for the non-expert to know what reflects genuine academic quality when what gets published in many new journals often seems to depend primarily upon an author being willing to pay the publisher a hefty fee (Taber, 2013).

That is not to suggest open-access publishing has to compromise quality: the well-established, recognised-as-prestigious journals can afford to charge many hundreds of pounds for open-access publication and still be selective. But, new journals, often unable to persuade experienced experts to act as reviewers, will not attract many quality papers, and so cannot be very selective if they are to cover costs (or indeed make the hoped-for profits for their publishers).

A peer reviewed journal

The journal with the impressive title of Annals of Atom and Molecules has a website which explains that

"Annals of Atoms and Molecules is an open access, peer reviewed journal that publishes novel research insights covering but not limited to constituents of atoms, isotopes of an element, models of atoms and molecules, excitations and de-excitations, ionizations, radiation laws, temperatures and characteristic wavelengths of atoms and molecules. All the published manuscripts are subjected to standardized peer review processing".

https://scholars.direct/journal.php?jid=atoms-and-molecules

So, in principle at least, the journal has experts in the field critique submissions, and advise the editors on (i) whether a manuscript has potential to be of sufficient interest and quality to be worth publishing, and (ii) if so, what changes might be needed before publications is wise.

Read about peer review

Standardised peer review gives the impression of some kind of moderation (perhaps renormalisation given the focus of the journal? 3) of review reports, which would involve a lot of extra work and another layer of administration in the review process…but I somehow suspect this claim really just meant a 'standard' process. This does not seem to be a journal where great care is taken over the language used.

Effective peer review relies on suitable experts taking on the reviewing, and editors prepared to act on their recommendations. The website lists five members of the editorial board, most of whom seem to be associated with science departments in academic institutions:

  • Prof. Farid Menaa (Fluorotronics Inc) 4
  • Prof. Sabrin Ragab Mohamed Ibrahim (Department of Pharmacognosy and Pharmaceutical chemistry, Taibah University)
  • Prof. Mina Yoon (Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Tennessee)
  • Dr. Christian G Parigger (Department of Physics, University of Tennessee Space Institute)
  • Dr. Essam Hammam El-Behaedi (Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina Wilmington)

The members of a journal Editorial Board will not necessarily undertake the reviewing themselves, but are the people entrusted by the publisher with scholarly oversight of the quality of the journal. For this journal it is claimed that "Initially the editorial board member handles the manuscript and may assign or the editorial staff may assign the reviewers for the received manuscript". This sounds promising, as at least (it is claimed) all submissions are initially seen by a Board member, whether or not they actually select the expert reviewers. (The 'or' means that the claim is, of course, logically true even if in actuality all of the reviewers are assigned by the unidentified office staff.)

At the time of writing only three papers have been published in the Annals. One reviews a spectroscopic method, one is a short essay on quantum ideas in chemistry – and then there is Dr Morshed's new atomic theory.

A new theory of atomic structure

The abstract of Dr Morshed's paper immediately suggests that this is a manuscript which was either not carefully prepared or has been mistreated in production. The first sentence is:

The concept of atom has undergone numerous changes in the history of chemistry, most notably the realization that atoms are divisible and have internal structure Scientists have known about atoms long before they could produce images of them with powerful magnifying tools because atoms could not be seen, the early ideas about atoms were mostly founded in philosophical and religion-based reasoning.

Morshed, 2020a, p.6

Presumably, this was intended to be more than one sentence. If the author made errors in the text, they should have been queried by the copy editor. If the production department introduced errors, then they should have been corrected by the author when sent the proofs for checking. Of course, a few errors can sometimes still slip through, but this paper has many of them. Precise language is important in a research paper, and sloppy errors do not give the reader confidence in the work being reported.

The novelty of the work is also set out in the abstract:

In my new atomic model, I have presented the definite position of electron/electron pairs in the different orbital (energy shells) with the identical distance among all nearby electron pairs and the degree position of electrons/electron pairs with the Center Point of Atoms (nucleus) in atomic structure, also in the molecular orbital.

Morshed, 2020a, p.6

This suggests more serious issues with the submission than simple typographical errors.

Orbital /energy shells

The term "orbital (energy shells)" is an obvious red flag to any chemist asked to evaluate this paper. There are serious philosophical arguments about precisely what a model is and the extent to which a model of the atom might be considered to be realistic. Arguably, models that are not mathematical and which rely on visualising the atom are inherently not realistic as atoms are not the kinds of things one could see. So, terms such as shell or orbital are either being used to refer to some feature in a mathematical description or are to some extent metaphorical. BUT, when the term shell is used, it conventionally means something different from an orbital.

That is, in the chemical community, the electron shell (sic, not energy shell) and the orbital refer to different classes of entity (even if in the case of the K shell there is only one associated orbital). Energy levels are related, but again somewhat distinct – an energy level is ontologically quite different to an orbital or a shell in a similar way to how sea level is very different in kind to a harbour or a lagoon; or how 'mains voltage' is quite different from the house's distribution box or mains ring; or how an IQ measurement is a different kind of thing to the brain of the person being assessed.

Definite positions of electrons

An orbital is often understood as a description of the distribution of the electron density – we might picture (bearing in mind my point that the most authentic models are mathematical) the electron smeared out as in a kind of time-lapse representation of where the electron moves around the volume of space designated as an orbital. Although, as an entity small enough for quantum effects to be significant (a 'quanticle'? – with some wave-like characteristics, rather than a particle that is just like a bearing ball only much smaller), it may be better not to think of the electron actually being at any specific point in space, but rather having different probabilities of being located at specific points if we could detect precisely where it was at any moment.

That is, if one wants to consider the electron as being at specific points in space then this can only be done probabilistically. The notion of "the definite position of electron/electron pairs in the different orbital" is simply nonsensical when the orbital is understood in terms of a wave function. Any expert asked to review this manuscript would surely have been troubled by this description.

It is often said that electrons are sometimes particles and sometimes waves but that is a very anthropocentric view deriving from how at the scale humans experience the world, these seem very distinct types of things. Perhaps it is better to think that electrons are neither particles nor waves as we experience them, but something else (quanticles) with more subtle behavioural repertoires. We think that there is a fundamental inherent fuzziness to matter at the scale where we describe atoms and molecules.

So, Dr Morshed wants to define 'definite positions' for electrons in his model, but electrons in atoms do not have a fixed position. (Later there is reference to circulation – so perhaps these are considered as definite relative positions?) In any case, due to the inherent fuzziness in matter, if an electron's position was known absolutely then there would would (by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) be an infinite uncertainty in its momentum, so although we might know 'exactly' where it was 'now' (or rather 'just now' when the measurement occurred as it would take time for the signal to be processed through first our laboratory, and then our nervous, apparatus!) this would come with having little idea where it was a moment later. Over any duration of time, the electron in an atom does not have a definite position – so there is little value in any model that seeks to represent such a fixed position.

The problem addressed

Dr Morshed begins by giving some general historical introduction to ideas about the atom, before going on to set out what is argued to be the limitation of current theory:

Electrons are arranged in different orbital[s] by different numbers in pairs/unpaired around the nuclei. Electrons pairs are associated by opposite spin together to restrict opposite movement for stability in orbital rather angular movements. The structural description is obeyed for the last more than hundred years but the exact positions of electrons/pairs in the energy shells of atomic orbital are not described with the exact locations among different orbital/shells.

Morshed, 2020a, p.6

Some of this is incoherent. It may well be that English is not Dr Morshed's native language, in which case it is understandable that producing clear English prose may be challenging. What is less forgivable is that whichever of Profs. Ibrahim, Yoon, or Drs Menaa, Parigger, or El-Behaedi initially handled the manuscript did not point out that it needed to be corrected and in clear English before it could be considered for publication, which could have helped the author avoid the ignominy of having his work published with so many errors.

That assumes, of course, that whichever of Ibrahim, Yoon, Menaa, Parigger, or El-Behaedi initially handled the manuscript were so ignorant of chemistry to be excused for not spotting that a paper addressing the issue of how current atomic models fail to assign "exact positions of electrons/pairs in the energy shells of atomic orbital are not described with the exact locations among different orbital/shells" both confused distinct basic atomic concepts and seemed to be criticising a model of atomic structure that students move beyond before completing upper secondary chemistry. In other words, this paper should have been rejected on editorial screening, and never should have been sent to review, as its basic premise was inconsistent with modern chemical theory.

If, as claimed, all papers are seen by the one of the editorial board, then the person assigned as handling editor for this one does not seem to have taken the job seriously. (And as only three papers have been published since the journal started, the workload shared among five board members does not seem especially onerous.)

Just in case the handling editorial board member was not reading the text closely enough, Dr Morshed offered some images of the atomic model which is being critiqued as inadequate in the paper:

A model of the atom criticised in the paper in Annals of Atoms and Molecules (Morshed, 2020a, p.7)

I should point out that I am able to reproduce material from this paper as it is claimed as copyright of the author who has chosen to publish open access with a license that "permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited". (Although, if you look very closely at the first figure, it seems to have superimposed in red text "© Copyright www.chemistrytutotial.org", where, by an unlikely coincidence, I found what seems to be the same image on the page Atomic Structure with Examples.)

Read about copyright in academic works

Again, the handling editor should have noticed that these images in the figure reflect the basic model of the atom taught in introductory school classes as commonly represented in simple two-dimensional images. These are not the models used to progress knowledge in academic chemistry today.

These images are not being reproduced in the research paper as part of some discussion of atomic representations in school textbooks. Rather this is the model that the author is suggesting falls short as part of current chemical theory – but it is actually an introductory pedagogical model that is not the basis of any contemporary chemical research, and indeed has not been so for the best part of a century. Even though the expression "the electrons/electron pairs position is not identical by their position, alignments or distribution" does not have any clear meaning in normal English, what is clear is that these very simple models are only used today for introductory pedagogic purposes.

Symmetrical atoms?

The criticism of the model continues:

The existing electrons pair coupling model is not also shown clearly in figure by which a clear structure of opposite spine pair can be drowned. Also there are no proper distribution of electron/s around the center (nuclei) to maintain equal number of electrons/electronic charge (charge proportionality) around the total mass area of atomic circle (360°) in the existing atomic model (Figure 1). There are no clear ideas about the speed proportion and time of circulation of electrons/electron pairs in the atomic orbital/shells so there is no answer about the possibility of uneven number of electrons/electron pairs at any position /side of atomic body can arise that must make any atom unstable.

Morshed, 2020a, p.7

Again, this makes little sense (to me at least – perhaps the Editorial Board members are better at hermeneutics than I am). Now we are told that electrons are 'circulating' in the orbitals/shell which seems inconsistent with them having the "definite positions" that Dr Morshed's model supposedly offers. Although I can have a guess at some of the intended meaning, I really would love to know what is meant by "a clear structure of opposite spine pair can be drowned".

Protecting an atom from drowning? (Images by Image by ZedH  and  Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay)
A flat model of the atom

I initially thought that Dr Morshed is concerned that the model shown in figure 1 cannot effectively show how in the three dimensional atomic structure the electrons must be arranged to give a totally symmetric patterns: and (in his argument) that this would be needed else it would leave the atoms unstable. Of course, two dimensional images do not easily show three dimensional structure. So when Dr Morshed referred to the "atomic circle (360°) in the existing atomic model" I assumed he was actually referring to the sphere.

On reflection, I am not so sure. I was unimpressed by the introduction of cardinal points for the atom (see Dr Morshed's figure 2 above, and figure 4 below). I could understand the idea of a nominal North and South pole in relation to the angular momentum of the nucleus and electrons 'spinning up or down' – but surely the East and West poles are completely arbitrary for an atom as any point on the 'equator' could be used as the basis for assigning these poles. However, if Dr Morshed is actually thinking in terms of a circular (i.e., flat) model of the atom, and not circular representations of a spherical model of atomic structure then atoms would indeed have an Occident and an Orient! The East pole WOULD be to the right when the atom has the North pole at the top as is conventional in most maps today. 5

But atoms are not all symmetrical?

But surely most atoms are not fully symmetrical, and indeed this is linked to why most elements do not commonly exist as discrete atoms. The elements of those that do, the noble gas elements, are renown for not readily reacting because they (atypically for atoms) have a symmetrical electronic 'shield' for the nuclear charge. However, even some of these elements can be made cold enough to solidify – as the van der Waals forces allow transient fluctuating dipoles. So the argument seems to be based on a serious alternative conception of the usual models of atomic structure.

It is the lack of full symmetry in an atom of say, fluorine, or chlorine, which means that although it is a neutral species it has an electron affinity (that is, energy is released when the anion is formed) as an electron can be attracted to the core charge where it is not fully shielded.

The reference to "time of circulation of electrons/electron pairs in the atomic orbital/shells" seems to refer to a mechanical model of orbital motion, which again, has no part in current chemical theory.

Preventing negative electron pairs repelling each other

Dr Morshed suggests that the existing model of atomic structure cannot explain

Why the similar charged electrons don't feel repulsion among themselves within the same nearby atomic orbital of same atom or even in the molecular orbital when two or more atomic orbital come closer to form molecular orbital within tinier space though there is more possibility of repulsion between similar charged electrons according to existing atomic model.

Morshed, 2020a, p.7

Electrons do not feel repulsion for the same reason they do not feel shame or hunger or boredom – or disdain for poor quality journals. Electrons are not the kind of objects that can feel anything. However, this anthropomorphic expression is clearly being used metaphorically.

I think Dr Morshed is suggesting that the conventional models of atomic structure do not explain why electrons/electron pairs do not repel each other. Of course, they do repel each other – so there is no need to look for an explanation. This then seems to be an alternative conception of current models of the atom. (The electrons do not get ejected from the atom as they are also attracted to the nucleus – but, if they did not repel each other, there would be no equilibrium of forces, and the structure of the atom would not be stable.)

A new model of atomic structure supposedly reflects the 'proper' angles between electrons in atoms (Morshed, 2020, p.9)

Dr Morshed suggests that his model (see his Figure 4) 'proves the impossibility of repulsion between any electron pairs' – even those with similar charges. All electron pairs have negative (so similar) charges – it is part of the accepted definition of an electron that is is a negatively charged entity. I do not think Dr Morshed is actually suggesting otherwise, even if he thinks the electrons in different atoms have different magnitudes of negative charge (Morshad, 2020b).

Dr Morshed introduces a new concept that he calls 'center of electron pairs neutralization point'.

This is the pin-point situated in a middle position between two electrons of opposite spin pairs. The point is exactly between of opposite spine electron pairs so how the opposite electronic spin is neutralized to remaining a stable electron pair consisting of two opposite spin electrons. This CENP points are assumed to be situated between the cross section of opposite spine electronic pair's magnetic momentum field diameter (Figure 3).

Morshed, 2020a, p.8
The yellow dot represents a point able to neutralise the opposite spin of a pair of electrons(!), and is located at the point found by drawing a cross from the ends of the ⥯ symbols used to show the electron spin! This seems to be envisaged a real point that has real effects, despite being located in terms of the geometry of a totally arbitrary symbol.

So, the electron pair is shown as a closely bound pair of electrons with the midspot of the complex highlighted (yellow in the figure) as the 'center of electron pairs neutralization point'. Although the angular momentum of the electrons with opposite spin leads to a magnetic interaction between them, they are still giving rise to an electric field which permeates through the space around them. Dr Morshed seems to be suggesting that in his model there is no repulsion between the electron pairs. He argues that:

According to magnetic attraction/repulsion characteristics any similar charges repulse or opposite charges attract when the charges energy line is in straight points. If similar charged or opposite charged end are even close but their center of energy points is not in straight line, there will be no attraction or repulsion between the charges (positive/negative). Similarly, when electrons are arranged in energy shells around the nucleus the electrons remain in pairs within opposite spin electrons where the poses a point which represent as the center of repulsion/attraction points (CENP) and two CENP never come to a straight within the atomic orbital so the similar charged electrons pairs don't feel repulsion within the energy shells.

Morshed, 2020a, pp.8-9

A literal reading of this makes little sense as any two charges will always have their centres in a straight line (from the definition of a straight line!) regardless of whether similar or opposite charges or whether close or far apart.

My best interpretation of this (and I am happy to hear a better one) is that because the atom is flat, and because the electron pairs have spin up and spin down electrons, with are represented by a kind of ⥮ symbol, the electrons in some way shield the 'CENP' so that the electron pair can only interact with another charge that has a direct line of sight to the CENP.

Morshed seems to be suggesting that although electron pairs are aligned to allow attractions with the nucleus (e.g., blue arrows) any repulsion between electron pairs is blocked because an electron in the pair shields the central point of the pair (e.g., red arrow and lines)

There are some obvious problems here from a canonical perspective, even leaving aside the flat model of the atom. One issue is that although electrons are sometimes represented as or ⇂ to indicate spin, electrons are not actually physically shaped like . Secondly, pairing allows electrons to occupy the same orbital (that is, have the same set of principal, azimuthal and magnetic quantum numbers) – but this does not mean they are meant to be fixed into a closely bound entity. Also, this model works by taking the idea of spin direction literally, when – if we do that – electrons can have only have spin of ±1/2. In a literal representation such as used by Dr Morshed he would need to have ALL his electrons orientated vertically (or at least all at the same angle from the vertical). So, the model does not work in its own terms as it would prevent most of the electron pairs being attracted to the nucleus.

Morshed's figure 4 'corrected' given that electrons can only exist in two spin states. In the (corrected version of the representation of the) Morshed model most electron pairs would not be attracted to the nucleus.

A new (mis)conception of ionic bonding

Dr Morshed argues that

In case of ionic compound formation problem with the existing atomic model is where the transferred electron will take position in the new location on transferred atom? If the electrons position is not proportionally distributed along total 360 circulating area of atom, then the position of new transferred electron will cause the polarity in every ion (both cation and anion forms by every transformation of electrons) so the desired ionization is not possible thus every atom (ion) would become dipolar. On the point of view any ionization would not possible i.e., no ionic bonded compound would have formed.

Morshed, 2020, p.7

Again, although the argument may have been very clear to the author, this seems incoherent to a reader. I think Dr Morshed may be arguing that unless atoms have totally symmetrical electrons distributions ("proportionally distributed along total 360 circulating area of atom") then when the ion is formed it will have a polarity. Yet, this seems entirely back to front.

If the atom to be ionised was totally symmetric (as Dr Morshed thinks it should be), then forming an ion from the atom would require disrupting the symmetry. Whereas, by contrast, in the current canonical model, we assume most atoms are not symmetrical, and the formation of simple ions leads to a symmetric distribution of electrons (but unlike in the noble gas atoms, a symmetrical electron distribution which does not balance the nuclear charge).

Dr Morshad illustrates his idea:

Ionic bond formation represented by an non-viable interaction between atoms (Morshed, 2020, p.10)

Now these images show interactions between discrete atoms (a chemically quite unlikely scenario, as discrete atoms of sodium and chlorine are not readily found) that are energetically non-viable. As has often been pointed out, the energy released when the chloride ion is formed is much less than the energy required to ionise the sodium atom, so although this scheme is very common on the web and in poor quality textbooks, it is a kind of chemical fairy tale that does not relate to any likely chemical context. (See, for example, Salt is like two atoms joined together.)

The only obvious difference between these two versions of the fairly tale (if we ignore that in the new version both protons and neutrons appear to be indicated by + signs which is unhelpful) seems to be that the transferred electron changes its spin for some reason that does not seem to be explained in the accompanying text. The explanation that is given is

My new atomic model with identical electrons pair angle position is able to give logical solution to the problems of ion/ionic bond formation. As follows: The metallic atom which donate electrons during ion formation from outermost orbital, the electrons are arranged maintaining definite degree angle around 360° atomic mass body shown in (Figure 4). After the transformation the transferred electron take position at the vacant place of the transferred atoms outermost orbital, then instant the near most electrons/pairs rearrange their position in the orbital changing their angle position with the CPA [central point of the atom, i.e., the nucleus] due to electromagnetic repulsion feeling among the similar charged electrons/pairs. Thus the ionic atom gets equal electron charge density around whole of their 360° atomic mass body resulting the cation and anion due to the positive and negative charge difference in atomic orbital with their respective nucleus. Thus every ion becomes non polar ion to form ionic bond within two opposite charged ion (Figure 5).

Morshed, 2020, p.9

So, I think, supposedly part (b) of Dr Morshed's figure 5 is meant to show, better than part (a), how the electron distribution is modified when the ion is formed. It would of course be quite possible to show this in the kind of representations used in (a), but in any case it does not look any more obvious in (b) to my eye!

So, figure 5 does not seem to show very well Dr Morshed's solution to a problem I do not think actually exists in the context on a non-viable chemical process. Hm.

Finding space for the forces

Another problem with the conventional models, according to Dr Morshed, is that, as suggested in his figures 6 and 7 is that the current models do not leave space for the 'intermolecular' [sic, intramolecular] force of attraction in covalent bonds.

In current models, according to Morshed's paper, electrons get in the way of the covalent bond (Morshed, 2020, p.11)

Dr Morshad writes that

According to present structural presentation of shared paired electrons remain at the juncture of the bonded atomic orbital, if they remain like such position they will restrict the Inter [sic] Molecular Force (IMF) between the bonded atomic nuclei because the shared paired electron restricts the attraction force lying at the straight attraction line of the bonded nuclei the shown in (Figure 6a).

Morshed, 2020, p.11

There seem to be several alternative conceptions operating here – reflecting some of the kind of confusions reported in the literature from studies on students' ideas.

  1. Just because the images are static two dimensional representations, this does not mean electrons are envisaged to be stationary at some point on a shell;
  2. and just because we draw representations of atoms on flat paper, this does not mean atoms are flat;
  3. The figure is meant to represent the bond, which is an overall configuration of the nuclei and the electrons, so there is not a distinct intramolecular force operating separately;
  4. Without the electrons there would be no "Inter [sic] Molecular Force (IMF) between the bonded atomic nuclei" as the nuclei repel each other: the bonding electrons do not restrict the intramolecular force (blocking it, because they lie between the nuclei), but are crucial to it existing.

Regarding the first point here, Dr Morshed suggests

Covalent bonds are formed by sharing of electrons between the bonded atoms and the shared paired electrons are formed by contribution of one electron each of the participating atoms. The shared paired electrons remain at the overlapping chamber (at the juncture of the overlapped atomic orbital).

Morshed, 2020, p.9

That is, according to Dr Morshed's account of current atomic theory, in drawing overlapping electron shells, the electrons of the bond which are 'shared' (and that is just a metaphor, of course) are limited to the area shown as overlapping. This is treating an abstract and simplistic representation as if it is realistic. There is no chamber. Indeed, the molecular orbital formed by the overlap of the atomic orbitals will 'allow' the electrons to be likely to be found within quite a (relatively – on an atomic scale) large volume of space around the bond axis. Atomic orbitals that overlap to form molecular orbitals are in effect replaced by those molecular orbitals – the new orbital geometry reflects the new wavefunction that takes into account both electrons in the orbital.

So, if there has been overlap, the contributing atomic orbitals should be considered to have been replaced (not simply formed a chamber where the circles overlap), except of course Dr Morshed 's figures 6 and 7 show shells and do not actually represent the system of atomic orbitals.

Double bonds

This same failure to interpret the intentions and limitation of the simplistic form of representation used in introductory school chemistry leads to similar issues when Dr Morshed considers double bonding.

A new model of atomic structure suggests an odd geometry for pi bonds (Morshed, 2020, p.12)

Dr Morshed objects to the kind of representation on the left in his figure 8 as two electron pairs occupy the same area of overlap ('chamber'),

It is shown for an Oxygen molecule; two electron shared pairs are formed and take place at the overlapping chamber result from the outermost orbital of two bonded Oxygen atoms. But in real séance [sic?] that is impossible because two shared paired electrons cannot remain in a single overlapping chamber because of repulsion among each pairs and among individual electrons.

Morshed, 2020, p.12.

Yet, in the model Dr Morshed employs he had claimed that electron pairs do not repel unless they are aligned to allow a direct line of sight between their CNPs. In any case, the figure he criticises does not show overlapping orbitals, but overlapping L shells. He suggests that the existing models (which of course are not models currently used in chemistry except in introductory classes) imply the double bond in oxygen must be two sigma bonds: "The present structure of O2 molecule show only two pairs of electron with head to head overlapping in the overlapping chamber i.e., two sigma bond together which is impossible" (p.12).

However, this is because a shell type presentation is being used which is suitable for considering whether a bond is single or double (or triple), but no more. In order to discuss sigma and pi bonds with their geometrical and symmetry characteristics, one must work with orbitals, not shells. 6

Yet Dr Morshed has conflated shells and orbitals throughout his paper. His figure 8a that supposedly shows "Present molecular orbital structural showing two shared paired electrons in the same overlapped chamber" does not represent (atomic, let alone molecular) orbitals, and is not intended to suggest that the space between overlapping circles is some kind of chamber.

"The remaining two opposite spin unpaired electrons in the two bonded [sic?] Oxygen's outer- most orbital [sic, shell?] getting little distorted towards the shared paired electrons in their respective atomic orbital then they feel an attraction among the opposite spin electrons thus they make a bond pairs by side to side overlapping forms the pi-bond"

Morshed, 2020, p.12.

It is not at all clear to see how this overlap occurs in this representation (i.e., 8b). Moreover, the unpaired electrons will not "feel an attraction" as they are both negatively charged even if they have anti-parallel spins. The scheme also makes it very difficult to see how the pi bond could have the right symmetry around the bond axis, if the 'new molecular orbital structure' was taken at face value.

Conclusion

Dr Morshed's paper is clearly well meant, but it does not offer any useful new ideas to progress chemistry. It is highly flawed. There is no shame in producing highly flawed manuscripts – no one is perfect, which is why we have peer review to support authors in pointing out weaknesses and mistakes in their work and so allowing them to develop their ideas till they are suitable for publication. Dr Morshed has been badly let down by the publishers and editors of Annals of Atoms and Molecules. I wonder how much he was charged for this lack of service? 7

Publishing a journal paper like this, which is clearly not ready to make a contribution to the scholarly community through publication, does not only do a disservice to the author (who will have this publication in the public domain for anyone to evaluate) but can potentially confuse or mislead students who come across the journal. Confusing shells with orbitals, misrepresenting how ionic bonds form, implying that covalent bonds are due to a force between nuclei, suggesting that electron pairs need not repel each other, suggesting a flat model of the atom with four poles… there are many points in this paper that can initiate or reinforce student misconceptions.

Supposedly, this manuscript was handled by a member of the editorial board, sent to peer reviewers and the publication decision based on those review reports. It is hard to imagine any peer reviewer who is actually an academic chemist (let alone an expert in the topics published in this journal) considering this paper would be publishable, even with extensive major revisions. The whole premise of the paper (that simple representations of atoms with concentric shells of electrons reflect the models of atomic and molecular structure used today in chemistry research) is fundamentally flawed. So:

  • were there actually any reviews? (Really?)
  • if so, were the reviews carried out by experts in the field? (Or even graduate chemists or physicists?)
  • were the reviews positive enough to justify publication?

If the journal feels I am being unfair, then I am happy to publish any response submitted as a comment below.

Dr Menaa, Prof. Ibrahim, Prof. Yoon, Dr Parigger, Dr El-Behaedi…

If you were the Board Member who handled this submission and you feel my criticisms are unfair, please feel free to submit a comment. I am happy to publish your response.

Or, if you were not the Board Member who (allegedly) handled this submission, and would like to make that clear…

Works cited:
Note:

1 I thank Professor Eric Scerri of UCLA for bringing my attention to the deliciously named 'Annals of Atoms and Molecules', and this specific contribution.

2 That is my reading of the abbreviation, although the author uses the term a number of times before rather imprecisely defining it: "Similar solution can be made for molecular orbital (MOT) as such as: The molecular orbital (MO) theory…" (p.10).

3 Renormalisation is the name given to a set of mathematical techniques used in areas such as quantum field theory when calculations give implausible infinite results in order to 'lose' the unwanted infinities. Whilst this might seem like cheating – it is tolerated as it works very well.

4 I was intrigued that 'Prof.' Farid Menaa seemed to work for a non-academic institution, as generally companies cannot award the title of Professor. Of course, Prof. Meena may also have an appointment at a university that partners the company, or could have emeritus status having retired from academia.

I found him profiled on another publisher's site as "Professor, Principal Investigator, Director, Consultant Editor, Reviewer, Event Organizer and Entrepreneur,…" who had worked in oncology, dermatology, haemotology (when "he pioneered new genetic variants of stroke in sickle cell anemia patients" which presumably is much more positive than it reads). Reading on, I found he had 'followed' complementary formations in "Medecine [sic], Pharmacy, Biology, Biochemistry, Food Sciences and Technology, Marine Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Nano-Biotechnology, Bio-Computation, and Bio-Statistics" and was "involved in various R&D projects in multiple areas of medicine, pharmacy, biology, genetics, genomics, chemistry, biophysics, food science, and technology". All of which seemed very impressive (nearly as wide a range of expertise as predatory journal publishers claim for me), but made me none the wiser about the source of his Professorial title.

5 Today. Although interestingly, in the first major comprehensive account of magnetism, Gilbert (1600/2016) tended to draw the North-South axis of the earth horizontally in his figures.

6 The representations we draw are simple depictions of something more subtle. If the circles did represent orbitals then they could not show the entire volume of space where the electron might be found (as this is theoretically infinite) but rather an envelope enclosing a volume where there is the highest probability (or 'electron density'). So orbitals will actually overlap to some extent even when simple images suggest otherwise.

7 I wonder because the appropriate page, https://scholars.direct/publication-charges.php, "was not found on this server" when I looked to see.

Any (sophisticated) old iron?

Do I have any old spectrometers lying around that I no longer need?

Keith S. Taber

"Any old iron, any old iron
Any, any, any old iron
An old iron pot, an old iron cot
An old iron bicycle or anything you've got
An old iron plate, an old iron grate yer mother used to fry on
And I'm going to let my country have me old watch-chain!
Old iron, old iron!"

From 'Any old iron' – a music hall song written by Harry Champion in 1911. 'Any old iron' was (is?) a traditional call used by scrap merchants collecting unwanted items that could be melted down for recycling
An email offers to help me 'get rid of' obsolete lab equipment:
An email asking if I have any old lab apparatus to dispose of. The opening claim is false – none of my research works mention this brand of lab. instruments. Clearly, if Andreas had read my research, he would not be contacting me in this way. (Why is it so acceptable nowadays to simply lie when approaching people?)

Dear Andreas

Thank you for your message, enquiring about instrumentation you suggest I referred to in my recent published work. It is pleasing to think you are looking at my work. However, I am not sure which study you are referring to:

Was this the perspective piece discussing the likely effect of the global pandemic on the more progressive aspects of science education?

Or perhaps the essay review of the textbook on pedagogy.

Or, as you are interested in my analytical work, I wonder if perhaps you mean my analysis of the errors and lack of coherence in the chemistry content specified in the English National Curriculum?

Whichever article it was, I do hope you found it of interest.

Best wishes

Keith

I have written about analytical instruments used in the laboratory – but analysis in my educational research did not use them (figure from Taber, 2012)
Work cited:

What's in a (domain) name?

Should a University be an academic community – or a business?

Keith S. Taber

surely we want students from underrepresented groups emailing their friends back at school or college using their University of Cambridge email addresses

Does giving someone an email address make a University responsible for their correspondence?
(Image by Muhammad Ribkhan from Pixabay)

The University of Cambridge is currently undertaking an internal consultation about a plan to change its email policy relating to emails with the @cam.ac.uk address – a change that would remove such email accounts from many who currently have them.

This has come shortly after the University has moved its email from its own servers and outsourced them to the cloud – or, more precisely, Microsoft's cloud. And that came fairly soon after the University decided (rather abruptly, and without proper notice, in my own view – but that's all current under the bridge) to withdraw the opportunity for each member to have personal webpages on the University servers. However, the potential change in policy is not supposed to be about saving costs, but rather a principled change concerned with the University considering its email domain as part of its corporate identity, where it may be considered to have responsibilities (that raise security considerations) in a similar way to how it has responsibilities on its physical sites. 

The logic seems to be that just as the University has responsibility over information published on any webpages appearing in its domain (e.g., they should not misrepresent; they should not be used to advance scams; they should not be discriminatory or defamatory, etc.) it also has responsibility for communications sent from @cam.ac.uk addresses.

There seem to be two related aspects of what is considered to follow from this:

  • cam.ac.uk email addresses should only be used by those who have a current active role in the University
  • cam.ac.uk email addresses should primarily be used for University business

I must confess when I first read the proposed policy (which I am not copying verbatim as it is currently not in the public domain, but is accessible to current students and staff) I could see the reasonableness of it. Certainly, when one remembers the political capital that was made out of Hilary Clinton failing to carefully separate her 'work' from 'personal' email activity, and the possibility that that may have been a major factor in the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President, nominal leader of the free world, and commander-in-chief of the largest nuclear armed force of any democratic nation, it gives pause for thought.

Yet, the more I have thought about this, the more this seems a very questionable direction of travel. The reason this has raised a lot of concern in the wider Cambridge University community (including those people who see themselves as still members of that community – often after many years of service – despite no longer being in formal roles) is because many retired staff who have Cambridge emails will lose their accounts. This includes a good many who may never have had another email address – and until now did not think they needed multiple accounts. However, I think the bigger issue is the separation of University related communication (you should use cam.ac.uk)  from unrelated communication (you should not). First, however, let's consider the potentially ex-communicated.

To be ex-communicated from the Cambridge domain

To many people who have multiple email accounts, or have moved accounts from time to time, it may seem that the soon-to-be-disqualified account holders, usually former employees of the university or its colleges, are either making a fuss without cause, or at least worrying unduly. It is not difficult to obtain a new email account, and re-direction tools are available that will make sure any email sent to the old account will be forwarded for some time (the University has promised this if the new policy is implemented). Of course, it is a hassle to have to change addresses and let people know – but, even so, many estate agents manage to stay in business. 

The real issue here is more a matter of identity. People who identify as part of the wider University community are being told they no longer quality to be 'in' the system. Now, the University has a separate email system for its former alumni (@cantab.net) which is being offered to (at least most of) those being disqualified – so, that might seem to solve this problem. After all, we are only talking about an email address and @cantab.net can be understood as an indicator of being not currently active in the University, but still part of the wider community.  

Distributed responsibility for denying email accounts

However, some of those threatened with this relegation in their email status may question this: anyone who is a graduate of the University (for example) can have an @cantab.net address even if they have not been in Cambridge, or had any involvement in any activities here, for years – or even decades. Some of those retired staff who still use their @cam.ac.uk addresses consider they are still actively involved in the life of the University. The new policy suggests that in such cases the head of institution (a head of Department/Faculty or House {College}) can sponsor former staff to retain their email address for a limited period if they have a specific role. So, as a hypothetical example, a retired member of staff invited back to sit on some working party because of their special expertise could qualify whilst that group was in operation. 

But what counts as sufficient engagement is left to the appropriate head of institution. If they make a positive judgement, they then need to request the email account being kept active, and the decision has to be revisited periodically. Many retired colleagues who are former employees, fellows, or members, of my own College, Homerton, are members of the Homerton Retired Senior Member's Association. This group has a committee, and volunteers undertaking leadership of various activities, and many members engage (well, as COVID allows) in college activities.

  • Would this be counted?
  • …only for Committee Members?
  • Or does this kind of engagement not count at all?

Presumably it will be for the Principal of the College to decide – and for the heads of other houses to decide (perhaps using quite different criteria) on parallel cases in their own colleges.

Can you be a University Officer if you are not considered actively engaged in the University?

By my reading of the new policy, some University Officers will not automatically retain @cam.ac.uk domain email addresses. That certainly seems to be the case for Emeritus Officers like myself. The University grants the title of Emeritus Professor or Emeritus Reader to its more senior teaching officers on retirement. So, people granted such titles are no longer on the payroll – as they are no longer employed by the University – but are formally recognised as, technically at least, Officers of the University.

I assume this is so (assume? As an Emeritus Officer I've never been given any formal briefing on the status) in part to recognise service, but in part because at least some of these Emeritus Officers are undertaking activities that the University will consider it benefits from being associated with.

Although I am retired, I then still have a formal affiliation as an Emeritus Officer, which is listed on any publications and public talks I produce, and is shown on websites where I have editorial board memberships and the like – thus bringing some kudos to the university without any of that debasing business of having to provide me with a stipend. In a sense, I work for the University for free. (Which is fine by me – as I retired because of health concerns and now I work only 'as and when' I am feeling up to doing so, and as the muse inspires me.)

The proposed list of people to automatically have a cam.ac.uk email address includes Honorary Professors and Readers – but not Emeritus Officers. It also includes members of the University's governing body, the Regent House, of which I am currently a member. But that membership is not automatic for Emeritus Officers, and has to be renewed each year – again at the discretion of a head of institution (on a similar basis as is being proposed to retain email addresses).

At the moment, my own @cam.ac.uk email address is not under threat as I still have some research students yet to complete. Once they are finished, I would need to make a case for retaining my cam email address. At the moment it is suggested I would need to show I actively contribute to the academic life of the University or its Colleges. But if there is a very low bar on this, then heads of institutions are going to be doing a lot of paperwork. And if not, then what counts?

Regarding my College, Homerton College, in the past year I have attended a number of events (albeit virtual events): an on-line talk by a college fellow, a research seminar, and a briefing by a College Fellow to retired members on a potential change in teacher education policy. Do any of these count? Would they collectively count?

I've also been to some meetings in my Faculty where I am still have a profile page on the web as a retired professor (although I understand that strictly I am no longer a 'Member' of the Faculty in terms of being able to attend and vote at the annual meeting of the Faculty). Does going to a few seminars count as active involvement in the life of the University? And does the head of institution consider the broader picture – I have been to a number of on-line talks and seminars in the past year in other departments, so presumably they should count (if this is the kind of thing understood to count). After all, attending seminars and the like are a key part of the academic life of any university.

Indeed, since retirement I've been to more events in HPS (the Department of History and Philosophy of Science) than anywhere else.  I'm listed on the departmental website as an 'affiliate' of the department – but that is a very informal association, so I am not sure if that in itself would count for anything in terms of 'activity'?

The proposed policy talks about self-nomination (to then be considered by the head of institution) of retired staff who consider themselves actively involved in defined activities of the collegiate University. Does 'defined' mean the applicant will be asked to define their involvement, or that there will be a list of defined activities as a guide to the heads of institutions? If the latter, then those defined activities remain very undefined at this point in time. 

What should count as an allowed use of email communication through a University domain?

Leaving aside the question of who is entitled to have a University domain email address, there is the question of what it can be used for. The intention set out in the mooted policy is that those people with such email addresses should use them 'primarily' for their University work.

This seems a little akin to telling anyone who is living in University or College accommodation that they should only use that as their mailing address for academic correspondence, and use a separate postal address for any personal mail. Perhaps, even, that they should not be writing personal letters or addressing greetings cards sitting in their University accommodation.

That may seem a false analogy: after all, when you rent, or are perhaps in certain cases provided with, accommodation, then it is your home in which to live your life. Is anyone going to tell the head of a university house that they should have their family and non-College post sent to a P.O. Box where they can collect it, and only receive their college-related post at home? Of course not. (Indeed, their college related post should be reaching them via their office staff.)

That said, if that head of house was hosting noisy parties with intoxicated guests late into the night during the examination period then that would raise some eyebrows. Indeed, if the head of house was, in her own off-duty time, making and selling porn videos from the accommodation, or decided to decorate the walls with huge pro-Nazi posters of Adolf Hitler, then – even though this was activity in her home not her college office – this would likely be seen as completely inappropriate and unacceptable. That evaluation would not be because such things are private concerns and not academic activity: after all no one would object to her doing yoga, painting landscapes, or playing the clarinet in the college-owned house.

The point is that there are some things which can bring the University into disrepute, and they should not be done in a context that would be seen to be associated with the university (on its campuses, through its webpages, using its email domain) – even when they are things that are legal and which it is acknowledged members of the university community, as individuals, are free to chose to do even if others do not approve.

What about the students?

This seems especially an issue for student members of the university. They are given an email address and told it will be used for official communication, so they should check it regularly. But (under the proposed policy) they should not really be using that address to write home to parents or to arrange a group outing to the University's botanical garden. (Would it be a different matter if students on the natural science tripos arranged a trip to the botanic garden – or would they be able to use the address only as long as they were sure that most of the conversation at the garden would be plant-related?)

Getting a place at Cambridge is a pretty big thing for many students, so surely they should be proud of this aspect of their identity, and proud to use and give their @cam.ac.uk email address. What about those students from underrepresented groups – do we not want them emailing their friends back at school or college using their Cambridge email addresses?

Making a judgement

I thought it would be interesting to consider some of the email communication I have received via cam.ac.uk to consider what should still be allowed under the proposed policy. Of rather, what I would be expected to 'primarily' reserve my use of this email address for.

I will leave aside all those requests received for romantic relationships (from very attractive women who are happy to send me a photograph on request), bequests of millions, offers of drugs for sale, invoices and payment orders from organisations I have never heard of, and so forth, as clearly I would be very happy not to have this correspondence via any account.  (What about those convincing-looking requests I sometimes get to reset my cam.ac.uk password? That seems to be University-related business?)

Emails with family are not university-related, and nor are messages about my household energy supply, or reminders to book an appointment at my dentist. I am on circulation lists from a number of outlets selling CDs, so I should be changing my registered email address there as well. And there are the discount book sellers – except that most of the books I buy are at least potentially related to areas I might write about. So, does that make them legit?

Emails with my current students would presumably be allowed – certainly when they ask for advice or I send them feedback on their writing. What about just general chit-chat with them, such as checking they are okay during the pandemic? That might be seen as part of a teacher's pastoral role – but officially in Cambridge that is meant to be the job of the college tutor not the supervisor. Officially, but surely all teachers have a level of pastoral responsibility, and you do not supervise someone's work for several years without having a concern for them as a whole person. And checking on their welfare or well-being surely contributes to their chances of successful completion, which is what the University wants? So, perhaps I can make a case for a blanket allowance there?

I am on a whole range of email lists related more-or-less directly to science teaching or to disciplines and activities linked to science education. Is it appropriate to use my Cambridge email for such discussion lists if they are linked to my work, even if much of the actual traffic on these lists turns out to be peripheral to my scholarship?

The academic life of the University – or of Academia?

This policy also raises issues the University might be best advised not to delve too deeply into.  The work of an academic obviously usually includes teaching, associated administration and scholarship. But there is also the notion of 'service' to the wider community. This often concerns work undertaken for free, or for nominal payment, for other institutions. The University needs its academics to do this work, as it also relies on these kinds of contributions from academics elsewhere.

So, I get asked to referee work submitted for publication or grant applications. (Since I have retired, I feel empowered to decline most of this.) This is usually done for free, and without this type of activity the University would suffer as its own academics would not get their work reviewed. So, invitations of this kind should presumably(?) be considered as using email for academic and administrative work 'for' the University and the Colleges, even though the work is actually undertaken for journals and publishers and funding bodies.

The same applies to those requests to examine students (or programmes) at other universities, to evaluate proposals for tenure or promotion for other universities, to be involved in appointments panels for other institutions, to engage in external reviews or as external members of review panels (for courses, programmes, departments, etc.). Then there are requests to be members of committees, working parties, and the like for various professional and academic organisations like teaching associations and learned societies.

In all these cases, and many others like them, a person is approached to engage in some kind of activity for the good of the wider discipline/profession/society and they are invited because of their association with the University and/or because of their reputation related to their academic standing. In such cases the organisation making the approach would feel it reasonable to contact the person (and expect to receive a reply from them) as a member of the  'Cambridge' scholarly community, whether still in post or retired, and so would naturally expect to use a University email address. Such activities are considered positively – indeed expected – in cases for senior academic promotions in the University. Yet, strictly, none of this is academic or administrative work 'for' the University. 

Another attack on academic standards?

As I mentioned above, when I first read the new proposed policy, it did not seem unreasonable. An @cam.ac.uk email address suggests an official affiliation and so acts as an assurance of a genuine link with the University. A university email is provided for business use and should not be used for private use.

The first point is fallacious. Any first year undergraduate could use their cam.ac.uk email address to pretend to be authorised to invite an external examiner, a visiting professor, to set up a research centre, or to order supplies of uranium. If they did, this would be fraudulent and a disciplinary matter. Anyone who took leave from their post elsewhere and arrived in Cambridge to spend a term as a visiting professor on the say-so of an invitation simply because it came from an @cam.ac.uk email would perhaps be entitled to feel cheated, but no court is going to consider the University responsible given the visitor's lack of due diligence.

So, removing cam.ac.uk emails from retired staff just in case they do something naughty that appears to be in an official capacity is a flawed argument. Given that most people with university email addresses in most universities are students, someone would have to be very stupid to trust that some approach was valid and authorised just because it came from such an email address. Indeed, even when you know the email address belongs to someone in a position of authority, that is no assurance that the account has not been hacked. (I've had those scam emails that seem to come from within the University. I imagine if I had responded on the basis the message seemed to be from the @cam.ac.uk domain I would quite rightly be considered foolish by the University.) Anyone who does anything of high significance on the basis of any unverified email message is naïve in the extreme.

Some people will do foolish or immoral and perhaps illegal things with whatever resources they have available to them – to therefore withdraw abusable resources from innocent members of the wider community just in case they do wrong is not a sensible approach to risk management. Certainly, it makes sense not to leave unattended and accessible things that are inherently dangerous – high explosive, concentrated sulphuric acid, loaded firearms… But a creative person looking to cause trouble could drown someone in a fire bucket, break windows and damage artworks with a fire extinguisher, and suffocate someone with a fire blanket. Even so, on balance, it makes sense to make these resources available to those members of a community using a University building.

The argument about only using the email domain for academic or administrative work for the University is also flawed. A member of the University should certainly not be running a commercial business through the @cam.ac.uk domain. But what is the problem if university students or staff (or retired staff) use their Cambridge email for social or personal emails as well as 'work'? The email domain is about identity – the person's identify as a member of the Cambridge University community. Sending a message via the email is no more claiming to be acting for the University than is writing a personal letter in a University flat, or an academic telephoning to arrange a plumber's visit on their office phone. The plumber would not assume that because the message came from a University telephone number the University will be paying for any work done at the academic's home.

"The mission of the University of Cambridge is to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence."

https://www.cam.ac.uk/about-the-university/how-the-university-and-colleges-work/the-universitys-mission-and-core-values

A university is not primarily a business

The problem with the 'only for work' argument is it reduces the University to a business. It is not. (There may need to be a sense in which it is, as it needs to manage its financial affairs carefully, certainly, but it is not its purpose or prime nature.) Students are not employees, but matriculated members of the community. Teaching officers may be referred to by management as employees, but we need to remember who they work for: the University is a corporation of the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars. The university is a network of scholars who come together to live and work in academic communities to share in a particular 'form of life'. Otherwise, how would it justify its charitable status?

"the opportunities for broadening the experience of students and staff through participation in sport, music, drama, the visual arts, and other cultural activities"

https://www.cam.ac.uk/about-the-university/how-the-university-and-colleges-work/the-universitys-mission-and-core-values

Universities encourage a 'form of life' that looks to develop the whole person – making it difficult to know what counts as the university's 'business'

For most scholars (student, teachers, retired) there is no sharp dividing line between the academic life and life more generally. Most social events involve talking shop because the academic community offers a form of life where people consider that they are doing something more than just earning a crust or boosting their c.v. Certainly, there is a consequent danger that people's work-life balance can go awry, but that is best avoided by us treating each other as members of the community and looking out for each other.

The University has myriad affiliated clubs and societies contributing to the cultural life of the community.

Is the business of these societies part of the 'business' of the university (or perhaps just those with a primarily academic focus)?

Otherwise, we surrender what is special about organisations like the University. What makes the community worth being a member of is the values that are (largely) shared – such as honesty, open-mindedness, fairness, enquiry, justice, the search for truth and authenticity, inclusivity, academic standards

If we lose sight of that and just see the University as a(nother) business we are in danger of becoming no different to those organisations undermining scholarly norms (often criticised here) who will publish any nonsense for the right fee; who are happy to use false praise to entice contributions; who think lying in their communications is justified if it brings results. The University of Cambridge is a community of scholars (or perhaps a metacommunity of many entangled and overlapping communities of scholars), and it loses something very special if it starts to see itself as primarily a business, as transactional rather than relational.

A relational organisation says you have an email address in our domain because you have developed a relationship with us, and that identify remains when you retire as long as you wish to continue in, and properly respect, that relationship.

A transactional organisation says we gave you an email address in our domain when you worked for us, but now you are no longer contributing our cost-benefit analysis tells us we should withdraw it.

I think I know which impression the University should look to give.

Members of the University can read about the proposed policy and contribute to the consultation (till 18th Feb. 2022) here: https://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/newemailpolicy

A fossilised conference invitation

Let's NOT shape the world's energy through oil, gas, and petroleum

Keith S. Taber

Let's shape the world's energy by moving away from reliance on non-renewable and polluting fossil fuels (Image by jpenrose from Pixabay)

I have just replied to yet another invitation to speak at a conference about a topic where I have no expertise! (Presumably, actually an invitation to be hoodwinked into paying a conference registration fee to a conference organiser who has no concern for the academic quality or accuracy of their conference presentations. 1)

Dear Dr. Jessie Parker

Thank you for your invitation to speak at the International E-Conference on Oil, Gas and Petroleum Engineering, but I really do not see I have any particular expertise that would be relevant to delegates at such a conference.

As you "would also love to hear [my] thoughts and opinions" relating to the conference theme of "Shaping world's energy through latest advances in oil, gas, and petroleum" then I am happy to share. Basically my opinion would be that oil, gas and petroleum should be phased out as contributions to the "world's energy" (i.e., power generation to meet human needs) as soon as it is feasible.

Best wishes

Keith

My reply to an email inviting me to speak on "Shaping world's energy through latest advances in oil, gas, and petroleum", 21/12/2021

An invitation to my alter ego 'Taber Keith S'

Note:

1 The email comes from urfconferences.com, which according to the web is Universal Research Foundation now seemingly trading as United Research Forum:

"The website United Research Forum is a platform where knowledge and zeal to [sic] meet with the vision of educating with the latest scientific and technology-specific innovations and the best implementations for mankind."

https://unitedresearchforum.com

Well, quite.

But strangely, the conference I was invited talk at to does not appear on the diverse of events shown on their website:

https://unitedresearchforum.com (accessed: 21/21/2021)

Someone there at least has a sense of humour, as on the dates that they invited me to talk about "Oil, Gas and Petroleum Engineering" they are advertising a meeting on "Environmental sustainability"! I hope they have not got the two meetings conflated.

Whereas there is a conference on the topic of Oil, Gas and Petroleum Engineering, with the same dates, listed on the website of the 'The World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology' which apparently is "an open science research organization dedicated to promoting the advancement of science, engineering, and technology" (https://waset.org/page/support, accessed 21/12/2021):


https://waset.org/oil-gas-and-petrochemical-engineering-conference-in-april-2022-in-london (accessed 21/12/2021)
[I had thought it was (the old) London Bridge, not Westminster Bridge, that had been built with buildings along it.]

Surely, United Research Forum (a.k.a. Universal Research Foundation) and The World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology are not different 'fronts' for the same organisation?

Seeking interspecies transmission of Covid-19 from academics…

Responding to the spin in Inospin

Dear Claire

Thank you for your message.

You tell me that you have reviewed my research, and yet you feel I would be in a good position to submit a research proposal on canine cancer cell lines to your pharma company.

I cannot see how anyone who genuinely had reviewed my research/publications and was in any way competent to undertake this kind of search on behalf of an industrial partner could possibly have come to that conclusion.

I had intended to suggest that, assuming you would are both honest and competent, you might wish to explain on what basis you feel my research makes me a suitable candidate for this kind of work. However, checking my email records, I find I sent you a similar email when you invited me to propose a project about manufacturing connectors for textiles and composite foils that would not change the thickness while maintaining flexibility for the automotive industry, which I do not yet seem (?) to have received a reply to. That invitation was also supposedly based on your looking at my research. I struggle to see how you could feel my research is relevant to either of these fields, let alone both of them.

You also claimed to have looked at my research when you 'reached out' to me when you had been "asked by an innovative specialty pharma company to look for proposals on the interspecies transmission of Covid-19 from academics…" (which seemed somewhat unfair to academics).

So, I hope you will understand why I will be dismissing your footer informing me that "any unauthorized review, copying, disclosure or any other use of this information is strictly prohibited" as I suspect that is intended to deter scholars from warning each other that Inospin is not a reputable company that follows careful ethical procedures, but rather that although you present as tagetting your marketing based on scrutiny of researchers' areas of work, this is not true and you are simply sending out spam.

Best wishes

Keith

November 2021: Inospin seeks experts on canine cancer– so, after looking at my research, they contact me

August 2021: Inospin seeks experts on interspecies transmission of COVID-19 – so, after looking at my research, they contact me

Dear Claire

Thank you for the invitation.

I am really intrigued. I would be really fascinated to know what it was, in  "Looking at [my] research", that prompted you to reach out to me in particular for help with  "connectors for textiles and composite foils that would not change the thickness while maintaining flexibility"?

(Whilst I at least understand what "stable, flexible connectors for textiles and composite foils (PVC, TPO, PU)" means, I struggle to appreciate in what sense these connectors might also be quick: "quick, stable, flexible connectors for textiles and composite foils (PVC, TPO, PU)".)

Best wishes

Keith

June 2021: Inospin seeks experts on textiles and composites – so, after looking at my research, they contact me

Addenda

January 2022: Inospin seeks experts on sound isolation materials – so, after looking at my research, they contact me

January 2022: Inospin seeks experts on pathophysiological mechanisms of equine metabolic syndrome – so, after looking at my research, they contact me

February 2022: Inospin seeks experts on gene modification – so, after looking at my research, they contact me based on my expertise

Can academic misconduct be justified for the greater good?

Is Rahul Hajare the Alan Sokal for the Open Access era?: Part 2

Keith S. Taber

the Journal of Dermatology Sciences Research Reviews & Reports managed to not spot that an article supposedly about safety precautions taken by sex workers in India during the COVID pandemic, but actually about anger management in the workplace, was illustrated by a news bureau's photographs from Bolivia, and made wholesale use of text from a U.S. business association website

In the first part of this article, I discussed some of the publications of Dr Rahul Hajare who has made a habit out of publishing dubious articles in predatory journals that only superficially mimic genuine research journals. I would suspect that most people who publish their research in such predatory journals do so either

  • in good faith, not realising they are submitting to a journal that only pretends to apply rigorous editorial and peer-review procedures, or
  • realising that they are in effect simply paying for publication, but enter into an unspoken (and unwritten) conspiracy with the journals by sending manuscripts that at least have a prima facie appearance of being serious work

Dr Hajare does not seem to fall into either category. I do not think he can believe the work he is submitting reflects high quality scholarship, and yet nor does he make an effort to give a superficial impression of proper research writing.

Quite the opposite.

Instead:

  • He often provides long convoluted titles that seem to juxtapose unrelated items, or short titles that are provocative;
  • He sometimes compiles papers from segments that seem to be about totally different topics and studies;
  • He ignores normal paper structures – as when proceeding directly from an introduction § to a conclusion § omitting everything that usually goes between, or writing an abstract which is much longer than the main text of the paper;
  • He includes nonsense sentences (sometimes very early in the text);
  • He interjects sentences on unrelated topics;
  • He makes fantastic or counterfactual claims;
  • He drops leitmotifs into his work – incongruous references to colours, sunlight, pharmacy institutions …

It would, surely, actually be easier to write articles which were, superficially at least, canonical – and which were coherent and non-contentious. Hajare seems to be deliberately bringing attention to problems in his work as if he is telling his readers – "you cannot take this seriously – do you get the joke'?"

My best assumption is that Hajare is seeking to call out predatory journals for what they are – making it very clear that either:

  • no editor or expert reviewer has ever read his submissions carefully before publication; or
  • if his works have been evaluated, they passed an extremely low bar (publication criteria along the lines 'it has (a) a title and (b) some text, and so we can charge a publication fee')

Nobody reading across Hajare's canon could possibly think his work (or at least a large part of it over the last few years) is serious scholarship, or that any results he reports in his hoax papers can be considered reliable. But what he has shown very clearly is that the journals publishing his submissions are not even trying to be serious research journals.

That is very useful, as it could always be claimed that

predatory journals may have inexperienced editors, or struggle to persuade suitable experts to carry out reviews, which is why some poor quality work gets published, yet they are doing their best and will look to improve their standards.

The Hajare hoax makes it clear that that explanation will not do. Any well educated person reading his work will see that there are obvious problems with his manuscripts (obvious, I suspect, because Hajare has made sure they are obvious) and these papers clearly should not stand as part of the research literature.

That's the argument that informed the first part of this article, where it was supported by a range of examples from a selection of Hajare's articles in outlets self-describing as research journals .

However, as I dug into Hajare's outputs, and after a very minimal due diligence (a few quick web searches), I soon found that Hajare's hoax seemed to rely on another feature as well: plagiarism. That is, presenting other people's work as your own.

Can you have a well-meaning plagiarist?

I am sure I must have have plagiarised other people's work.

Certainly not intentionally. But if we are meant to acknowledge sources which we have drawn upon in the thinking that we represent in texts, this is surely inevitable. I recognised this as part of the acknowledgements for one of my books:

I am aware that I inevitably own an enormous debt to the authors of many things I have read over the years that are not cited here as well as to colleagues and students for things I have heard in presentations and in conversations in both formal and informal contexts. I have sought to acknowledge those key sources I am aware have informed my thinking, and I would here like to acknowledge that I am aware that I am surely drawing on many other sources that I either no longer specifically recall or have simply not recognised as influences in writing this book.

I suspect there may even be some good ideas in here that I present as if original, but which have worked their way into my consciousness so slowly that I was unaware that their original inspiration was something I had long ago read or heard. I take some comfort in knowing that if this is indeed so, my failure is probably not so unusual, as is indicated by occasional high-profile examples such as when George Harrison was sued for a great deal of money for not acknowledging a highly popular song was very similar to an earlier hit written by someone else. At least working in the academic world, rather than 'the material world', such unconscious plagiarism is unlikely to lead to claims for vast amounts of unpaid royalties.

Taber, 2013, xi-xii

Deliberate plagiarists, at least if they do not want to be caught, will make sure they change enough so that it is not obvious (especially in terms of being identified by software tools used by publishers) that they are copying.

Students are trained not to work with many long quotes of other people's work (as cutting and pasting is not a high level cognitive skill!) but should paraphrase in their own words as much as possible (so processing the information, thinking about its meaning, relating it to their own prior knowledge to make it meangful – and so having some chance of understanding and remembering it) – and just use a few select quotes that are seen as seminal, punchy, or worth repeating for some other reason. But, the important thing, is: even when paraphrasing, you cite the original sources.1

Someone who draws upon an other's ideas without citing them may have forgotten the original source or may consider their own ideas are sufficiently different, or believe the background ideas are so much part of what is taken for granted that no citation is needed. (In some fields people still regularly cite Plato and Aristotle, whereas in the natural sciences it would be rare for anyone to cite scientists who introduced foundational ideas that are still underpinning research today when the original publications were decades, and certainly centuries, old.)

It is different with text (or figures). Presenting someone else's text as your own is either due to poor scholarship habits (moving quotations around in a document or between files without the citation so that later it looks like original text) or just deliberate stealing.

Journal norms on reuse of text

There are two issues relating to copying someone else's text or images. Plagiarism and copyright. Plagiarism is a moral issue – a matter of scholarly standards and academic norms. These are socially constructed of course. 2

Today, however, the rules are very clear. An author's text should be her own, except where other work is quoted, in which case there are typographic conventions (quotation marks or block quotes indented from the main text) and the source must be cited. To simply present some else's text as your own is plagiarism: cheating, stealing intellectual property, dishonesty: indeed academic malpractice.

It may also be illegal. An author has copyright in their text. This gives them the right to have it published – or indeed not to allow it to be published. They also have the right to be acknowledged as the author of the text (unless they choose to be anonymous) when their work is published, and they have the right to have the integrity of their text respected: so an editor cannot make substantial changes to work appearing under the author's name without their permission. (Even if some publishers, such as Oxford University Press, will sometimes try to persuade authors to sign away the legal right to protect the integrity to their work.)

Traditionally, publishers have been very fussy to make sure authors assure them that they own the copyright in their submitted works, and that they have not already licensed the rights to another publisher. This is why journals usually insist that authors submitting manuscripts can only send in work that is unpublished and not being considered by another publisher. Traditionally, on publication, the rights in an academic work either transfer to the publisher or the publisher is granted an exclusive license to publish (according to the publication agreement {'contract'} between the parties).

A journal publishing already published work was likely to be infringing another publisher's copyright – and potentially subject to legal redress.

Copyright and open access

Increasingly, research reports are published open access, which normally means that there is a license granted by the author which acknowledges the author's copyright, but allows reuse of the material. Anyone else can copy, and republish, the text in whole or part as long as they do not distort it, and they acknowledge the original source and the license.

So, there is usually no legal barrier to someone republishing an open access article.

However, serous journals do not want to republish material already in the public domain (except sometimes where it is considered a classic paper worth republishing with commentaries, or something was originally published in an obscure source that is not easily accessed). So, a serious research journal is still likely to insist that it will normally only consider publishing previously unpublished material that is not currently under consideration elsewhere.

Hajare's multiple publications

As I demonstrated in the first part of this article, Hajare will sometmes publish the same material, or substantially the same material, in several journals.

As these are open access journals, this does not breach copyright. It does however go against academic norms. Even predatory journals will usually claim they only accept original material, although one might suspect that is mainly part of the pretense of being serious research journals. Serious journals usually have systems that can check submissions against published work and spot obvious cases of reuse of text, but, presumably, predatory journals would rather have the publication fee than notice this issue.

Hajare's multiple publication habit does not really offer evidence on this, however, as he seems to send copies of manuscripts to different journals almost simultaneously before there is a copy in the public domain to be included in the corpora compiled for plagiarism-detection systems.

Another example would be the article "In Vitro, Widowed and Curse Words form [sic, from?] Principal during Unplanned Meeting of the College in Private Pharmaceutical Instituions [sic] in Pune University India: An Attractive Study", which was such 'an attractive study' that it attracted publication in two journals (Journal of Natural & Ayurvedic Medicine; Current Opinions in Neurological Science) almost simultaneously (on the 1st and 3rd July, 2018).

Perhaps the 'In vitro' reference in the article(s) title was a deliberare nod to the study being a hoax. Neither journal seems to have queried why research with human participants might be carried out in vitro rather than, as is customary in the social sciences, in vivo.

"In Vitro, Widowed and Curse Words form Principal during Unplanned Meeting of the College in Private Pharmaceutical Instituions [sic] in Pune University India: An Attractive Study" was submitted to two journal eight days apart. [Use the 'slider' the see the full images.]

This article(s?) is somewhat longer than most of Hajare's recent output and included a table of results, and even a pie chart supposedly reporting the outcome of 'multivariable analysis':

The results of multivariable analysis – a pie chart from "In Vitro, Widowed and Curse Word…"

This study seems (to the best of my understanding) to be about how widows are subject to domestic violence, and in particular being sworn at (which is certainly not acceptable, but perhaps diminishes the seriousness of actual domestic violence if being conflated with it?), by (I think) Pharmacy college principals. Like many of Hajare's articles much of the text is (deliberately?) obscure. And as with many of his studies he seems to leave a large clue that we should not be trying too hard to make sense of the work:

For in the Methods § the reader is told that,

"Using two-stage time location eight clusters sampling, we recruited limited sample size 100 of FAWPPIs [female adults widowed in private pharmaceutical Institutions], ages 21-49 years, who had purchased respect from FAWPPIs in the past month."

p.542 [Current Opinions in Neurological Science version]

Yet in the Executive Summary the reader is instead told,

"This study of 40 homosexual adults aged 24 to 49 years comprised widowed, and cohabiting participants from three occupational groups, and concerned curse risk within this sample."

p.544 [Current Opinions in Neurological Science version]

So, as in other exmples of Hajare's work, there is an inconsistent account of the study being reported.

The versions of the paper in the two journals are not entirely the same, as the version in Current Opinions in Neurological Science places the Executive Summary at the very end of the paper, following the Conclusions. However, the version in Journal of Natural & Ayurvedic Medicine has an extra section. Here the Executive Summary follows the section Conclusions, but precedes a section called Conclusion which repeats the text of the Executive Summary.

The 'Conclusion' § is different from the 'Conclusions' § – but the same as the 'Executive Summary'

Stealing work from other scholars

In any case, re-using one's own work is a rather different matter than genuine plagiarism, where someone else's work is passed off as your own. Sadly, during my preparation of this article it became clear that there was strong evidence suggesting that Hajare is using the work of others and claiming it as his own.

Given that prestige is so important to academics, and this depends to a large degree (although of course not entirely) on respect for published works, to deliberately present someone else's research or scholarship as your own is a serious breach of academic standards, and is a form of misconduct that opens an academic officer to disciplinary action.

Face recognition, IQ scores and the missing Trojans

In part 1, I described one of Hajare's papers ("Facial Recognition Technology and Detection of Over Sexuality in Private Organizations Combined with Shelter House. Baseline Integrated Behavioural and Biological Assessment among Most at-Risk Low Standards Hope Less Institutions in Pune, India") in Advanced Research in Gastroenterology & Hepatology which included some very bizarre material, but where the main text offered quite a serious and cogent argument about the dangers of widespread use of facial recognition software.

I also described a very similar paper, also by Hajare, with a very different title ("Detection of Progression over Sexuality in Indian Students and Teachers Combined") in the Journal of Gastrointestinal Disorders and Liver function.

I displayed selected text from the two papers to show they made precisely the same argument with almost the same wording – except where one paper was an argument about the potential threat of facial recognition software, the other made the same argument, in the same terms, but now the threat to society and freedom had become IQ scores.

The same argument – but highlighting a different perceived menace

There are certainly reasons to be suspicious of some uses of IQ, but any editor or reviewer should have questioned the specific claims made in the the Journal of Gastrointestinal Disorders and Liver function (as well as its relevance to that specialist journal of course!)

"such a grave threat to privacy and civil liberties, measured regulation should be abandoned in favour of an outright ban…IQ score is the most uniquely dangerous surveillance mechanism ever invented…IQ score is a menace disguised as a gift…Because IQ score poses an extraordinary danger…IQ score will continue to be marketed as a component of the latest and greatest apps and devices. Apple is already pitching IQ, ID as the best new feature of its new iPhone…the Georgetown Law Center on Privacy and Technology's report proposes significant restrictions on government access to IQ-print data-bases as well as meaningful limitations on use of real-time IQ score. Tragically, most of these existing and proposed requirements are procedural, and in our opinion they won't ultimately stop surveillance creep and the spread of IQ-scanning infrastructure…Because IQ score holds out the promise of translating who we are and everywhere we go into track able information that can be nearly instantly stored, shared, and analyzed, its future development threatens to leave us constantly compromised. The future of human flourishing depends upon IQ score being banned before the systems become too entrenched in our lives"

Part of the rationale for banning IQ scores that was considered publishable scholarship in the Journal of Gastrointestinal Disorders and Liver function

Actually, I do not now think Hajare did construct this argument, as it seems to have been taken from a blog posting on the site 'Medium' written by a professor of law and computer science with a professor of philosophy. Hajare seems to have taken much of the original text, removed (some, but not all of the) references to the U.S. context and made the occasional tweak to the text. That posting starts

"With such a grave threat to privacy and civil liberties, measured regulation should be abandoned in favor of an outright ban

The Trojans would have loved facial recognition technology.

It's easy to accept an outwardly compelling but ultimately illusory view about what the future will look like once the full potential of facial recognition technology is unlocked. From this perspective, you'll never have to meet a stranger, fuss with passwords, or worry about forgetting your wallet. …"

Hartzog & Selinger, 2018

Here, Hajare seems to have changed the word 'Trojans' in the original text to 'species' for some reason – perhaps a deliberate nod to the hoax . So, when 'his' text reaches the "And that is how the trap gets sprung and the unfortunate truth becomes revealed: IQ score/facial recognition is a menace disguised as a gift…." the original resonance with 'Greeks bearing gifts' is missing.

TextDate
Hartzog & Selinger, 2018Published: 2nd August 2018
Journal of Gastrointestinal Disorders and Liver function paper apparently based on Hartzog & Selinger textSubmitted September 9th 2018
Advanced Research in Gastroenterology & Hepatology paper apparently based on Hartzog & Selinger textSubmitted
September 24th 2018
Chronology for the three publications

Clearly the editors of 'Journal of Gastrointestinal Disorders and Liver function' had no reservations about publishing a paper supposedly about 'over sexuality' which was actually an extended argument about the terrible threat to our freedoms of…IQ scores, and which seems to have been plagiarised from a source already in the public domain when Hajare submitted his version (as it did not take me long to spot with a simple web search). That this make no sense at all, is just as obvious as that it has absolutely nothing to do with gastrointestinal disorders and liver function!

Sadly, this was not the only example of Hajare seemingly plagiarising other sources that I came across.

An empirical study, lablelled as a review article,in the jouran COJ Nursing & Healthcare

A paper in COJ Nursing & Healthcare had the unwieldy title "Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Variation of High Risky Behaviour in Private Pharmacy Institutional Principal and Assistant Professor Combined Attending from Long Distance Driver Role in Pune University, India: An Attractive Findings", and the abstract claimed

"The study employed a concurrent triangulation research methodology where both descriptive cross sectional survey and naturalistic phenomenology designs have used. Probability and non-probability sampling methods have used to sample 120 adults from 4 degree course B. Pharmacy Colleges within Pune University. Data has collected using questionnaires to gather information from the teachers (sample size). …"

p.1/6

So, the sample seems to have been 120 teachers in Pharmacy Colleges in the University cited in the title of many Hajare papers. This seems to be confirmed later: "Probability and non-probability sampling methods were used to sample 120 teaching staffs from 28 colleges within Pune University India" (p.417). Despite references to "quantitative data obtained from the sample and the qualitative data generated from interview respondents who were the guidance and counseling" the paper does not offer any detail of interviews, and only seems to report statistical data and analysis.

The article itself begins "The world health organization recognizes emotional suicide as one of the world's leading causes of death" (p.1/6, emphasis added). The paper goes on to give more detail of the statistics around 'emotional [sic] suicide'. Unlike much of Hajare's recent output, this paper offers a full account of an empirical study over 6 pages, including tables of statistical results.

The Introduction to the paper includes a paragraph

"It has investigated the relationship between trait emotional intelligence and resilience with suicidal ideation [1,2]. Moreover, the study hypothesized that emotional intelligence and resilience would be correlated with each other and that they have moderating variables between stressful life events due to long distance driver role and suicidal ideation. A total of 277 male and female attending inconsistently on biometric without current psychiatric diseases have recruited per online questionnaire asking for lifetime and 4-weeks suicidal ideation and demographic data and containing the Resilience Scale of Wagnild and Young, the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale and, for the measurement of trait emotional intelligence, the Self-Report Emotional Ability Scale. Additionally, researcher applied the Social Readjustment Rating Scale to assess stressful life events."

p416

This seems to be reporting a study by Sojer and colleagues (2017). Yet Hajare cites two of his own papers (entitled [1] "Detection of high addictive habits circulating office in charge of private pharmacy institutions in Pune university India (Evidence Based Study of Late Report Office In Charge to College)" and [2] "Men Residing in Slums Correlate Pharmaceutical Institution in South West Pune") as the sources for this study.

Hajare then refers to

"A study by WHO aimed to investigate the relation between emotional intelligence and instable personality in substance abusers. The present [sic] correlational study selected 80 male addicts through available sampling [3,4]. The subjects referred to the community center. Their emotional intelligence and personality have evaluated by Baron [sic, Bar-On: after Reuven Bar-On] Questionnaire and Eysenck personality questionnaire (EPQ) for adults male, respectively. Pearson's correlation coefficient has used to assess the correlations between different factors."

p.416

This seems to refer to a study by Hosseini and Anari (2011) – who claim no affiliation in their study to WHO – but again Hajare cites two of his own articles as the source (entitled [3] "Understanding academic and educational problems fit for purpose in the contributing to attentional and learning difficulties in our children?" and [4] "Live and let live: acceptance of learning disability of people living with co-educational pharmaceutical institute selffinanced and privately managed remote areas in India where stigma and discrimination persist").

In both cases the Hajare works cited as sources seem to be on themes unrelated to the studies discussed.

Relocating photographs

A 'research article' entitled "Evaluation of Disposable Bed Sheets and Safety Guidelines for Black Dog Sex Workers Resumes in the New Normal Living with Burnside Pharmacy Institute in Pune University" published in the Journal of Dermatology Sciences Research Reviews & Reports includes two photographs that are labelled:

  • Sex workers wearing protective face masks and face shields wait for customers.
  • Sex worker wearing a protective face mask and a face shield disinfects bedfellow employees at room.

I found the same photographs, which Hajare's article implies were of sex workers based at a Pharmacy Institute in India (did that not seem odd to the journal editor?) on a website of the news organisation Reuters, which reported they were not taken in India at all, but rather in Bolivia:

  • Sex workers wearing protective face masks and face shields wait for customers at a club, amid the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in El Alto outskirts of La Paz, Bolivia, July 15, 2020.
  • A sex worker wearing a protective face mask and a face shield disinfects a room at a club, amid the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in El Alto outskirts of La Paz, Bolivia, July 15, 2020.

Hajare's text also included major elements with a very close match to a previously published work: a website report discussing a published study (Motro et al, 2018):

From Hajare's textFrom The Connecticut Business & Industry Association website
Angry employees has more likely to engage in unethical behaviour at work, a new study has revealed….
even if the source of their anger has not job-related.
Angry employees are more likely to engage in unethical behavior at work, even if the source of their anger is not job-related, according to new research, published in the Journal of Business Ethics.
At the same time, when employees have feeling guilty, they have far less likely to engage in unethical behaviour than those in a more neutral emotional state, researchers found.At the same time, when employees are feeling guilty, they are far less likely to engage in unethical behavior than those in a more neutral emotional state, researchers found.
Unethical workplace behaviour, ranging from tardiness to theft, costs businesses billions of dollars a year, so it has important for managers to recognise how emotions may drive on the job behaviour.Unethical workplace behavior, ranging from tardiness to theft, costs businesses billions of dollars a year, so it's important for managers to recognize how emotions may drive on-the-job behavior, says lead study author Daphna Motro, a doctoral student in management and organizations in the University of Arizona's Eller College of Management.
At every level of an organisation, every employee has experiencing emotion, so it has universal, and emotions have really powerful they can overtake and make do things never thought were capable of doing," [sic, no open inverted commas] a doctoral student in pune university and organisations in the pune university"At every level of an organization, every employee is experiencing emotion, so it's universal, and emotions are really powerful–they can overtake you and make you do things you never thought you were capable of doing," Motro says.
While research often looks at "negative emotions" as a whole, work that not all negative emotions work in the same way.

While anger and guilt has both negative feelings, they have very different effects on behaviour.
While research often looks at "negative emotions" as a whole, Motro illustrates in her work that not all negative emotions work in the same way. While anger and guilt are both negative feelings, they have very different effects on behavior.
The reason for the difference It has how the two emotions impact processing [1]. [1 is a citation to another (unrelated) Hajare paper entitled "Scientology applied to the workday of women feels just as good as sex: Non clinical examination of less sunlight habit"]
"We found that anger was associated with more impulsive processing, which led to deviant behaviour, since deviant behaviour has often impulsive and not very carefully planned out. Guilt, on the other hand, has associated with more careful, deliberate processing, trying to think about what they have done wrong, how to fix it and so it leads to less deviance."We found that anger was associated with more impulsive processing, which led to deviant behavior, since deviant behavior is often impulsive and not very carefully planned out," Motro says.

"Guilt, on the other hand, is associated with more careful, deliberate processing–trying to think about what you've done wrong, how to fix it–and so it leads to less deviance."
Researcher findings come from two studies, in which she [sic, not Hajare] and her collaborators used writing prompts to induce the desired emotion. Study participants have asked to write about either a time when they felt very angry or a time when they felt very guilty.The First Study
Motro's findings come from two studies, in which she and her collaborators used writing prompts to induce the desired emotion. Study participants were asked to write about either a time when they felt very angry or a time when they felt very guilty.
etc.etc.
Hajare's August 2020 publication seems to match text from a 2016 website posting with only minor modifications.

So, the Journal of Dermatology Sciences Research Reviews & Reports managed to not spot that an article supposedly about safety precautions taken by sex workers in India during the COVID pandemic, but actually about anger management in the workplace, was illustrated by a news bureau's photographs from Bolivia, and made wholesale use of text from a U.S. business association website.

Text on The Connecticut Business & Industry Association websiteReuter's website article with photographsHajare's text
Published: 16th November, 2016Published: July 14th, 2020Submitted for publication: August 13, 2020
Chronology of article component

I soon found other examples of copying work from other source in Hajare's publications.

Diabetes becomes dullness

As reported in Part 1 of this article, in "Guessing Game And Poor Quality Teaching Staffs Study Of Less Sunlight Private Pharmacy Institution In Pune University" published in Advances in Bioengineering & Biomedical Science Research, Hajare describes 'dullness' as a serious medical condition,

"The study suggests that mentally draining work such as teaching may increase the risk of dullness in women. According to the research, employers and women should be more aware of the potential health risks associated with mentally tiring work.

Dullness is an increasingly prevalent disease that places a huge burden on patients and society and can lead to significant health problems including heart attacks, strokes, blindness, and hair fall, mouth odour, under eye blackness, pelvis dislocation, one sided vagina, and kidney failure.Numerous factors can increase the risk of developing dullness including obesity, diet, exercise, smoking or a long term family history of the disease."

p.1

I recognised that although the list of 'problems' seemed bizarre, it included a number of complications of diabetes. So that gave me a hint for doing a web search. With this clue I soon found a website that reported on a genuine research study,

"The study findings suggest that mentally draining work, such as teaching, may increase the risk of diabetes in women. This suggests that employers and women should be more aware of the potential health risks associated with mentally tiring work.

Type 2 diabetes is an increasingly prevalent disease that places a huge burden on patients and society, and can lead to significant health problems including heart attacks, strokes, blindness and kidney failure. Numerous factors can increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes including, obesity, diet, exercise, smoking or a family history of the disease.

https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/mentally-tiring-work-like-teaching-increases-type-2-diabetes-risk-in-women

Again, Hajare's text appears to be a slightly adulterated version of previously published material:

What Hajare claimed as his own studyScimex website report of a study in European Journal of Endocrinology
In the study, Dr Rahul Hajare from the Indian Council of Medical Research Batch 2013 In a French study, Dr Guy Fagherazzi and colleagues from the Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health at Inserm,
examined the effect of mentally tiring work on dullnessincidence [sic] in over 20 women, during a 22- 32 year period.
examined the effect of mentally tiring work on diabetes incidence in over 70,000 women, during a 22-year period.
Approximately 75 per cent of the women were in the teaching profession and 24 per cent reported finding their work very mentally tiring at the beginning of the study due to lack of complete knowledge,
Approximately 75% of the women were in the teaching profession and 24% reported finding their work very mentally tiring at the beginning of the study. 
The study has found that women were 21 per cent more likely to develop no happiness if they found their jobs mentally tiring at the start of the study.The study found that women were 21% more likely to develop type-2 diabetes if they found their jobs mentally tiring at the start of the study. 
Hajare's account of 'his' research into the medical condition he calls 'dullness' seems to be a modified copy of an acount of someone else's research into a more widely recognised medical condition, type-2 diabetes

To claim someone else's research as your own is serious academic malpractice, although here Dr Hajare could reasonably claim that he had made the study seem so ridiculous that no one could seriously think it was genuine (except perhaps the editor at Advances in Bioengineering & Biomedical Science Research?)

In any case, the main text of this journal paper had nothing to do with diabetes (or 'dullness') but the association between how a person makes pancakes and how much sexual activity they engage in. This reads like a good spoof, but sadly, seems again to be stolen goods. The story is reported on a number of websites, including that of the popular UK tabloid newspaper 'the Sun' which ran the story (illustrated by a photograph of an apparently naked couple in an intimate embrace) under the heading "Tossers get more sex", and rather than cite Hajare as the source claimed that the 'research' was a "poll of 2,000 Brits by Clarks Maple Syrup" – so a marketing ploy to sell more pancake syrup.

The 'Concussion' [sic] to the same paper seems to have nothing to do with pancakes or diabetes, but seems to 'borrow' two snippets of text from a web article "How a DNA test can help you deal with depression" by Matthew Hutson.

'Concussion' § of Hajare's paperHutson text (dated November 8, 2018)
Finding the right person is a guessing game. A researcher prescribes one, and after giving it six weeks to take effect, the patient might find it is not doing anything. So the patient tries another one and waits six weeks. And might need to do it again, and again, in a process that can take months. For me, the fourth drug hit the mark, but some people give up before making it that far.Finnding the right antidepressant is a guessing game. A doctor prescribes one, and after giving it six weeks to take effect, the patient might find it's not doing anything. So the patient tries another one and waits six weeks. And might need to do it again, and again, in a process that can take months. For me, the fourth drug hit the mark, but some people give up before making it that far.
For example, Color Genomics added a PGX-for-reduce depression element to its popular gene-testing kit.… For example, Color Genomics added a PGx-for-depression element to its popular $249 gene-testing kit in September.
Hajare also includes text very similar to that from a third source.

So, "Guessing Game And Poor Quality Teaching Staffs Study Of Less Sunlight Private Pharmacy Institution In Pune University" was an article which made no reference to poor quality teaching, or to sunlight, but seems to be compiled from other people's texts about diabetes, making pancakes, and anti-depressant drugs, mixed together with a few absurdist changes and flourishes. Yet it still passed peer review at Advances in Bioengineering & Biomedical Science Research.

A 'short communication' with the same title, "Guessing game and poor quality teaching staffs study of less sunlight private pharmacy institution in Pune University" was also published by Hajare in the Journal of Forensic Pathology.

The entire article is labelled as Abstract, and is broken down into two paragraphs. I have copied the entire text below (the article is again open access allowing unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction), but have broken the text in a different place (as Hajare breaks paragraph in the middle of a sentence).

Text of "Guessing game and poor quality teaching staffs study of less sunlight private pharmacy institution in Pune University"
(Journal of Forensic Pathology version)
Abstract from (Magno & Golomb, 2020)
[Title" "Measuring the Benefits of Mass Vaccination Programs in the United States"]
Measuring the Benefits of Mass Vaccination Programs in the United States: Since the late 1940s, mass vaccination programs in the USA have contributed to the significantly reduced morbidity and mortality of infectious diseases. To assist the evaluation of the benefits of mass vaccination programs, the number of individuals who would have suffered death or permanent disability in the USA in 2014, had mass vaccination never been implemented, was estimated for measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), hepatitis B, varicella, and human papillomavirus (HPV). The estimates accounted for mortality and morbidity trends observed for these infections prior to mass vaccination and the impact of advances in standard of living and health care. The estimates also considered populations with and without known factors leading to an elevated risk of permanent injury from infection. Mass vaccination prevented an estimated 20 million infections and 12,000 deaths and permanent disabilities [there is a paragraph break here in Hajare's article] in 2014, including 10,800 deaths and permanent disabilities in persons at elevated risk. Though 9000 of the estimated prevented deaths were from liver cirrhosis and cancer, mass vaccination programs have not, at this point, shown empirical impacts on the prevalence of those conditions. Future studies can refine these estimates, assess the impact of adjusting estimation assumptions, and consider additional risk factors that lead to heightened risk of permanent harm from infection.

Since the late 1940s, mass vaccination programs in the USA have contributed to the significantly reduced morbidity and mortality of infectious diseases. To assist the evaluation of the benefits of mass vaccination programs, the number of individuals who would have suffered death or permanent disability in the USA in 2014, had mass vaccination never been implemented, was estimated for measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), hepatitis B, varicella, and human papillomavirus (HPV). The estimates accounted for mortality and morbidity trends observed for these infections prior to mass vaccination and the impact of advances in standard of living and health care. The estimates also considered populations with and without known factors leading to an elevated risk of permanent injury from infection. Mass vaccination prevented an estimated 20 million infections and 12,000 deaths and permanent disabilities in 2014, including 10,800 deaths and permanent disabilities in persons at elevated risk. Though 9000 of the estimated prevented deaths were from liver cirrhosis and cancer, mass vaccination programs have not, at this point, shown empirical impacts on the prevalence of those conditions. Future studies can refine these estimates, assess the impact of adjusting estimation assumptions, and consider additional risk factors that lead to heightened risk of permanent harm from infection.
The researchers concluded that the finger have important implications for policy and prevention and should inform the creation of more effective sexual health education programs and interventions. Sex can accepted as non-negotiation strategies to sex. Hot have many perceptions. Black and whitish both can be hot. A HOT thinking is higher-order thinking, known as higher order thinking skills (HOTS). Old fat clothes women who find their mentally tiring are at increased risk of developing dull, a new study has found. The study suggests that mentally draining work such as teaching may increase the risk of dullness in women. According to the research, employers and women should be more aware of the potential health risks associated with mentally tiring work. Dullness is an increasingly prevalent disease that places a huge burden on patients and society and can lead to significant health problems including heart attacks, strokes, blindness, hair fall, mouth odour, under eye blackness, pelvis dislocation, one sided vagina, and kidney failure. Numerous factors can increase the risk of developing dullness including obesity, diet, exercise, smoking or a long term family history of the disease. In the study, Dr Rahul Hajare from the Indian Council of Medical Research Batch 2013 examined the effect of mentally tiring work on dullness incidence in over 20 women, during a 22- 32 year period. Approximately 75 per cent of the women were in the teaching profession and 24 per cent reported finding their work very mentally tiring at the beginning of the study due to lack of complete knowledge, The study has found that women were 21 per cent more likely to develop no happiness if they found their jobs mentally tiring at the start of the study. Skin turns out as baggy as their old "fat clothes. Under normal circumstances, seen no sexual desire or waiting for call. 
Submitted for publication: 5th March 2021 Published: 29 September 2020
Two contrasting styles of writing in Hajarre's short piece in the Journal of Forensic Pathology.

The second part of Hajare's text is the same nonsense mixed with a fabricated new medical condition that comprised the 'Summary' of the Advances in Bioengineering & Biomedical Science Research article with the same name. However, the rest of that article (the 'pancake' material for example) is not reproduced in the version published in the Journal of Forensic Pathology.

Instead, that piece starts with writing in a very different style: a coherent segment of text about the value of mass vaccination. A segment of text which bears a remarkable similarity (or at least it would be a remarkable similarity if this were a coincidence) to the abstract of a genuine academic study published in a serious research journal, Vaccines (Magno & Golomb, 2020).

Dangerous fabrication of science

It is unlikely that even the casual reader will be persuaded of the dangers of a severe medical condition called 'dullness' by reading Hajare's strange patchwork quilts of different texts on different themes. However, what about a suggestion that there is a link between domestic violence and epilepsy. Might that seem plausible?

Certainly that is what is suggested by Hajare in "Co- Relation of Domestic Violence and Epileptic Seizure ("Fit") Experience among Recently Married Women Residing Inslums [sic] Communities' Pharmaceutical Institutions in Pune District, India" – an article in the journal Research & Investigations in Sports Medicine.

In this article Hajare suggests that women who are subjected to violence by their partners are at higher risk of having epileptic fits, that their children will also suffer more epilepsy symptoms, and that "women who reside in India's slums pharmaceutical institutions are among those at greatest risk" (p.226).

Now, if these were claims that had just been copied from elsewhere, (as his claims about about pancake preparation techniques seem to be) then it would not add to the level of low quality information in circulation. However, here Hajare seems to be fabricating a connection between two serious topics based on no evidence whatsoever.

This becomes clear when doing a quick web search for extracts from his text. The table below show the text from the start of Hajare's article (first column), juxtaposed with text from two other sources. One of these is a serious academic study that reports empirical research with a "sample of 100 recently-married women residing in slums in Pune, India" (Kalokhe et al 2018). (This perhaps explains the reference to 'Recently Married Women' in Hajare's title, which does not relate to anything in his short text.)

Hajare's text relating domestic violence and epilepsyDetcare (Doctors for ethical care) website page providing information on epilepsy
Kalokhe et al 2018 text from a study about domestic violence experience among recently-married women residing in slums in Pune, India
In many cases, the exact cause is not known. Some people have inherited genetic factors that make epilepsy more likely to occur. In many cases, the exact cause is not known. Some people have inherited genetic factors that make epilepsy more likely to occur.
Other factors that may increase the risk include:
head trauma, for instance, during a car crash,
stroke

infectious diseases, for instance,
AIDS and viral encephalitis,


developmental disorders, for instance, autism or neurofibromatosis.
Other factors that may increase the risk include:
• head trauma, for instance, during a car crash
brain conditions, including stroke or tumors
• infectious diseases, for instance, AIDS and viral encephalitis
prenatal injury, or brain damage that occurs before birth
• developmental disorders, for instance, autism or neurofibromatosis
It is most likely to appear in children under 2 years of age very rare, middle age and adults over 65 years. It is most likely to appear in children under 2 years of age, and adults over 65 years.
What a patient with epilepsy experiences during a seizure will depend on which part of the brain is affected, and how widely and quickly it spreads from that area.What a patient with epilepsy experiences during a seizure will depend on which part of the brain is affected, and how widely and quickly it spreads from that area.
The incomplete note of medical sciences that the condition "is not well understood." Often, no specific cause can be identified.The CDC note that the condition "is not well understood." Often, no specific cause can be identified.
Intimate partner violence (IPV), defined as the physical, sexual, psychological abuse, and control perpetrated against an intimate partner, is highly prevalent and cannot ignore for epilepsy epidemic.Intimate partner violence (IPV), defined as the physical, sexual, psychological abuse, and control perpetrated against an intimate partner, is highly prevalent globally.
Approximately one in ten of women reporting physical and abuse by their partner during their lifetime, violation of human rights that often results in physical injury can lead neurological disturbances (trauma).Approximately one- third (30%) of women reporting physical and/or sexual abuse by their partner during their life- time. Not only is IPV a violation of human rights that often results in physical injury;
Women who experience IPV have higher odds of depression, anxiety and other mental health disorders, sexually transmitted infections including HIV chronic pain disorders and gynaecologic morbidity among other chronic disease states lead the epileptic seizure ("fit").women who experience IPV have higher odds of depression, anxiety and other mental health disorders, sexually transmitted infections including HIV, chronic pain disorders, and gynecologic morbidity among other chronic disease states.
Additionally, their children suffer from greater symptom of epilepsy morbidity and mortality. Additionally, their children suffer from greater morbidity and mortality.
In India, although national estimates suggest decreasing frequency, one in three women still report having been abused by their spouses during their lifetime. Further, this figure is likely an underestimate of the abuse women suffer post-epileptic seizer [sic] or other members of the husband's family, hereafter termed domestic violence (DV).In India, although national estimates suggest decreasing frequency, one in three women still report having been abused by their spouses during their lifetime. Further, this figure is likely an underestimate of the abuse women suffer post-marriage, as it did not survey violence perpetration by the mother- in-law or other members of the husband's family, hereafter termed domestic violence (DV).
Women who reside in India's slums pharmaceutical institutions are among those at greatest risk of high fever with epilepsy-like symptoms.Women who reside in India's slums are among those at greatest risk of DV, with lifetime estimates of 21-99%.
Submitted for publication, 4th June 2018Website © 2016-2021Published 2nd April 2018
Hajare's text (opening segment shown here) draws on different sources, and makes factual changes to source information

Hajare seems to have taken text about epilepsy, made small changes (such as removing the reference to the U.S. based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC), then shifted to a text about domestic abuse, but gratuitously made claims about links to epileptic fits not found in the original study.

Whatever Hajare's true motives here, there can be no excuse for deliberately putting false medical information into the public domain.

I expect with some more digging I could find more examples of how portions of Hajare's published work draw upon other work already in the public domain, without acknowledgement.

However, I think the point has been made, and I will end with one especially intriguing example.

Is the Nobel Prize going to the dogs?

Hajare has contributed an editorial article with the curious title "Sensitivity and Specificity of the Nobel Prize Testing to the Dogs" in the journal Advances in Biotechnology & Microbiology.

A little over a month before Hajare submitted his manuscript to Advances in Biotechnology & Microbiology, another journal, the Peer Reviewed Journal of Forensic & Genetic Sciences, published an opinion piece by Seun Ayoade.

Ayode's peice is hardly the stuff of serious research journals, being very journalistic even for an opinion piece,

"the Nobel Prize has been hijacked by an evil left- wing cabal… The final nail however was the award to a musician-Bob Dylan of the literature prize. I nearly threw up when I heard the announcement…Does the word 'Kardashian' ring a bell? The moral depravity of the Nobel Committee has reached such scandalous levels that no literature prize was awarded in 2018 because of licentious assault accusations"

Ayode, 2018: 151

However, it was a coherent piece.

Hajare's editorial seems to comprise of the same text as Ayode's, with some additions – it seems that as well as changing the title to something more obscure, Hajare has added:

1. An incoherent 'executive summary'

"Has the Nobel Prize gone to the dogs? Nobel Prize has been accepted as an uncountable value, however difficult to eliminate. The hope for possible selection without power politics has stemmed from the reports of the populations at high risk of malign the credibility of noble remaining free of selection. A number of host factors associated with lower selection to higher selection and better control on conflict multiplication have been reported. However, the correlates of protection from encroachment have eluded the scientific community. This has been a significant barrier in developing effective award to protect against infection. On the contrary, a spectacular success has been achieved in the field of noble award treatment."

p.0041
2. An odd list of keywords
  • Power politics;
  • Protection;
  • Encroachment;
  • Infection;
  • Realizable assets;
  • Physiological;
  • Stockholm;
  • Instrumentation
3. An incoherent 'Summary and Conclusion'

"The findings revealed high awareness of noble [sic] is high, its causes, impacts, methods of financing; and prevention. It has seen most award has abusing. The attitude towards it is mixed."

p.0042
4. A splattering of self-citations

Hajare omits the three references in Ayode's article, and replaces them with a raft of references to his own articles on a wide range of topics.

Part of Hajare's reference list for the article about the Nobel prize.

So, it looks as if Hajare has just taken the published text of Ayode's article, which – even if not exactly written in academic language – offered a coherent argument and (deliberately?) spoilt it by topping and tailing it with some nonsense text. If the editors of Advances in Biotechnology & Microbiology did not do plagiarism checks to look for previously published work, then Hajare had (as usual, see Part 1) offered plenty of clues that something was off here. Yet, even the addition of gibberish did not present re-publication.

Perhaps Hajare thinks that as he has done his best to prevent anyone taking his work seriously, it does not matter that he is using other people's work as the basis for some of his hoax articles. Yet, he is still using work without acknowledgement, and passing it off as his own writing. That is usually considered a serious academic offence.

Coda

It looks like Hajare lifted Ayode's complete article for his editorial.

But, of course, that is assuming that Rahul Hajare from India and Seun Ayoade from Nigeria are real people, and also that they are not actually the same person.

That may seem an odd point to make. But as I was writing this article, I thought that the name Seun Ayoad looked somewhat familiar.

In Part 1 of this article, I pointed out that I become intrigued about (if not for a while obsessed with) Hajare's output after having reason to check out the journal Petroleum and Chemical Industry International. I had quickly found in looking at this journal two articles which seemed to have nothing to do with the supposed scope of the journal.

One of these was Hajare's "An attempt to Characterize Street Pharmaceutical Teachers Abusing Drugs and Aspect of Allergy Among Adult Men Attending Long Distance Institutions in Pune, India".

The other was "Was glass the classical currency of the yoruba?". That was written by one…Seun Ayoade. Is it a coincidence that I've found these two names associated again?

Perhaps it is just that.

Ayoade's (and so therefore Hajare's) diatribe against the Nobel prize choices included a slightly odd aside:

"By the way the "scientists" of the Nobel prize committee are among the many "scientists" that continue to deny the existence of the microzymas. No surprise there."

p.151

Actually, virtually all current mainstream biologists and medical scientists today "deny the existence of the microzymas" as other entities are considered to better explain the phenomena that microzymas were introduced to explain. 3

Just as Hajare has his own themes that recur in his work (see Part 1 for examples), Ayoade has written a number of pieces on microzymas – promoting microzymas as the future of medicine, and as possible candidates for the universe's 'missing' mass.

So, I do not think Hajare and Ayoade are the same person. Just as well for the predatory journals, as even with Hajare's flow of incoherent and obscure pieces rehashing his preferred themes, his output is never going to be sufficient to support all those predatory journals prepared to publish anything submitted to them regardless of the level of scholarly merit.

Work cited:
Notes

1 Cutting and pasting has its place. When studying a new topic it may be very useful to cut and paste sections from key sources as a first stage in compiling ideas on the topic. However, this is an initial stage in a process of moving from the sources to a personal take on a topic (perhaps a conceptual framework to inform a research study). One moves from a large number of discrete segments of other people's scholarship to a coherent personal account presented in a single voice. This is somewhat akin to the analytical process in grounded theory work which moves from the discrete data through increasing stages of generalisation and abstraction towards a 'grounded theory'.

2 In the Medieval period it was quite normal for people to copy out the texts of others – before printing the only way books were copied was by hand. Monks famously made copies of texts – but intellectuals also sometimes copied texts that they wanted to have their own copy of. Downloading the pdf simply was not an option. Copying a book is a big job – so often people would compile their own books by just copying selected material of particular interest from other texts, rather than complete books. Sadly for historians, even though a lot of this material is still extant, there was no widely accepted scholarly standard about acknowledging authors: so, manuscripts do not always report the source being copied and who the original author was. For that matter, manuscripts do not always report who actually did the copying. Where there are names these sometimes report ownership which may not reflect the original author or the scribe.

3 Microzymas were hypothetical, non-destructible units that were conjectured to make up living things and other matter. The theory fell into disuse when cell theory was found to offer a better basis for understanding the structure of complex organisms, and germ theory was found to better explain infectious diseases.