Tag: liver disease

The scholarly community needs to shame academics who knowingly offer respectability to obviously dishonest practices and the dissemination of fabricated research reports

Keith S. Taber

The article seems to report some kind of experimental study, but I do not know what hypothesis was being tested, and I do not understand the description of the conditions being tested. …as far I can tell, the study (if it really was carried out) is more about workload management than medicinal chemistry… I do not know what the findings were because the results quoted are (deliberately?) inconsistent. I do know that Hajare makes claims about cancer which are totally inappropriate in a scientific context and have no place in the medical literature

According to the title of an article in Organic and Medicinal Chemistry International Journal, "There is no Cure for the Cancer of Stupidity".

The journal claims to be "an open access journal that is committed to publish the papers on various topics of chemistry, especially synthetic organic chemistry, and pharmacology and various other biological specialties, where they are involved with drug design, chemical synthesis and development for market of pharmaceutical agents, or bio-active molecules (drugs)". You may wish to make up your own mind about the extent to which the article I discuss below fits this scope.

The journal is presented as peer reviewed, and offers guidelines for reviewers, suggesting

"Juniper Publishers strives hard towards the spread of scientific knowledge, and the credibility of the published article completely depends upon effective peer reviewing process. Reviewing of manuscript is an important part in the process of publication. Reviewers are asked to make an evaluation and provide recommendations to ensure the scientific quality of the manuscript is on par with our standards."

https://juniperpublishers.com/reviewer-guidelines.php

That is as one would expect from a research journal.

What is the cancer of stupidity?

The author of this article presumably has a particular notion of the 'cancer of stupidity'. This particular article is written by Dr Rahul Hajare who gives his affiliation here as Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, India. (Perhaps he is the same Rahul Hajare who is listed as an honorary editor of Organic and Medicinal Chemistry International Journal affiliated to Vinayaka Mission University, India? ¹)

However, having read the paper, I am not sure what readers are meant to understand the 'cancer of stupidity' actually is. One might well guess that the loaded term 'cancer' is intended metaphorically here, but perhaps not as Hajare talks about both liver 'disorder' and lung cancer in the article.

The article seems to report some kind of experimental study, but I do not know what hypothesis was being tested, and I do not understand the description of the conditions being tested. Of course, unlike someone qualified to referee articles for a journal of organic and medicinal chemistry, I am not an expert in the field. But then, as far as I can tell, the study (if it really was carried out) is more about workload management that medicinal chemistry – but I am not sure of that. I do not know what the findings were because the results quoted are (deliberately?) inconsistent. I do know that Hajare makes claims about cancer which are totally inappropriate in a scientific context and have no place in the medical literature.

A copyright article

'There is no Cure for the Cancer of Stupidity' is copyright of its author, Rahul Hajare, and the article is marked "All rights are reserved". However it is published open-access under creative commons license 4.0 which allows any re-use of the article subject to attribution. So, I am free to reproduce as much of the text as I wish.

I wish to reproduce enough to persuade readers that no intelligent person who reads the article could mistake it for a serious contribution to the scientific literature. If you are convinced I have made my case, then this raises the issue of whether it was published without any editorial scrutiny, or published despite editor(s) and peer reviewers seeing it was worthless as an academic article. This might seem a harsh judgement on Dr Hajare, but actually I suspect he would agree with me. I may be wrong, but I strongly suspect he submitted the article in full knowledge that it was not worth publishing.

The abstract

The abstract of an article should offer a succinct summary of its contents: in the case of an empirical study (which this article seems to report), it should outline the key features of the sample, research design and findings. So what does Dr Hajare write in his abstract?

"The best definition for cancer is the statistic one in six – a reminder that beyond a point, one cannot control or ever completely prepare for the future. Believes cancer afflicts those who have a sinful past, people cannot compensate for the sin against the unseen. But when you see the background, it will be found it was divine justice, nothing else. Lung cancer means no accreditation. Unscientific opinion that illness is only too human to fall back on fantasy, or religion, when there are no rational explanation for random misfortunes."

p.001

So, we have an abstract which is incoherent, and does not seem to be previewing an account of a research study.

Dodgy definition

It starts with a definition of cancer: "The best definition for cancer is the statistic one in six". I would imagine experts differ on the best definition of cancer in the context of medicinal chemistry, but I am pretty sure that 'the statistic one in six' would not be a good contender.

Provocative claims

Next, there is some syntactically challenged material seemingly suggesting that cancer is the outcome of sinning and is divine retribution. An individual is entitled to hold such an opinion – and indeed this view is probably widely shared in some communities – but it has no place in science. Even if a medical scientist believed that at one level this was true- it should have no bearing on their scientific work which should adopt 'methodological naturalism': the assumption that in scientific contexts we look for explanations in terms of natural mechanisms not supernatural ones. ²

'Lung cancer means no accreditation'

Then we have a reference to lung cancer – so an actual medical condition. But it is linked to 'accreditation', without any indication what kind of accreditation is being referred to (accreditation of what, whom?). This does however turn out to be linked to a theme in the main paper (accreditation). Despite that, I doubt any reader coming to this paper fresh would have any idea what it was about from the abstract.

The main text is free of cancer

The main text of the article makes no further reference to cancer, either as a medical condition nor as a metaphor for something else.

The main text is broken up into sections:

• Short commentary
• Results
• Discussion
• Recommendation
• Limitation

The first of these section titles seems slightly odd, as this article type (in its entirety) is classed by the journal as a 'short communication' and one might rather expect 'Introduction' and 'Research Design' or 'Methodology' here.

The outcome?

The short commentary starts with what seems an overview of the outcomes of the study:

"On the basis of criteria of assessment allotted for NBA work, the total effect has been carried out, which has shown that 9% staffs were moderately improved (17.65%) and 40% staff (78.43%) were mildly improved, while none of the staffs were completely improved."

p.001

NBA has not been defined (no, it is nothing to do with basketball) and we might wonder "what staff?" as this has not been explained. Some web searching suggests that (this) NBA is the organisation that oversees the quality of academic awards in India – the National Board of Accreditation. It is not clear yet what this has to do with lung cancer as mentioned in the abstract.

The alert (or even half-alert?) reader may also spot discrepancies here, which I suspect have been deliberately included by the author.

The aim of the study

We are next told that

"The trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of work flow as compared to replacement therapy in the management, along with the assessment of different initiative" .

p.001

So, there seems to have been a trial, but presumably not a cancer drugs trial as it has something to do with 'work flow' (published in a journal of organic and medicinal chemistry?)

After some brief comments about research design this paragraph concluded with

"NBA work cannot be evaluated in terms of file and paper work because investments of biosafety make a profit of privately managed low level transportation facility pharmacy institution make them different."

p.001

Perhaps this makes sense to some readers, but not me. The next paragraph starts:

"Individuals have the power to prevent the occurrence of these diseases by managing their health care and developing healthier food and lifestyle behaviours. How can they be motivated to do so, without providing them with a basic understanding about the important role the liver, the organ under attack, plays in maintaining their health and life itself?"

p.001

Up to this point no diseases have been discussed apart from lung cancer in the abstract. If the focus is lung cancer – why is the liver 'the organ under attack'? And it is not clear what (if anything) this has to do with the NBA or work flow.

Soon we are told

"A positive result does not necessarily mean that the person has body support, as there are certain conditions that may lead to a false positive result for example lyme disease, bacterial leaching, the paternal negativity but who themselves are not infected with liver disorder."

p.001

So, someone struggling to make sense of this study might understand there is some test for liver dysfunction, that can give false positives in some circumstances – so it the study about liver disease (rather than, or as well as, work flow)?

The science of the liver

Hajare refers to the functions of the liver,

"[the liver] is non-complaining complex organ and its miraculous hard working liver cells convert everything they eat breath and absorb through their skin into hundreds of life sustaining body functions 24/7"

p.001

The liver is a pretty remarkable multi-purpose chemical processing organ. But in the context of the scientific/medical literature, should its cells be described as 'miraculous' ²; and in terms of such everyday analogies as eating and breathing and having skin?

Linking liver disease to NBA accreditation

But then Hajare does suggest a link between liver disease and accreditation,

"Similarly staffs receiving liver therapy may have positive test. While showing a positive we general regarded as conclusive for a body life under attack, a negative test does not necessarily rule out. They need to understand how their food and life style choices can lead to reparable NBA accreditation privately managed in remote areas pharmaceutical Instituions [sic]."

p.001

Now, many researchers report their work in English when it is a second (or subsequent) language and this may explain some minor issues with English in any journals that do not have thorough production procedures. But here Hajare seems to be claiming that there is a causal link between the lifestyle choices of patients with liver disease and "reparable [sic] NBA accreditation".

In case the reader is struggling with this, perhaps wondering if they are misreading, Hajare suggests,

"During the early session, positive testing can be undertaken to exclude NBA. In staffs that are near to positive, the level of negative load is used as markers of the like senior staff and principal of progression to ignored."

p.001

Surely, this is just gibberish?

Hajare continues,

"The NBA accreditation is a 90 90 90 formula organization dedicated to promoting healthy food and lifestyle behaviours and prevention of liver related disease through multifaceted liver health education programs. The mission of NBA accreditation initiative is to make education a priority on national agenda. Promoting an education about the NBA to employer individuals to make informed can improve compliance and treatment outcomes for NBA and reduce the incidences of preventable NBA related thought including obesity, fatty liver, early onset diabetes, high cholesterol and cardiovascular disease. Primary prevention of NBA is the key to saving paper and application of green chemistry additional be benefited with zero Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) emission in college area."

pp.001-002

As far as I can ascertain, the mission of the NBA is rigorous accreditation standards for technical education programmes in India to ensure teaching is of as high quality as expected in other major countries. It has no particular focus on liver disease! The reference to '90-90-90' seems to be borrowed from UNAIDS, the United Nations initiative to tackle AIDS worldwide.

The paragraph seems to start by suggesting NBA is a positive thing, supporting health educational programmes, but within a few lines there are references to "preventable NBA related thought" (very 1984) and "Primary prevention of NBA" as an ecological goal.

Population and sample

Hajare does not detail the population sampled. From the unspecified population "A total 18 staffs [staff members?] were selected for the study, out of which 13 staffs completed the study" (p.002). The sample is characterised,

"The staffs tended to be lady staffs in middle adulthood regular health. About 80% mentioned irregular habits, and about 60% were unidentified"

p.002

It is not clear what kind of habits are referred to (irregular bowel movements might be relevant to illness, but could it mean drug abuse, or frequently clicking the heels of shoes together three times and thinking of Kansas?), and it is not clear in what sense 60% were 'unidentified'. It is also not clear if these percentages refer to the 18 selected or the 13 completing, as the numbers do not make good sense in either case:

proportion	of n=13	of n=18
80%	10.4 people 10 would be 77% 11 would be 84%	14.4 people 14 would be 78% 15 would be 83%
60%	7.8 people 7 would be 54% 8 would be 62%	10.8 people 10 would be 56% 11 would be 61%

Hajare also tells readers

"A little over half of the staffs (54.17%) were of none of long relation of objective of NBA implementation and 22.92% were of fear with mind."

p.002

It is not clear to me if this nonsensical statement is supposed to be part of a characterisation of the sample, or meant to be a finding. The precision is inappropriate for such a small sample. But none of that matters unless one understands what (if anything) is meant by these statements. I guess that if editors or peer reviewers did read this paper before publication, they felt this made good sense.

The three experimental conditions

We are told that the sample was randomly assigned to three conditions. We are not told how many people completed the study in each condition (it could have been 6 in each of two conditions and only one person in the third condition). The treatments were (p.002):

• a) Group A: was treated with conjugated staff seen work flow once daily for 45 days.
• b) Group B: was treated with small conjugated staffs seen work flow but ignored once daily for duration of 45 days.
• c) Group C: was treated with separately work staffs seen and engaged in their assigned work for 45 days (After 7 days of continuous behavioral objective, a gap of 3 days in between before the next 7 days sitting with 3-3 day's gap after every 7 days).

Surely, at this point, any reader has to suspect that, Hajare is, as they say 'having a laugh'. Although I have no real idea what is meant by any of this, I notice that the main difference between the first two conditions is 'being ignored once daily' – as opposed to what: being observed continuously for 24 hours a day?

The data collection instruments

There is very little detail of the data collection instruments. Of course, this is a 'short communication' which might be a provisional report to be followed up by a fully detailed research report. (I have been looking through a lot of the work Hajare has published in recent years, and typically his papers are no more than about two pages in length.)

Early in the paper we are told that

"Specialized biosafety rating scales like orientation as well as information technology rating scale, were adopted to assess the effect of therapy."

p.001

So that is pretty vague.

Findings

As quoted above, the main text of the paper begins with a preview of findings: "On the basis of criteria of assessment allotted for NBA work, the total effect has been carried out, which has shown that 9% staffs were moderately improved (17.65%) and 40% staff (78.43%) were mildly improved, while none of the staffs were completely improved" (p.001). Perhaps 'mildly' and 'moderately' are understood in specific ways in this study, but that is not explained, and to an uninformed reader it is not clear which, if either, of mild improvement or moderate improvement is a more positive result.

Again, giving results to 4 significant figures is inappropriate (when n<20). But the main issue here is how 9%=17.65% and 40%=78.53%

Later in the article, the results are reported:

"Results of the study based off [not on!] the conjugated staffs rating scale showed that

Group C showed greater relief than the other two groups in flashes (66.66%), sleep problems (80.39%), in depressive mood (72.5%), in irritability (69.81%), and in anxiety (70.90%).

However, Group B showed significant improvement with flashes (62.22%), sleep problems (57.14%), depressive mood (66.66%), irritability (55.31%) and anxiety (50.94%).

Both groups B and C showed a lower benefit in symptoms compared with Group A, which was treated with conjugated staffs but quite unidentified crisis among them."

p.002 (extra line breaks added between sentences)

Again the precision is unjustified: the maximum number of participants in any condition is 6! It is noticeable that large proportions of these adults in "regular health" showed improvements in their (non) conditions. How the "biosafety rating scales like orientation" and "information technology rating scale" measured sleep problems, depressive mood, irritability, and anxiety is left to the imagination of the reader.

Just in case any reader is struggling to interpret all of this, thinking "it must be me, the editor and reviewers clearly understood this paper", Hajare drops in another hint that we should not take this article too seriously: "Group C showed greater relief than the other two groups…[but] Both groups B and C showed a lower benefit in symptoms compared with A Group"

That is: Group C did better than groups A and B, but not as well as group A

Limitations to the study

Hajare points out that 'self-reporting' is a limitation to the study, which is a fair point, but also suggest that "This study was a cross-sectional study; hence, it precludes inferences of causality among such variables." Of course, as it is described, this is not a cross-sectional study but an experimental intervention.

Recommendations

Hajare offers eight recommendations from this study, none of which seem to directly follow from the study (although some are sensible general well-being suggestions such as the value of yoga and education about healthy eating).

In his discussion section Hajare offers a kind of conclusion:

"Due to these limitations in research it is not clear to what degree biosafety treatment may benefit NBA accreditation in sub kind transportation facility remote pharmacy institution, although the smaller studies used in this literary analysis show a definite success rate that supersedes the benefits of biosafety treatment thereby delaying the aging process of staffs in private pharmacy Instituions [sic].

p.002

What literary analysis? Which studies? Hajare only cites 5 other publications: all his own work. He seems to be saying here that

• is not clear to what degree biosafety treatment may benefit…
• although the smaller studies show a definite success rate that supersedes the benefits of biosafety treatment

So, for any reader still trying to make some sense of the paper, perhaps this means there is inconclusive, but tentative, evidence that biosafety treatment may have sufficient benefits to suggest it should replace…biosafety treatment?

The cancer of the post-truth journals

If this commentary shows evidence of any metaphorical cancer it is the tumour eating away at the academic body. This consists of the explosion of predatory low quality so-called research journals that are prepared to publish any nonsense as long as the author pays a fee. These journals are nourished by submissions (many of which, I am sure, come from well-meaning researchers simply looking for somewhere to publish and who are misled by websites claiming peer review, impact factors, international editorial boards, and the like), and supported by those academics prepared to give such journals a veer of respectability by agreeing to be named as editors and board members.

Of course, it is an honour to be asked to take up such positions (at least by a genuine research journal) but academics need to do due diligence and make sure they are not associating their name with a journal that will knowing publish gibberish and misleading science.

Open access journals are open to the public as well as specialists, and therefore predatory journals are as likely to be a source of information for lay people as trustworthy ones. Someone looking for information on cancer and cancer treatment or liver disease might find this article in Organic and Medicinal Chemistry International Journal and see the host of editors from many different universities ¹ (I have appended the current listing below) and assume such a journal must be checking what it is publishing carefully if it is overseen by such an international college of scholars.

Yet Hajare's paper is nonsense.

A very generous interpretation would be that he is meaning well, trying to communicate his work as best he can, but is confused, and needs help in structuring and writing up his work. If this were so, the journal should have told him to come back when he had accessed and benefited from the help he needed.

I would normally tend to a generous interpretation, but not here.

Hajare's haox

Unlike a casual reader coming across this 'study' I was actually looking across a range of Hajare's work and have found that he has published many papers with similar features, such as

• being much shorter than traditional research reports
• provocative titles and statements – especially early in the paper (e.g., cancer is divine justice)
• titles not reflecting the paper (there is no mention of cancer beyond the abstract)
• abstracts that do not actually discuss the study
• conflation of unrelated topics (here, liver disease and course accreditation)
• irrelevancies (e.g., use of an information technology rating scale to assess liver-related health)
• nonsensical 'sentences' that any editor or reviewer should ask to be revised/corrected
• glaring inconsistencies (9%=17.65%; improvement under treatment in people who were in good health; groups C did better than, but also not as well as, group A; biosafety treatment may be superior to biosafety treatment)
• citing only his own publications

One could explain a few such issues as carelessness, but here there is a multitude of errors that an author should not miss when checking work before submission, and more to the point, that should be easily spotted during editorial and peer review. There are many poor studies in the literature with weaknesses that seem to have been missed – but no one reading "There is no Cure for the Cancer of Stupidity" should think it is ready for publication.

Where is the stupidity? In the people who associate themselves with 'research' of this standard. They seek short term gain by adding a superficially useful affiliation to their curriculum vitae/résumé – but in the longer term these journals and their editorial boards are parasitic on the academic community, and spread low quality, fraudulent and (here) deliberately nonsensical misinformation on scientific and medical matters.

I am pretty convinced that Hajare is a serial hoaxer, who has found it so easy to get below-par material published that he seems to be deliberately testing out just how provocative, incoherent, inconsistent, vague, confusing and apparently pointless an account of a study has to be before a predatory journal will reject it. Clearly, in the case of Organic and Medicinal Chemistry International Journal these particular characteristics are no barrier to publication of a submission.

Hajare throws multiple clues and hints into his work so that a careful reader should not be misled into treating his work as trustworthy. Anybody who reads it should surely see the joke. Does anybody at Organic and Medicinal Chemistry International Journal bother to read material before they publish it? Did anyone read "There is no Cure for the Cancer of Stupidity" before recommending publication?

Notes

¹ At the time of writing this posting (27th November, 2021) the website of Organic and Medicinal Chemistry International Journal lists a large number of 'honarable editors' from many parts of the world on its website as part of the journal's editorial board. These are academics that have given their name to the journal to give it credence in terms of their reputations as scholars. I have appended the list of honorary editors below.

² Scientists may be atheists, agnostics or hold any form of religion. A person who holds a view (perhaps based on religious beliefs) that disease is the outcome of personal sin (or indeed the result of human sin more generally or the outcome of Adam and Eve's disobedience, or whatever) can take one of two views about this:

a) sinning is the cause of illness, and no further explanation is necessary

b) sinning is a cause of disease at one (theological) level but divine will works through natural causes (viruses, toxins, etc.)

It would be pointless and inappropriate for someone who took stance (a) to work in a scientific field concerning etiology (causes of diseases).

Someone who took stance (b) could work in such a field as long as they were able to bracket off their personal beliefs and focus on natural causes and scientific explanations in their work (i.e., methodological naturalism).

(Metaphysical naturalism rejects the existence of any supernatural entities, powers or influences and so would not accept sin or divine justice as causes of disease at any level.)

Read about science and religion

Appendix: Dishonarable editors?

Perhaps the colleagues below joined the editorial team of Organic and Medicinal Chemistry International Journal in good faith – but are they doing due diligence in checking the standards of the journal they (nominally) help edit? Are they happy to remain associated with this journal given its publishing (non)standards?

Honorary Editors	Editor affiliation
Fernando Albericio	University of Barcelona, Spain
Diego A Alonso	University of Alicante, Spain
Carl E. Heltzel	Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA
Daniel D Holsworth	Stemnext LLC, USA
Kent Acheson	Kaplan University Online, USA
Rama Suresh Ravi	National Institutes of Health, USA
Syed A A Rizvi	Nova Southeastern University, USA
Alireza Heidari	California South University, USA
Khue Nguyen	University of California, USA
Sonali Kurup	Roosevelt University, USA
Vivek Kumar	Johns Hopkins University, USA
Subrata Deb	Roosevelt Universit, USA
Sridhar Prasad	CalAsia Pharmaceuticals Inc, USA
Loutfy H Madkour	Al Baha University, Saudi Arabia
Gianfranco Balboni	University of Cagliari, Italy
Raja Rizwan Hussain	King Saud University, Saudi Arabia
Ibrahim Abdel-Karim Ahmed Abdel-Rahman	University of Sharjah, UAE
Khalid Hussain Thebo	Institute of Metal research, China
Wenjun Tang	Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry, China
Ao Zhang	Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica, China
Hengguang Li	Sichuan University, China
Pavel Kocovsky	Charles University, Europe
Hai Feng Ji	Drexel University, Pennsylvania
Wojciech J Kinart	University of Lodz, Poland
David Morales Morales	Instituto de Químic, Mexico
Walter Filgueira de Azevedo Jr	Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Chung Yi Chen	Kaohsiung Medical Universit, Taiwan
Ilkay Yildiz	Ankara University, Turkey
Mohamed El Sayed El Khouly	Kafrelsheikh University, Egypt
Mohamed Nageeb Rashed	Aswan University, Egypt
Hanaa Mahrousabd El Ghany Mohamed Rady	Cairo University, Egypt
Kamal Mohamed Dawood	Cairo University, Egypt
Waleed Adbelhakeem Bayoumi	Mansoura University, Egypt
Mohammad Emad Azab Ali El-Fakharany	Ain Shams University, Egypt
Khaled Rashad Ahmed Abdellatif	Beni-Suef University, Egypt
Winston F. Tinto	University of the West Indies, Caribbean
Adnan S Abu-Surrah	Qatar University, Qatar
Djamila Halliche	University of Science and Technology Houari Boumedien, Africa
Maher Aljamal	Al Quds University / Beit Jala Pharmaceutical Company, Palestine
Anna Pratima Nikalje	Y. B. Chavan College of Pharmacy, India
Prabhuodeyara M Gurubasavaraj	Rani Channamma University, India
A Jaya Shree	Osmania University, India
Hari N Pati	Advinus Therapeutics Ltd. (A TATA Enterprise), India
P Mosae Selvakumar	Karunya University, India
Madhuresh Kumar Sethi	Panjab University Chandigarh, India
Sunil Kumar	Pujab Technical University, India
Lallan Mishra	BHU, India
Pinkibala Punjabi	Mohanlal Sukhadia University, India
Maya Shankar Singh	Banaras Hindu University, India
Ajmal Bhat	Sant Baba Bhag Singh University, India
A Venkat Narsaiah	Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, India
Rahul Hajare	Vinayaka Mission University, India
Anshuman Srivastava	Banaras Hindu University, India
Sadaf Jamal Gilani	The Glocal University, India
Ramakrishna Vellalacheruvu	Sri Krishna Devaraya University, India
Ali Gharib	Islamic Azad University, Iran
Mohammad S Mubarak	University of Jordan, Jordan
Vladimir V Kouznetsov	Universidad Industrial de Santander, Colombia
Loai Aljerf	University of Damascus, Syria
Davidson Egirani	Niger Delta University, Nigeria
Branislav Rankovic	University of Kragujevac, Serbia
Fawzi Habeeb Jabrail	University of Mosul, Iraq
Ali A Ensafi	Isfahan University of Technology, Iran
Kian Navaee	American Chemical Society, Iran
Rachid Touzani	Université Mohammed Premier, Morocco