Yesterday I heard about some new publications on forensic hair microscopy published in, of all places, a journal on pharmaceuticals. My first thought was that the journal might be a predatory one with deceptive advertising designed to con scholars into paying for publication in what appears to be a reputable scientific journal. But that was too cynical.
The papers are
- S. Sneha Harshini, Vishnu Priya Veeraraghavan, Abirami Arthanari1, R. Gayathri, S. Kavitha, J. Selvaraj, P. K. Reshma & Y. Dinesh, Comparative Study of Male and Female Human Hair: A Microscopic Analysis, 13 J. Advanced Pharm. Tech. & Rsch. S297-S301 (2022);
- S. Nehal Safiya, Vishnu Priya Veeraraghavan, Abirami Arthanari, R. Gayathri, J. Selvaraj, S. Kavitha & Y. Dinesh, J., Comparison of Human and Animal Hair – A Microscopical Analysis, 13 Advanced Pharm. Tech. & Rsch. S112–S116 (2022); and
- S. Nehal Safiya, Vishnu Priya Veeraraghavan, Abirami Arthanari, R. Gayathri, J. Selvaraj, S. Kavitha & Y. Dinesh, A Comparative Study of Different Animal Hairs: A Microscopic Analysis, 13 Advanced Pharm. Tech. & Rsch. S117–S120 (2022)
The Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology & Research has a scientific society and a respectable publisher behind it. The former is the “Society of Pharmaceutical Education & Research (SPER),” which is one of the leading pharmaceutical association in the country [of India] ... with a member base of around 3,500, it spread [sic] across the country and have [sic] 13 state branches.”
The latter is Wolters Kluwer’s Medknow. Located in Mumbai, Medknow “provides publishing services for peer-reviewed, online and print-plus-online journals in medicine on behalf of learned societies and associations with a focus on emerging markets.” Wolters Kluwer insists that Medknow “journals employ a double-blind review process, in which the author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.”
Although the journal is not indexed in Medline, the research comes from the Saveetha Dental College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India—”one of the finest institutions in the world with a unique curriculum that is a spectacular fusion of the best practices of the east and west.”
So I read the papers. Unbelievable.
The abstract and the conclusion of "A Comparative Study of Male and Female Human Hair" announce that “[t]his study can be concluded that the structural comparison between male and female hair specimens can be used as evidence for forensic analysis at crime scenes.” How so? Well, for one thing, “[i]n this study, it is observed that the color of human male hair is completely black, while it is black on the proximal end and brown at the distal end of human female hair.”
Astonishingly, the sample of hairs is never described. How many men and women provided hair? Where did they come from? How many hairs were taken from each subject and compared? Were the examinations blind? Without this elementary information, no one can understand or assess the reported results.
The “Comparison of Human and Animal Hair – A Microscopical Analysis” is similarly devoid of any meaningful description of the research.
The “Comparative Study of Different Animal Hairs: A Microscopic Analysis” appears to be a description of four hairs – one each from a dog, a cat, a horse, and a rat. The researchers found some differences among them. This they found encouraging: "The present study might be used in forensic investigations."
So much for "double blind peer review."
