Article in Questionable Journal Claims Handheld Hepatitis C Detector is Effective

WASET journal


The Dutch-language blog KLOPTDATWEL? reports that the Egyptian military claims its research has led to a handheld device that can diagnose hepatitis C.



Moreover, according to the news website Egypt Independent,

Egypt’s military claims its engineers have made an “unprecedented” scientific breakthrough by developing a device that can detect AIDs and hepatitis C infections without the need to take blood samples.

An article describing the device appeared in volume 7, number 12 (2013) of the International Journal of Medical, Pharmaceutical Science and Engineering, published by the World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (WASET), a publisher and prolific conference organizer that has long been on my list of questionable publishers.

The article is entitled “A Novel Method for Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Hepatitis C Virus Using Electromagnetic Signal Detection: A Multicenter International Study.”

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology

Avoid this publisher’s journals and conferences.

Late Thursday, news reports also indicated that the Egyptian military had also developed a way to cure HIV and hepatitis C. It is unclear if this later claim is backed up by any journal article.

This is another example of how predatory, open-access journals are used to promote junk science. I strongly recommend against submitting papers to any of WASET’s journals and against attending its many questionable conferences

13 Responses to Article in Questionable Journal Claims Handheld Hepatitis C Detector is Effective

  1. fedelelizzi says:

    Nice bit: “Interactions cannot take place between atoms or molecules unless they touch one another [37]” The reference is to no lesser authority that Sir Isaac Newton. Except that dipole interaction between atoms does exist. In need I think I can refer to James Clerk Maxwell…

  2. dzrlib says:

    It is instructive to check out the WASET website. The number of conferences is literally astounding in magnitude and subject coverage.

  3. Bill White says:

    Dear Jeffrey,

    One more open access journal, one more!
    Of course, for the sake of people in developing countries who cannot pay to access to knowledge!
    Only one more open access journal, only one!
    Hopefully you will include it in your list, otherwise you are a partial guy.
    You know why would you be so?
    Because some time ago, 3 months barely, Science was fiercely criticizing the Open Access model with a detracting article written by one of Science loyalist author, Bohannon!

    Quickly forgot his detraction, Science is on the road of the open access! Isn’t amazing?
    Let me tell you a think:
    Most, if not all, publishers are stammers and money seekers, including Science, Cell and Nature. These three particular journals have corrupted science and continue to do so. But things will change soon and they will turn off!

    How would you explain this shift, unless by Bankrupt? Science is looking for money!

    Why Science is doing what it was criticizing only three months ago?

    • Bill,
      I request that you take back this statement: “Hopefully you will include it in your list, otherwise you are a partial guy.”
      Why do you have such a mean tone in your comment?
      Are you sure you read the Science article completely? The study found serious problems with peer review in about half the journals it studied. It was not a condemnation of open-access, as you hint. In fact, many OA publishers survived the sting successfully. Also many quality OA publishers offer waivers or discounts for authors in developing countries, and I assume this new AAAS journal will do the same, though I haven’t checked.

  4. Bill White says:


    Yes I did read the article, and I think it was not peer-reviewed, otherwise it would not be accepted and published as a lot of commentators stated under the article.
    Science and Nature publish kid and fiction story but they reject purposeful papers.
    Nature and Science are here because of historical context that helped them (they are here since about 200 years ago), and they try to abuse of their positions.
    They should be on a list comparable to the yours to invite people to boycott these journals and any other elitist journal.
    There is already one indeed:

    Science is now on the open access road.

    Is this for the sake of knowledge or money?
    They should be ashamed if they have shame in their dictionary vocable, because they follow the example they was criticizing a while before.

    They deserve to be added in your list but you will not dare to do it, will you?
    Publication is becoming a corrupted industry.

    • behalbiotech says:

      beside the money factor, what else is/are the factor(s) that can prove Science/Nature/Cell should be on the list?
      do they compromise quality or break any publication rule?

  5. Michael Smithee says:

    Yeah, that’s what the Egyptian military needs to research for a more democratic nation. Mike

  6. Ahmad Hassanat says:

    I have read the article, I think it is the biggest scientific hoax in this century, the article is written with not only grammatical mistakes, but also with scientific mistakes, the methodology is questioned too, as all the results and conclusions were drawn subjectively, anyone can claim whatever and test it on whoever…
    What the Egyptian military trying to prove is that they are achieving something, while they are destroying everything in Egypt. For the last sixty year they were controlling and consuming about half of the gross national Egyptian income, they fail in everything, economy, policy, security etc. to come at the end with this scandal, by doing this they disgrace and embraced all Egyptians and Arabs.

  7. sun says:

    what about Libertas Academica

  8. E. bee says:

    Hindawi is a bogus, predatory, vanity press. Their review is 0. They go only for money. They are worse than MDPI. They work in Egypt with a small appartment in USA. Put them in your list immediately

  9. nerkn says:

    If this was not open access you cant show it’s contents. Difference between open access and also I found elsevier link that they also published as poster.

  10. wasetmania :: Ultimate Source : What is WASET ? Who own WASET ? Who run WASET ?

Leave a Reply -- All comments are subject to moderation, including removal.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: