Bioactive compounds derived from medicinal plants have attracted considerable scientific interest because of their diverse biochemical properties and potential antioxidant-related activities. Peronema canescens is traditionally used in herbal medicine and contains phytochemical constituents with potential biological activity. In this study, an in silico approach was used to evaluate bioactive compounds from sungkai leaves for their potential to modulate superoxide dismutase (SOD) allosterically. This important antioxidant enzyme protects against oxidative stress. The study included Lipinski screening, bioavailability prediction, toxicity prediction, and molecular docking analysis targeting the predicted allosteric region of SOD. In addition, global and local chemical reactivity descriptors and bioactivity-related properties were analyzed to support preliminary structure–activity relationship (SAR) assessment. Among the screened compounds, CHEMBL1407860 demonstrated acceptable predicted pharmacokinetic and toxicity profiles. It showed a higher docking score at the predicted allosteric site of SOD than D-trehalose (6.128 kcal/mol vs 5.183 kcal/mol) within the YASARA scoring framework. Residue-interaction analysis indicated potential binding interactions near the enzyme's predicted allosteric region. However, these findings are based solely on computational prediction and do not confirm enzymatic activation or therapeutic efficacy. Therefore, CHEMBL1407860 may be considered a computationally prioritized candidate for further investigation as a possible SOD allosteric-binding compound. Additional molecular dynamics simulations, biochemical enzyme assays, and cellular studies are required to validate its biological activity and mechanism of action.
This paper describes the synthesis of tetraamino metal phthalocyanine (TAMPc) ingrained polyaniline (PANI) and their characterization by spectroscopic techniques. Additionally, this work presents the electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielding performance of polyaniline doped tetra amino metal phthalocyanine (PANI-TAMPc) and the electrochemical detection of L-Cysteine. The spectroscopic characterization of the synthesized PANI-TAMPcs was performed using XRD, FTIR, SEM, TGA, and UV-Vis techniques. The variation in the dielectric constant and conductivity of PANI-TAMPc nanocomposites with frequency was undertaken in the frequency range 40 Hz-5 MHz using an impedance analyzer. Additionally, the Electromagnetic Interference Shielding performance of hybrid PANI-TAMPcs was studied using a Vector Network Analyzer. PANI-TACo(II)Pc is highly efficient among PANI-TAMPc nanocomposites, with an adequate total EMI shielding effectiveness (SET) of 40dB in the X-band, due to the increase in surface area and heterogeneous phase components in their moieties. Also, the PANI-TACo(II)Pc/GC electrode exhibits good sensing performance for L-cysteine and shows a very good analytical profile, including a long linear range, sensitivity, and detection limit of 0.5-3.5 µM, 0.1198 µA/µM, and 0.166 µM, respectively. Also, this sensor shows repeatability and stability without any leaching property. Therefore, our study suggests that PANI-TACo(II)Pc can be a good choice as an excellent EMI shielding material for EMI applications and for sensing L-cysteine.
HYAL1 and HYAL2 are the predominant mammalian hyaluronidases in somatic cells that are implicated in extracellular matrix remodeling and cancer biology. Their roles have not yet been systematically tackled in any comprehensive pan-cancer study. In this study, we investigated HYAL1 and HYAL2 in 33 types of cancer using public databases through TIMER 2.0, GEPIA 2, UALCAN, cBioPortal, and Kaplan–Meier Plotter. The expression profiles of the two genes were unique, and their mutation incidence was low. Significant differences in promoter methylation levels between cancerous and normal tissues were observed. Their expression was clinically relevant and related to overall survival in a cancer-type–specific manner: high expression was a risk factor for some cancers and a protective factor in other cancers like kidney cancer. Moreover, HYAL1 and HYAL2 showed tumor-specific correlations with infiltration of CD8⁺ T cells, indicating impacts on the immune microenvironment. We conducted structure-based molecular docking using HYAL1 (PDB: 2PE4) and an AlphaFold model of HYAL2. Several FDA-approved drugs presented favorable binding affinities: HYAL1-selective (-10.775 kcal/mol, CHEMBL1200507), HYAL2-selective (-9.352 kcal/mol, CHEMBL1200455), and potential dual binders (-8.8/-8.1 kcal/mol) (CHEMBL58). Our preliminary data suggest HYAL1 and HYAL2 may function as context-dependent biomarkers associated with cancer prognosis and immune microenvironment characteristics. These docking results indicate that the identified compounds are potential candidates for further investigation. However, our comprehensive computational analyses provide insights into the potential roles of HYAL1 and HYAL2 across multiple cancers, but experimental and clinical studies are required to validate their biological functions and therapeutic relevance.
This study investigated the chemical composition of Togaku rheumatic oil and computationally evaluated its cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2)-related anti-inflammatory potential using an integrated LC–MS/MS, molecular docking, and in silico ADMET approach. LC–MS/MS profiling identified 13 putatively identified compounds, indicating a chemically complex multiherbal formulation. However, compound identification was based on database matching without confirmation using authentic standards, and relative peak areas were interpreted as semi-quantitative estimates rather than absolute concentrations. Among the detected compounds, Solanapyrone G was identified as the predominant annotated constituent. Molecular docking analysis revealed that Solanapyrone G and 6-undecylsalicylic acid exhibited favorable predicted binding interactions with the COX-2 active site, with docking scores (-9.922 kcal/mol) comparable to the reference ligand rofecoxib and higher than those of ibuprofen under the applied computational conditions. Solanapyrone G exhibited predicted interactions with key residues in the COX-2 active site, including ARG120, TYR355, and SER530, suggesting a plausible binding mode within the COX-2 active pocket. In contrast, 6-undecylsalicylic acid appeared to be stabilized predominantly through hydrophobic interactions within the binding pocket, with no distinct hydrogen-bond or electrostatic interactions detected in the 2D interaction analysis. Nevertheless, these computational results do not establish direct inhibitory potency, as no experimental COX-2 inhibition assay was performed in this study. Computational ADMET predictions further suggested that Solanapyrone G possesses a favorable pharmacokinetic and toxicity profile, characterized by good distribution, low predicted toxicity, and minimal risk of drug–drug interactions, although moderate intestinal absorption was predicted. Overall, these findings provide a preliminary chemical and computational basis supporting the traditional anti-inflammatory use of Togaku rheumatic oil while highlighting the need for further compound confirmation and experimental validation through in vitro and in vivo studies to substantiate its biological activity and safety.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a class of aromatic molecules consisting of multiple fused benzene rings. In chemical graph theory, topological indices play a crucial role in exploring structure-property relationships and in forecasting physicochemical behavior and biological responses of PAH compounds. Such indices are extensively utilized in computational chemistry, drug discovery, and quantitative structure-property relationship (QSPR) modeling. In this work, we investigate the predictive capability of several status-based topological indices, namely the First Status Connectivity index S_1 (G), Second Status Connectivity index S_2 (G), Nirmala Status index SN(G), Forgotten Status index SF(G), Status Sombor index SSO(G), and Status Elliptic Sombor index SESO(G) for a selected set of 38 high-priority PAHs. Among the studied descriptors, the Nirmala Status index exhibits the highest predictive accuracy, particularly for molar refractivity and polarizability (R ≈ 0.979). Furthermore, the variation in the best-performing index across linear, quadratic, and cubic regression models is illustrated in comparative plots based on minimum RMSE values, providing greater clarity and interpretation. The results demonstrate that status-based indices effectively capture long-range structural and electronic characteristics of PAHs. This study highlights the potential of distance-based topological descriptors as reliable tools in QSPR modeling.
Histone methylation is one of the molecular mechanisms of epigenetics in which a methyl group or more can be added to the DNA histone proteins. Histone methylation can alter gene expression and thus the overall cellular function. The transfer of the methyl group from the donor AdoMet to the lysine residue of the histone can be mediated via classical transfer or quantum tunneling. In the present study, we aim to explore the role of quantum tunneling in histone methylation compared with the classical transfer of methyl groups. Our results indicate that quantum tunneling provides a wide range of lifetimes for methylated histones between 1.56 x 10-13 s and 1.97 x 10118 s according to the energy of the methyl group and the number of transferred methyl groups. In addition, the tunneling delay time of the methyl group is within a fraction of a picosecond, which is a reasonable time and consistent with the time required for molecular transitions. Our results showed that quantum tunneling favors hypo-methylated histones because the ratio between the lifetimes of the reversed and forward reactions τ_(Q_r )/τ_(Q_f ) equals 1, while classical transfer favors hyper-methylated histones because the same ratio for the classical transfer τ_(C_r )/τ_(C_f ) can range from 4.73 x 108 to 9.6 x 104, depending on the number of transferred methyl groups. However, the ratio is between (1- 4.73 x 108) when either the classical or the quantum transfer is dominant during either the forward or reversed reactions. Moreover, temperature and enzymatic dynamics are important factors that can modulate the lifetime of methylation states.
Recent evidence indicating that ethanol-induced neurodegeneration disrupts the function of neural stem cells (SCs) and other brain progenitor populations provides a strong pathogenetic rationale for developing drugs with neuroregenerative properties. The aim of the present investigation was to elucidate the effect of an inhibitor of Nuclear Factor kappa B (NF-kappa B, NF-κB) on both the neuropsychiatric profile and the neural progenitor cell pool within the brains of a preclinical model of alcoholic encephalopathy (AE). JSH-23 (Sigma-Aldrich, Germany), with activity guaranteed by the manufacturer, was used as an NF-κB inhibitor. The experimental protocol involved inducing alcoholic encephalopathy (AE) in C57BL/6 mice. To evaluate the effects of the NF-kappa B inhibitor JSH-23, we assessed cognitive performance via the open field test and the retention of a conditioned passive avoidance reflex (CPAR). Concurrently, in vitro assays were conducted to determine the content and functional activity of multipotent SCs and committed neuronal progenitors (NPs) derived from the subventricular zone (SVZ). Furthermore, we analyzed the secretion of progenitor-active growth factors by distinct neuroglial subpopulations. The administration of JSH-23 after AE induction corrected impairments in both exploratory behavior and CPAR reproducibility in mice with AE. This cognitive recovery was accompanied by a significant increase in the population of neuronal SCs and committed NPs within the SVZ. On day 7, these cell populations reached 152.6% and 211.1% of the corresponding levels in untreated AE animals. Furthermore, both progenitor types exhibited enhanced proliferative activity and differentiation intensity. This was paralleled by an increase in growth factor production by oligodendrocytes, which rose to 174.3% and 190.8% of control values (mice with AE without treatment) on days 3 and 7 following JSH-23 treatment. These results support further investigation into the possibility of using NF-κB blockers as a basis for the development of novel neuroregenerative therapies for AE.
Several drugs such as sanguinarine, NVP-VHG712, QDAU5, and VDAU1-11 have been used to treat some cancer cells; however, their interaction with VEGFR-1 AND EPHB4 is not clear. For this reason, in this study, the coupling of some fluoride derivatives (1-36) with VEGFR-1 AND EPHB4 was determined using the 2VWX and 3HNG proteins as theoretical tools. In addition, sanguinarine, NVP-BHG712, QDAU5, and VDAU-11 were used as controls in the DockingServer program. The results showed differences in the number of amino acid residues involved in the coupling of fluoride analogs with the 2VWX and 3HNG proteins compared with the controls. Besides, the fluoride derivatives 6 and 10 have a higher affinity for the 2VWXprotein surface compared to the compounds 1, 3-5, 7-9, and 11-36. Other data indicate that fluorinated analogs 6, 12, 27, and 29 have a higher affinity for the 3HNG protein compared to the compounds 1-5, 7-11, 13-26, and 30-36. In conclusion, these data suggest that the fluorinated derivatives 6, 10, 12, 27, and 29 could act as inhibitors of EGFR-1 and EPHB4. Therefore, these compounds could be good candidates for evaluating their activity in some biological model.
Kaempferol and apigenin, naturally occurring in Moringa oleifera leaves, have been suggested to inhibit HIV-1 reverse transcriptase (RT). However, their relatively low abundance in the plant matrix may limit the recovery and subsequent bioactivity evaluation. The study therefore aimed to optimize the extraction process to enhance the recovery of these bioactive flavonoids. A Box–Behnken design was applied to optimize defatting with n-hexane, microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) using 70% ethanol, and acid hydrolysis. The optimized conditions comprised n-hexane defatting, MAE with 70% ethanol for 17 min, followed by hydrolysis with 0.5 M HCl at 80 °C for 15 minutes. Under these conditions, the optimized extract exhibited a total flavonoid content (TFC) of 92.9 ± 0.5 mg quercetin equivalent (QE)/g extract, a total polyphenol content (TPC) of 165.7 ± 3.6 mg gallic acid equivalent (GAE)/g extract, with kaempferol and apigenin levels of 0.78 ± 0.01 and 0.47 ± 0.01 µg/g extract, respectively. The resulting value is twice the amount of TPC, kaempferol, and apigenin levels relative to the unoptimized extract, although the TFC content increased by 1.5 times. The optimized extract has an increased HIV-1 RT inhibitory effect, with an IC50 value of 223.13 µg/mL, compared to the untreated extract, which has an IC50 above 2000 µg/mL. It is suggested that the combination of defatting and acid hydrolysis significantly increased the levels of TFC, TPC, kaempferol, and apigenin in the extract, thereby enhancing its potential to inhibit HIV-1 reverse transcriptase.
Bacteria employ diverse mechanisms to cope with environmental stress, yet how sediment-associated microbial communities adjust to contamination—particularly heavy metals—in tropical port ecosystems remains insufficiently characterized. This study characterized the bacterial community profile based on amplicon sequencing and predicted the functional potential for heavy-metal resistance in surface sediments from Tanjung Emas Port, Semarang (TEPS), an area chronically exposed to wastewater pollutants and metal contamination from intensive anthropogenic activities. Amplicon-based metabarcoding targeting the 16S rRNA V3–V4 region was applied. Sequence processing using Cutadapt and DADA2 yielded 38,742–42,064 high-quality Amplicon Sequence Variants (ASVs) per sample. Functional potentials were inferred using PICRUSt2, and downstream analyses were conducted in RStudio. The community was dominated by the phylum Pseudomonadota (31–39%), class Gammaproteobacteria (27–35%), order Steroidobacterales (8–10%), family Woeseiaceae (8–10%), and genus Woeseia (13–16%), reflecting adaptation to organic-rich, pollutant-impacted conditions including Cu and Pb contamination. Alpha and beta-diversity analyses revealed significant differences among sampling locations (p<0.05). Predictive functional profiling indicated a high potential for putative heavy-metal resistance genes (HMRGs) associated with Cu and Pb resistance, highlighting the ecological resilience and bioremediation potential of the indigenous bacterial community.
In this work, chloroquine (CLQ) has been evaluated for its inhibition of coronavirus using trapping on the boron nitride nanocage (B4N10) functionalized with some atoms as a drug delivery procedure, owing to the direct electron transfer principle, as illustrated by the quantum mechanics method of molecular modeling. In fact, the theoretical approach using CAM-B3LYP/6-311+G (d,p) explains how B4N10 binds the CLQ drug through electronic-state density, nuclear quadrupole resonance, nuclear magnetic resonance, and thermodynamic properties. In the end, the results showed that using B4N10 modified with aluminum, carbon, and silicon for adsorbing the CLQ drug to form "B4AlN10–CLQ, B4CN10–CLQ, and B4SiN10–CLQ" could yield a promising drug-delivery formulation. This can be supported by quantum-mechanical calculations based on the physical and chemical properties shown in PDOS, NMR, NQR, and IR spectra. Here, we used network pharmacology, metabolite analysis, and molecular simulation to elucidate the biochemical basis of the health-promoting effects of the CLQ drug via B4N10-mediated drug delivery.
Preamble In a series of recent editorials, I reflected on different forms of asymmetry within contemporary scholarly evaluation. In “Rigor or Symmetry? Reflections on Fifteen Years of Diamond Open Access” https://doi.org/10.33263/BRIAC161.001, I considered how journals operating under non-commercial, Diamond Open Access models may face increasingly demanding technical and formal requirements, while journals incorporated under earlier evaluative frameworks may continue to benefit from historical positioning. In “Consistency or Contingency? Reflections on Uncertainty in Editorial Triage” https://doi.org/10.33263/LIANBS151.001, I addressed the variability that may arise when comparable formal or technical conditions receive different levels of attention across related evaluation processes. In “Consistency or Context? Reflections on Indexing, Evaluation, and Temporal Validity” https://doi.org/10.33263/BRIAC162.070, I examined the conceptual tension that emerges when the same scholarly content appears to occupy different evaluative positions depending on database architecture, indexing timing, or procedural context. In “Broken Links, Broken Symmetry? Reflections on Technical Formalism and Evaluative Reciprocity” https://doi.org/10.33263/BRIAC163.071, I turned attention toward the evaluator’s own infrastructure, asking whether technical imperfections are interpreted with the same conceptual tolerance across different positions within the scholarly ecosystem. In “Applied Chemistry or Applied Everything? Reflections on Scope, Citation, and Evaluative Coherence” https://doi.org/10.33263/BRIAC163.100, I revisited the question of scope, asking whether content relevance can be evaluated coherently when the operational map of a category is itself broad, interdisciplinary, and historically evolving. In “Indexed, Ranked, Accused: Why Bibliometric Status Is Not a Certificate of Integrity in the Age of AI-Hallucinated Citations” https://doi.org/10.33263/BRIAC164.101, I considered the limits of bibliometric status as a proxy for scholarly integrity, particularly when fabricated or unverifiable references may enter indexed literature under the appearance of formal legitimacy. The present reflection continues this discussion from another angle. Not the criteria applied to journals. Not the timing of indexing. Not the technical infrastructure of evaluation. But the timing of access to evaluative information itself. More specifically, it considers what happens when journal-level bibliometric information appears to circulate before its official public release, under embargo, and asks what public policy governs such circulation. The issue is not whether embargoed communication is inherently improper. It may not be. The issue is whether the rules governing such communication are transparent, uniformly applied, and compatible with the principle of evaluative neutrality. The Communication On 12 June 2026, I received a communication from a journal office referring to the forthcoming release of the Journal Citation Reports and indicating that a Journal Impact Factor value had already been made available in advance of the official public release. The communication stated that the information was provided under strict embargo until the official release on 17 June 2026 at 08:00 a.m. BST. Figure 1. Pre-release communication indicating that forthcoming Journal Impact Factor information had been shared under embargo with editorial recipients before the official Journal Citation Reports release. The journal name, sender identity, numerical metric, citation count, institutional details, and all other identifying information has been blurred. The purpose of referring to this communication is not to disclose confidential information, identify any journal, question any individual sender, or suggest improper conduct. It is to document a procedural fact. Five days before the stated official release date, a metric intended for public comparison had apparently become known, at least to certain actors, before it became publicly available to the scholarly community at large. This observation may have a simple explanation. It may reflect a standard pre-release communication process. It may be part of an organized embargo system. It may allow publishers to prepare internal documentation, public announcements, website updates, or communications with editors and stakeholders. It may be administratively efficient. It may be entirely legitimate. Precisely for that reason, it deserves clarification. Because legitimacy is strengthened, not weakened, by transparency. The Public Date and the Private Date There is an additional element that makes the question more relevant. At the time of writing, I was unable to identify a publicly accessible Clarivate page confirming the exact release date and time stated in the embargoed communication. Public Clarivate materials refer generally to the annual release of the Journal Citation Reports, and public training pages announce sessions dedicated to the forthcoming edition after the expected release period. These public materials confirm the existence and relevance of the forthcoming edition, but they do not appear to make the exact embargo date and time equally visible to all users. This does not prove impropriety. It does not prove preferential treatment. It does not prove that the communication was outside an authorized process. But it does raise a simple question: if an exact release date, an exact release time, and specific pre-release metric information are available to some recipients before they are clearly visible to the wider scholarly community, what public policy explains that difference? The distinction matters. A general expectation of a late-June release is one thing. An exact embargo deadline attached to a specific forthcoming metric is another. The first is public anticipation. The second is operational knowledge. And operational knowledge can be used. Embargo Is Not the Problem Embargoes are not unusual in academic and scientific communication. Scientific journals use embargoes for press releases. Funding agencies may prepare coordinated announcements. Research institutions may brief communications teams before public disclosure. Databases and ranking systems may prepare technical releases before public access begins. The existence of embargoed information is therefore not, by itself, problematic. Embargo can serve coordination. Embargo can prevent premature misinterpretation. Embargo can allow technical systems to synchronize. Embargo can protect data from fragmented or inaccurate dissemination before an official release. The problem begins elsewhere. It begins when it is unclear who receives the embargoed information. It begins when it is unclear whether all comparable actors receive it at the same time. It begins when it is unclear what information is shared, under what conditions, and for what permitted purposes. It begins when public metrics become privately known before they become publicly accessible, without a clearly visible policy explaining the scope and symmetry of such access. The issue, therefore, is not embargo. It is transparency of embargo. Advance Notice and Advance Access There is an important distinction to make. Advance notice of a release date is not the same as advance access to metric data. A calendar invitation, customer email, support response, or training announcement may simply help stakeholders prepare for a forthcoming release. Such communication, by itself, does not imply impropriety. Embargoes are also common in science communication, journalism, institutional announcements, and corporate reporting. Information may be shared in advance under clear conditions, especially when organizations need time to prepare accurate communication. But journal metrics are not ordinary publicity material. They influence reputations, submission behavior, institutional reporting, editorial strategies, and competition between publishers. In that context, even advance knowledge can matter. Knowing the precise release time allows some actors to prepare statements, coordinate announcements, brief editors, and position themselves before others have even confirmed when the information will become publicly available. This distinction should therefore be made explicit. If the communication concerns only the timing of the release, that should be clear. If it includes preliminary or final metric values, that should also be clear. If some stakeholders receive both timing information and metric data before the public release, while others receive neither, then the difference is no longer merely logistical. It becomes part of the informational architecture of scholarly evaluation. Metrics and Timing Bibliometric indicators do not merely describe journals. They influence them. A Journal Impact Factor may affect author decisions, editorial board recruitment, institutional perceptions, funding narratives, marketing language, indexing expectations, and reputational positioning. Even before it becomes publicly visible, the knowledge of a forthcoming metric may influence behavior. A journal that knows its forthcoming indicator may prepare messaging. A publisher that knows the values across a portfolio may coordinate announcements. An editorial office that knows the direction of a metric may contact authors, reviewers, or board members with renewed confidence. A competitor that does not know must wait. This does not automatically imply wrongdoing. But it does create an informational asymmetry. And in evaluative systems, asymmetry matters. If metrics function as public instruments of scholarly comparison, then timing becomes part of the metric environment. A value disclosed before release is not merely a number known early. It is a reputational resource available early. Time, in such cases, is not neutral. It becomes an advantage. Selective Knowledge and Publisher-Neutrality The Journal Citation Reports are widely understood as instruments of journal-level comparison. Their authority depends not only on calculation, but also on trust: trust that the underlying data are produced according to coherent methods, trust that journal indicators are comparable, and trust that access to evaluative information is governed by impartial principles. If the metrics are publisher-neutral, one may reasonably ask whether pre-release access to those metrics is also publisher-neutral. This is not a rhetorical accusation. It is a procedural question. Are all publishers whose journals receive Journal Impact Factors given access to the relevant values before the public release? Are all journal offices treated in the same way? Are large commercial portfolios and smaller independent journals included under equivalent pre-release conditions? Are journals informed directly, or only publishers? Are editors, editorial board members, authors, reviewers, or invited contributors permitted recipients? Are rankings and quartiles governed by a different release logic from numerical indicators? Is the exact release date and time public before it is communicated under embargo to selected recipients? Is there a written policy accessible to the public? If such a policy exists, its visibility would strengthen confidence in the process. If such a policy does not exist, or is not easily accessible, then the absence itself becomes relevant. Because in scholarly evaluation, the rules of access are part of the rules of evaluation. The Asymmetry of Access In previous reflections, I considered how the same technical imperfection may acquire different meaning depending on where it appears. A broken link in an applicant journal may become a signal of insufficient infrastructure; a broken link in an evaluator’s platform may be understood as an administrative oversight. A similar asymmetry may exist in relation to access. For some actors, metric information may be available in advance. For others, it becomes available only at the public moment of release. For some journals, pre-release knowledge may allow preparation. For others, the release arrives as an external event to be discovered, interpreted, and reacted to after the fact. The difference may be only a few days. But in reputational systems, even a few days can matter. Academic publishing increasingly operates through anticipation. Calls for papers are timed. Special issues are planned. Editorial board invitations are framed. Marketing campaigns are scheduled. Website banners are prepared. Institutional news items are drafted. Social media announcements are synchronized. Access before release is not passive. It can be operationalized. This does not mean it is misused. It means that the conditions of access should be clear. Embargoed Data and Public Trust There is a delicate relationship between private preparation and public trust. A database may need to communicate with publishers before a release for technical reasons. Publishers may need time to verify journal records, prepare pages, align metadata, or prevent confusion. These are reasonable administrative needs. But public trust requires boundaries. If embargoed data are shared, who may receive them? If they are redistributed, how far may they travel? If journal offices communicate them to external stakeholders, is that permitted? If such communication is permitted, is it permitted equally across journals? If it is not permitted, how is the embargo enforced? The question is not whether one email, one journal, or one publisher acted appropriately. The question is whether the scholarly community can understand the policy architecture within which such communication occurs. Opacity invites suspicion even where no misconduct exists. Transparency prevents suspicion before it becomes interpretation. The Public Function of Private Metrics Journal metrics occupy an ambiguous position. They are produced by private or commercial infrastructures, but they perform public academic functions. Institutions use them. Researchers respond to them. Journals organize around them. Careers may be indirectly shaped by them. National evaluation systems may incorporate them. Libraries, funders, and universities may treat them as signals of prestige, relevance, or legitimacy. This creates a special responsibility. A metric may be proprietary in production, but public in consequence. When private data products become public instruments of academic judgment, the process by which they are disclosed matters. The release date matters. The embargo policy matters. The recipients matter. The possibility of selective advantage matters. Again, the point is not to deny the value of metrics. The point is to ask whether metric governance is sufficiently transparent for the role metrics now play. Because when metrics become part of evaluation, their circulation becomes part of evaluation too. Questions for Clarivate The present reflection therefore leads to several questions that may deserve direct clarification from Clarivate. Does Clarivate provide publishers or journal offices with access to Journal Impact Factor values before the official public release of the Journal Citation Reports? If so, is such access provided uniformly to all eligible publishers and journals, or only under specific contractual, technical, portfolio-based, or institutional conditions? Are publishers permitted to redistribute embargoed metric information to journal editors, editorial board members, authors, reviewers, or other external collaborators before the public release? Is there a public distinction between advance notice of the JCR release date and advance access to JCR metric data? Does Clarivate publish, or intend to publish, the exact JCR release date and time in advance for all stakeholders? If exact release timing and metric information are communicated before public release, are all publishers, journals, institutions, and relevant stakeholders informed through the same official channels? If not, what criteria determine who receives such information first? Is there a public policy governing embargoed access, confidentiality obligations, permitted recipients, and permitted uses? How does Clarivate ensure that pre-release access does not generate selective informational advantages within scholarly publishing? These questions are not hostile. They are necessary. They arise because transparency is not only a virtue for journals being evaluated. It is also a virtue for the systems that produce evaluative authority. From Release Date to Release Equity A release date marks the moment when information becomes publicly available. But release equity concerns something deeper. It concerns whether access before that moment is governed by rules that are visible, consistent, and fair. If all relevant actors receive the same embargoed information at the same time under the same conditions, then the policy can be explained. If only some actors receive it, then the criteria for selection should be explained. If redistribution is permitted, then the limits of redistribution should be explained. If redistribution is not permitted, then embargoed communications should not circulate beyond authorized recipients. If different types of information are released at different stages, the distinction should be made clear. If the public can know only an approximate release period, while selected recipients know the exact release time and specific forthcoming values, that difference should also be explained. Without such clarity, the public release may remain formally simultaneous, while practical awareness is not. And when practical awareness differs, the scholarly field is not operating under equal informational conditions. The issue, therefore, is not simply when the public knows. It is who knows before the public knows. And why. The Burden of Clarity In contemporary scholarly publishing, journals are expected to maintain transparency across multiple dimensions: editorial policies, peer-review procedures, ethical guidelines, ownership, contact information, author charges, access conditions, correction policies, and digital infrastructure. These expectations are legitimate. But transparency should not be directional only. If journals must disclose their procedures, evaluative infrastructures should also disclose theirs. If journals are expected to clarify conflicts, criteria, responsibilities, and processes, metric-producing systems should clarify the rules governing access to metric information. If journals are evaluated on the visibility and reliability of their public documentation, the same principle should apply, proportionately, to systems whose indicators influence journal reputation. This is not a request for lower standards. It is a request for symmetrical standards. Conclusion An embargoed metric is a small thing. But small things can reveal large structures. A number known before its public release may seem administratively ordinary. It may be part of a routine communication process. It may reflect legitimate preparation rather than preferential treatment. It may be governed by policies that are internally clear and responsibly applied. But if those policies are not publicly visible, the scholarly community is left to infer the rules from fragments. Inference is not transparency. Transparency should not begin only when the numbers are released. It should begin with the process that determines who knows, when they know, and under what conditions they are allowed to know before others. A general public expectation of a late-June release is not the same as an exact private embargo deadline. A public webinar after the release is not the same as pre-release access to specific metrics before the release. A public metric is not fully public if its practical use begins privately. And in an ecosystem already shaped by metrics, rankings, thresholds, and reputational signals, the timing of information cannot be treated as irrelevant. The question is not whether Journal Impact Factor values should exist. They do. The question is not whether Journal Citation Reports should have an organized release process. They should. The question is not whether embargoed communication may ever be legitimate. It may be. The question is whether pre-release access to evaluative metrics is governed by a clear, public, uniform, and accountable policy. Because when metrics become instruments of comparison, their circulation becomes part of the comparison. When indicators influence reputation, early knowledge of indicators becomes reputationally meaningful. When evaluation depends on trust, timing becomes a component of fairness. The issue, once again, is not rigor. It is symmetry. And where some know before others know, symmetry depends on whether the rules explaining that difference are visible to all.
Oxidative stress plays a crucial role in the development of chronic and degenerative diseases due to an imbalance between reactive oxygen species (ROS) production and endogenous antioxidant defenses. Arcangelisia flava (Menispermaceae), a traditional medicinal plant widely used in Southeast Asia, is rich in furanoditerpenes with reported antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities. This study aimed to elucidate the multitarget molecular mechanisms of A. flava furanoditerpenes using an integrated network pharmacology and molecular docking approach. Target prediction was performed using the SuperPRED database, while oxidative stress and inflammation-related genes were retrieved from GeneCards. Protein interaction analysis identified ten hub genes, including AKT1, TNF, EGFR, MTOR, and MAPK3, which are primarily involved in redox regulation and inflammatory signaling. Gene Ontology and KEGG pathway enrichment analyses highlighted the PI3K-Akt, MAPK, and NF-κB pathways as key regulatory mechanisms. Molecular docking validation demonstrated that jatrotthizine exhibited strong binding affinity to PI3K (PDB ID: 4HVB; –9.08 kcal/mol), comparable to the native inhibitor, with interactions involving critical catalytic residues. These findings confirm network pharmacology predictions and suggest that A. flava furanoditerpenes exert antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects by coordinating modulation of the PI3K-Akt-NF-κB signaling axis. This study provides molecular evidence supporting the traditional use of A. flava and identifies jatrotthizine as a promising lead compound for further pharmacological development.
Tin carbide (SnC) based nanostructures are distinctive materials with unique compositional, structural, optical, and electronic properties with exceptional band structure, moderate surface area, and exceptional thermal and chemical stability. Because of these properties, SnC-based nanomaterials have shown promising applications and higher performance in the biological arena. Functionalizing of Li+, Na+, K+ cations can augment the negative atomic charge of C2, C3, C7–C12, C14, C15, C17, C18, C22–C27, C29, C30 as electron acceptors in SnLi+C, SnNa+C and SnK+C nanoclusters. SnLi+C, SnNa+C, SnK+C nanoclusters have shown the steepest maximums TDOS surrounding –0.30, –0.40, –0.50, and –0.60 a.u. owing to the covalent bond between Li+, Na+, K+ cations and SnC nanostructure with a maximum density of state of ≈ 12. The layered tin carbide improved by alkali metal ions of lithium (1+), sodium (1+), and potassium (1+) has indicated the structural stability of Li+-, Na+-, and K+-ion heteroclusters through the reported stability energies. Finally, the unresolved issues, plausible challenges, current status, and future perspectives for the development and design of SnC have been summarized and are expected to promote a clinical path for the medical sector and human well-being.
Mesenchymal stem cells derived from Wharton’s Jelly (WJ MSCs) and their cell-free products are emerging candidates for cancer therapy but show context-dependent effects. This systematic review synthesized preclinical in vitro and in vivo evidence on the anticancer and protumorigenic roles of WJ MSCs, their secretome, and extracellular vesicles (EVs) across diverse malignancies. Searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Springer Nature Link (English, up to August 2025) followed PRISMA guidance. Experimental studies using WJ MSC-based interventions in cancer models were included, and two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using SYRCLE for animal studies and a QUIN-type tool for in vitro work. Twenty-six preclinical studies were eligible, predominantly in vitro with limited in vivo validation. Most reported antitumor effects—reduced proliferation, induction of apoptosis, inhibition of migration/epithelial–mesenchymal transition, and modulation of PI3K/AKT, NF κB, and STAT3 pathways—whereas a smaller subset described enhanced growth, EMT, or activation of HGF–AKT/ERK and β-catenin signaling. Overall methodological quality was moderate to high, although reporting of randomization and blinding was often incomplete. Current evidence supports WJ MSC-derived secretome and EVs as promising, potentially safer anticancer and drug-delivery platforms, but standardized production protocols, rigorous safety evaluation, and well-designed animal and clinical studies are required before clinical translation.
Borophene, with its outstanding mechanical and electronic properties, is a promising material for advanced technological applications. This work applies concepts from chemical graph theory to examine five single-layered borophene nanosheets by deriving their M-polynomials and computing various Degree-based Topological Indices (DBTI). These indices are correlated with key mechanical properties - Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, strain at ultimate tensile strength, and ultimate tensile strength. Further linear, quadratic, cubic, exponential, and logarithmic regression models were examined, and based on the coefficient of determination (R2) value, the most appropriate model was identified. Thus, the study demonstrates that M-polynomial–based descriptors offer an efficient and reliable framework for predicting the mechanical behavior of borophene nanosheets.
Imines are biologically active compounds formed by primary amine-carbonyl condensation, coordinating through the C=N group. Here, copper(II) and zinc(II) complexes of a novel imine ligand were synthesized and evaluated for their multi-targeted biological potentials. Although lacking antimicrobial activity, both complexes demonstrated dose-dependent antioxidant activity in DPPH, ABTS, and CUPRAC assays (IC50 ranges: 0.47508-0.63325 mg/mL). Supported by in silico docking studies showing targeted binding affinities ranging from -10.2 to -6.7 kcal/mol against critical protein targets. Anticancer and cytotoxic effects were assessed in A549 and HDF-1 cells using the WST-8 and SRB assays. Both imin-metal complexes exhibited moderate anticancer activity in A549 cells, with the Cu complex having an IC50 value of 42.27 ± 0.68 µM and the Zn complex having an IC50 value of 45.21 ± 0.34 µM. While the Cu complex showed a cytotoxic effect at high concentrations in HDF-1 cells (IC50: 167.13 ± 0.15 µM), the Zn complex exhibited a high cytotoxic effect (IC50: 5.09 ± 0.03 µM) at all tested concentrations (6.25-200 µM). As a result of the SRB analysis, the total protein amount in A549 cells was determined to be 56% and 63% for Cu and Zn complexes, respectively; in HDF-1 cells, it was determined to be 94% and 11%, respectively.
Preamble In a series of recent editorials, we have reflected on the evolving architecture of scholarly evaluation, the asymmetries that may emerge when standards are applied unevenly across journals, and the distinction between rigor as a declared principle and consistency as its operational condition. In “Rigor or Symmetry? Reflections on Fifteen Years of Diamond Open Access” (doi:10.33263/BRIAC161.001), the focus was the asymmetry between entry and presence: journals applying or reapplying for evaluation may face increasingly granular technical thresholds, while established journals often continue to benefit from historical inclusion. In “Consistency or Contingency? Reflections on Uncertainty in Editorial Triage” (doi:10.33263/LIANBS151.001), the issue was the variability of emphasis across comparable evaluations. In “Consistency or Context? Reflections on Indexing, Evaluation, and Temporal Validity” (doi:10.33263/BRIAC162.070), the question was whether the same scholarly archive can occupy different evaluative positions depending on timing, database architecture, or procedural context. In “Broken Links, Broken Symmetry? Reflections on Technical Formalism and Evaluative Reciprocity” (doi:10.33263/BRIAC163.071), attention turned to the proportional interpretation of technical imperfections. In “Applied Chemistry or Applied Everything? Reflections on Scope, Citation, and Evaluative Coherence” (doi:10.33263/BRIAC163.100), the focus shifted to the relationship between category mapping, disciplinary boundaries, and evaluative coherence. The present editorial extends that sequence toward a different but increasingly urgent question: citation integrity in indexed journals. More specifically, it asks what happens when fabricated, unverifiable, or AI-hallucinated references appear in scholarly articles that have passed through editorial workflows and have been published in journals included in major indexing systems such as Web of Science. This question is not intended as an accusation against any particular journal, publisher, evaluator, or database. Nor is it an argument against the use of artificial intelligence in scholarly writing. Generative tools are already part of contemporary academic workflows, and their presence will only increase. The issue is not whether artificial intelligence exists in the writing process. The issue is whether the scholarly record can still distinguish between real sources and plausible imitations of sources. This distinction does not concern references alone. AI-hallucinated citations are the most visible and easily verifiable symptom of a broader problem: the emergence of scholarly-looking text that may imitate the language of research without being anchored in verifiable scholarly substance. A fabricated reference is one form of hallucination. An unsupported claim, a simulated literature consensus, an invented methodological justification, or a misrepresented source may represent another. The reference list is where the defect becomes easiest to expose, but the vulnerability may begin earlier, inside the argument itself. References as Scholarly Infrastructure A scholarly article does not exist in isolation. It is connected to previous work through references. These references are not decorative elements, nor merely formal requirements added at the end of a manuscript. They are the pathways through which claims can be verified, intellectual debts can be traced, methods can be compared, and scientific arguments can be situated within an existing body of knowledge. A reference tells the reader: this claim, method, observation, or interpretation is connected to something that exists outside the present text. For this reason, citation integrity is not a minor technical matter. It is part of the epistemic infrastructure of science. The trustworthiness of a scholarly article depends not only on the internal coherence of its argument, but also on the external reality of the works to which it points. When references are fabricated, this pathway collapses. The problem is therefore not merely one of citation style, editorial formatting, or bibliographic polish. It is a question of whether the scholarly record still points to real scholarly objects. A citation error may misdescribe the scholarly record. A hallucinated reference fabricates it. The Emergence of a Scalable Problem Fabricated references are not new. Long before the emergence of large language models, scholarly publishing had already encountered cases of articles containing incoherent content, invented sources, manipulated citations, or bibliographic entries that should have been detected through basic editorial scrutiny. What has changed is scalability and plausibility. Large language models are capable of generating references that appear structurally credible while being factually nonexistent. A hallucinated reference may contain real authors associated with false titles, real journals with nonexistent articles, plausible volumes and page ranges, syntactically valid but non-resolving DOI numbers, or article titles that sound entirely appropriate to the field but do not correspond to any published work. The danger lies precisely in this plausibility. The fake reference does not necessarily look absurd. It may look normal. It may fit the argument. It may be formatted correctly. It may even contain enough real fragments to evade superficial inspection. A fabricated citation generated by AI is therefore not simply a visible error. It may be an invisible absence. The article remains fluent. The paragraph appears supported. The reference list appears complete. Only verification reveals that the support is not there. The scale of the problem is no longer anecdotal. Recent large-scale analyses have moved the discussion from isolated examples to measurable contamination. One audit of more than one hundred million references across millions of papers and preprints estimated nearly one hundred and fifty thousand hallucinated citations in 2025 alone. A separate biomedical analysis identified thousands of fabricated references across thousands of papers, with the estimated prevalence rising sharply between 2023, 2025, and the first weeks of 2026. These figures do not describe occasional embarrassment. They describe a verification problem entering the scholarly record at scale [1-3]. This is why fabricated references are so revealing. They are not merely errors at the margin of a manuscript; they may indicate that the surrounding text has also been produced through a process of simulation rather than verification. If a paragraph is supported by a nonexistent source, the problem is not only that the source is fake. The problem is that the claim itself may have entered the manuscript without passing through contact with the scholarly record. In such cases, hallucinated citations become diagnostic markers of a deeper epistemic failure. This raises a difficult question. If the scientific community now recognizes AI-hallucinated references as a foreseeable risk, can their detection remain optional? The Metalurgia International Precedent The problem of fabricated references did not begin with artificial intelligence. A useful historical precedent is the 2013 case of Metalurgia International, which published the deliberately fabricated article “Evaluation of Transformative Hermeneutic Heuristics for Processing Random Data.” [4] (available in publicly accessible online copies, including Scribd). The article was not merely weak, eccentric, or poorly written. It was constructed as a parody of pseudo-scientific writing. Its title, abstract, terminology, figures, author presentation, and bibliography were intentionally implausible, yet the article passed through the journal’s publication process and appeared as a scholarly contribution. The significance of the case lies not only in the absurdity of the article, but in the failure of the editorial system that allowed it to become part of the published record. The bibliography did not simply contain minor errors. It contained a fabricated or parodic bibliographic universe: implausible scholarly objects, suspicious author-source combinations, and references that should have raised immediate concern under even minimal editorial scrutiny. At the time, this was not an AI problem. It was a verification problem. The case is important because Metalurgia International was not merely an invisible publication venue outside the evaluative ecosystem. It had bibliometric visibility and had previously been associated with indexed status. The journal had an Impact Factor for 2012 and, according to publicly available records, ceased to be referenced in Web of Science in 2013; it was also reported as having been removed from SCI Expanded with the status “Dropped.” Whether this outcome reflected the single scandal, a broader accumulation of editorial concerns, or a wider reevaluation of journal quality, the structural lesson remains clear: fabricated scholarship passing through publication workflows was treated as a serious sign of editorial failure. In that case, the response of the indexing ecosystem was decisive: the journal lost its position within the Web of Science/JCR framework. More than a decade later, the question is whether the same logic will be applied to a more sophisticated version of the same defect. If fabricated bibliographic structures were followed by decisive editorial and indexing consequences when they appeared in visibly absurd form, should AI-generated fabricated references be treated differently merely because they are more plausible, better formatted, and less immediately detectable? AI-hallucinated citations may look more polished than the absurd references of the Metalurgia International episode. They may use plausible journal titles, credible author names, realistic article titles, coherent volume and page numbers, and syntactically convincing DOI patterns. They may not look like parody. They may look like normal scholarship. But cosmetic plausibility does not change the nature of the defect. A fake reference remains fake whether it appears absurd or elegant. A fabricated bibliographic object remains fabricated whether it is produced manually, satirically, negligently, or by a language model. The difference is not epistemic. It is operational. What once appeared as an obvious failure of editorial scrutiny can now enter the literature in a subtler and more scalable form. The comparison also changes when scale is considered. The Metalurgia International episode was memorable because it exposed a spectacular and visible editorial failure. AI-hallucinated references, by contrast, may appear as distributed micro-failures across journals, repositories, conferences, and disciplines. Their danger lies not only in individual fabrication, but in accumulation: thousands of small bibliographic absences becoming part of the searchable scholarly record [1,2]. This is why the comparison matters. If a visibly fabricated article with visibly problematic references could be treated as evidence of serious editorial weakness in 2013, then AI-generated fabricated references should not be normalized in 2026 merely because they are better written. The surface has improved. The underlying failure has not changed. The difference between the Metalurgia International episode and the contemporary AI-hallucination problem is not that one involved fabrication and the other does not. Both involve the entry of fabricated scholarly structures into the publication process. The difference is aesthetic and operational. In 2013, the fabrication was visible because it was parodic, excessive, and intentionally absurd. In 2026, fabrication may be fluent, disciplined, stylistically conventional, and bibliographically persuasive. The danger is therefore greater, not smaller. What once looked like nonsense may now look like scholarship. The lesson of Metalurgia International is therefore not historical curiosity. It is continuity. The scholarly system has already recognized that fabricated bibliographic structures can expose a failure of editorial control. Generative AI does not invalidate that lesson. It intensifies it. The Indexed Paradox The problem becomes more complex when fabricated references appear not in obscure documents circulating outside formal scholarly channels, but in articles published by journals that have passed through recognized editorial and indexing systems. Once an article is published in an indexed journal, it is no longer merely a manuscript. It becomes part of a discoverable scholarly infrastructure. It can be searched, cited, counted, evaluated, and incorporated into institutional assessments, bibliometric analyses, promotion dossiers, grant applications, systematic reviews, and future AI training corpora. Indexing changes the status of the text. It does not merely reflect visibility. It amplifies it. This is the indexed paradox. The same systems that confer legitimacy upon scholarly content may also amplify defects in that content when verification fails. If an indexed article contains nonexistent references, the issue does not remain confined to one author or one paper. It enters the broader ecology of scholarly trust. Web of Science inclusion, in particular, carries symbolic weight. For many institutions, disciplines, and national evaluation systems, inclusion in Web of Science is treated as a proxy for quality, credibility, and international recognition. Journals included in its indexes benefit from an assumption of editorial seriousness. Their articles are more easily accepted as legitimate scholarly contributions. But inclusion is not identity. A journal included in Web of Science has passed a threshold at a given moment, according to a particular evaluative framework. That inclusion may be meaningful. It may indicate editorial organization, technical infrastructure, peer review practice, international relevance, and citation performance. But it cannot guarantee the integrity of every future article. It cannot guarantee that every reference exists. And it cannot transform bibliographic fiction into scholarly reality. Indexing Is Not Innocence This editorial does not argue that indexed journals are predatory. Such a claim would be simplistic and unfair. Nor does it argue that the presence of one fabricated reference automatically makes a journal predatory. Errors exist in all human systems. Scholarly publishing is no exception. A single incorrect reference may reflect authorial negligence, formatting error, database confusion, translation problems, careless use of reference managers, or unverified AI assistance. Even several problematic references in one article do not automatically prove predatory conduct. They may indicate a serious failure, but not necessarily intentional deception by the journal. The distinction matters. Accusation is not evidence. The term “predatory” should not be used as a rhetorical weapon, nor as a substitute for analysis. It should not be applied to every weak journal, every commercial journal, every open-access journal, every fast journal, or every journal that makes an editorial mistake. However, indexing is not innocence. If AI-hallucinated references appear repeatedly across articles; if journals fail to detect them before publication; if editors do not correct, retract, or flag them after discovery; if publishers minimize the problem; if high-volume editorial workflows continue without adequate bibliographic verification; if indexed status is used as reputational protection against scrutiny, then the issue changes. At that point, the question is no longer whether an error occurred. The question is whether the editorial system is capable of distinguishing scholarly record from scholarly appearance. This distinction becomes especially difficult when both the prose and its supporting references share the same artificial plausibility. A manuscript may read coherently, cite fluently, and follow the formal conventions of academic writing, while still lacking genuine evidentiary contact with the literature it claims to summarize. In such a case, peer review risks validating coherence rather than verification, and indexing risks amplifying appearance rather than integrity. This is where the discussion may legitimately enter the territory of predatory-like behavior. Not because AI hallucination itself is predatory. Not because one contaminated article defines a journal. But because a persistent pattern of unverifiable scholarship, combined with inadequate editorial response, begins to resemble the central feature of predatory publishing: the sale or distribution of academic validation without sufficient quality control. Are AI-Hallucinated Citations Predatory? The answer must be proportionate. An AI-hallucinated reference is not automatically evidence of predatory publishing. It is, first, evidence of a verification failure. The relevant question is the level at which that failure occurs. At the author level, it may indicate irresponsible use of generative tools. At the reviewer level, it may indicate that peer review did not verify the literature supporting the argument. At the editorial level, it may indicate the absence of bibliographic due diligence. At the publisher level, it may indicate inadequate workflow design, especially in high-volume publication systems. At the indexing level, repeated cases may indicate that journal retention and re-evaluation policies have not yet adapted to the new risks introduced by AI-assisted writing. Thus, the classification depends on pattern, severity, response, and persistence. One fabricated citation may be an error. Several fabricated citations in one article may indicate negligence. Repeated hallucinated references across articles may indicate editorial system failure. Failure to correct after detection may indicate post-publication irresponsibility. Systematic tolerance of such defects, especially when combined with volume-driven publication incentives, may legitimately be described as predatory-like. The word “like” is important. It allows us to distinguish between intentional predation and functional equivalence. A journal may not intend to deceive. But if its processes repeatedly allow unverifiable scholarship to enter the literature, and if its response is insufficient, the practical effect may still be the contamination of the scholarly record under the appearance of legitimate publication. In such cases, bibliometric status should not protect the journal from scrutiny. It should increase the obligation to respond. The Problem of Metric Immunity The difficulty is that indexed journals do not enter public suspicion in the same way as non-indexed journals. A non-indexed journal may be suspected because of its appearance, geography, business model, website architecture, speed, language, or absence from recognized databases. A journal applying or reapplying for evaluation may be stopped at an early stage because of broken links, incomplete policies, DOI inconsistencies, metadata discrepancies, unclear contact information, or insufficiently articulated ethical statements. Some of these observations are legitimate. Technical infrastructure matters. DOI functionality matters. Ethical policies matter. Metadata matters. Editorial transparency matters. But if correctable technical imperfections can affect the evaluation of applicant journals, then fabricated references in indexed journals cannot be treated as minor inconveniences. The hierarchy of seriousness must be coherent. A broken link affects access. A metadata discrepancy affects discoverability. A DOI error affects traceability. But a fabricated reference affects verifiability itself. If evaluation systems apply forensic attention to formal infrastructure while assuming citation integrity without systematic verification, rigor becomes selective. The system may become highly sensitive to the architecture around the article, yet insufficiently attentive to the reality of the scholarly objects inside the article. This imbalance is difficult to defend. Bibliometric prestige may organize visibility. It may help classify journals, compare outputs, and support discovery. But it cannot function as a certificate of integrity. A journal’s rank does not verify its references. An impact factor does not confirm that every cited article exists. Quartile position does not prove that peer review examined the bibliographic foundations of the manuscript. Metrics can measure circulation. They cannot, by themselves, certify truthfulness. Responsibility After Publication A common response is that citation accuracy is primarily the responsibility of authors. This is correct, but incomplete. Authors are responsible for what they submit. They must verify that every cited source exists, that references are accurate, and that AI tools are not used to generate unsupported bibliographies. But once a manuscript enters the publication process, responsibility becomes distributed. Reviewers evaluate the scholarly argument. Editors certify that the article has passed a process of judgment. Publishers prepare and disseminate the record. Indexing systems integrate that record into discovery and evaluation infrastructures. Each layer contributes to the transformation of a manuscript into recognized scholarship. A journal is not merely a container for authorial claims. It is a certifying infrastructure. It receives manuscripts, organizes peer review, applies editorial judgment, manages revisions, prepares publication, assigns metadata, distributes content, and seeks recognition within scholarly databases. For this reason, when fabricated references are discovered after publication, the response matters as much as the initial failure. A journal that promptly investigates, corrects, issues an expression of concern, retracts when necessary, and revises its workflows demonstrates that editorial control still exists. A journal that ignores, delays, minimizes, or normalizes the problem demonstrates something else. The first failure may be detection. The second failure may be accountability. And the second is often more serious than the first. The numbers also change the meaning of post-publication silence. When thousands of fabricated references can be identified across thousands of papers, and when the overwhelming majority of affected articles receive no visible publisher action at the time of audit, the issue is no longer limited to detection. It becomes a problem of response. A publication system that can discover fabricated references but does not consistently correct, flag, or retract affected records risks converting editorial failure into bibliographic permanence [2,5]. What Should Indexed Status Mean? Inclusion in major citation indexes, including Web of Science, should mean that a journal has met defined standards of editorial quality and scholarly relevance. It should mean that the journal has passed a meaningful threshold. It should mean that its content can enter the international discovery system with a reasonable presumption of reliability. But a presumption is not a guarantee. Inclusion should not become immunity. It should not make scrutiny impolite. It should not transform serious editorial failures into isolated anomalies by default. And it should not create a double standard in which applicant journals are judged through formal imperfections while indexed journals are protected by reputational inertia. If Web of Science inclusion is to retain its credibility, it must be understood as a continuing responsibility, not a permanent certificate. This is especially important in the age of generative AI. AI does not merely introduce new writing tools. It introduces new failure modes. The scholarly system must now distinguish between text that is fluent and text that is verified, between references that are plausible and references that exist, between bibliographic surface and bibliographic reality. This cannot be left entirely to informal vigilance. It requires explicit policy. The Metalurgia International Question for Indexing Authorities The Metalurgia International precedent leaves three deeper questions for contemporary indexing authorities. The first concerns continuity of judgment. If fabricated bibliographic structures were once treated as evidence of serious editorial failure when they appeared in crude, visibly absurd form, should the same defect be interpreted differently when it appears in a more polished, AI-generated form? In other words, is the seriousness of fabrication determined by its visibility, or by its nature? Does improved plausibility reduce the defect, or make it more dangerous precisely because it is harder to detect? The second concerns the threshold between error and system failure. At what point does an AI-hallucinated reference cease to be an isolated authorial mistake and become evidence of inadequate peer review, insufficient editorial control, or defective publisher workflow? A single fabricated citation may be an error. A cluster of fabricated references may indicate negligence. Repeated cases across articles may suggest that the journal’s validation process no longer reliably distinguishes scholarship from scholarly imitation. The third concerns the responsibility of indexed status itself. If inclusion in major citation indexes, including Web of Science, confers visibility, legitimacy, and bibliometric value, should it also impose a stronger obligation of post-publication accountability when fabricated references are discovered? The question is not whether indexed journals may fail. They can. The question is whether indexing authorities will treat such failures as correctable incidents, warning signals, or grounds for re-evaluation when they affect the verifiability of the scholarly record. The question is therefore not only qualitative, but quantitative. If fabricated references can now be detected by the thousands across millions of papers, indexing authorities can no longer treat them solely as exceptional authorial mistakes. At scale, repetition becomes evidence. The persistent appearance of fabricated references should trigger not only article-level correction, but also journal-level and publisher-level questions about workflow, verification, and accountability [2,5]. These questions matter because AI-hallucinated references cannot be managed indefinitely through informal interpretation. Without explicit criteria, responses may become selective. And selectivity is where double measure begins. A Broader Reflection The purpose of this editorial is not to condemn indexed journals. It is to protect the meaning of indexing. It is not to argue that Web of Science journals are unreliable. It is to argue that reliability cannot be presumed without continuous accountability. It is not to suggest that every AI-related error is predatory. It is to distinguish error from negligence, negligence from system failure, and system failure from predatory-like conduct. It is not to reject artificial intelligence. It is to insist that automation without verification is incompatible with scholarly responsibility. Generative AI will continue to develop. It will assist researchers in drafting, editing, translating, summarizing, structuring, and exploring ideas. In some contexts, it may improve clarity and accessibility. But when AI-generated references enter the scholarly record without human verification, assistance becomes contamination. The tool has changed. The responsibility has not. Consistency as Integrity Ultimately, the issue returns to consistency. If journals outside major indexes are scrutinized for formal and technical imperfections, journals inside major indexes must also be scrutinized for failures that affect the foundations of scholarly verification. If DOI functionality matters because it connects a text to a stable object, then reference reality matters even more because it connects a claim to the body of knowledge that supports it. An indexed literature that cannot guarantee the reality of its references cannot fully sustain the authority of its metrics. This does not mean that every indexed journal is suspect. It means that no journal should be beyond scrutiny. Indexing should open a journal to trust, not close it to examination. Ranking may organize visibility, but it cannot certify integrity. And when accusation appears, the answer should be neither automatic condemnation nor bibliometric immunity, but evidence, proportionality, correction, and the same standard applied to all. The problem is not that indexed journals can fail. All journals can fail. The problem begins when failure is interpreted differently depending on status: as identity for some journals, but as an exception for others. That is not rigor. That is asymmetry. And in scholarly communication, integrity cannot depend on where a journal already stands. It must depend on what the journal continues to do. This question remains open - and so does this series.
Lung cancer (LC) remains a major cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. In this study, we explored how barley β-glucan (BBG) inhibits lung cancer cells (A549) using in vitro experiments and computer-based modeling to evaluate its therapeutic and antioxidant properties. This research is unique in its focus on β-glucan derived from cereal grains, an area that has received less attention compared to β-glucan from other sources. The structure of the extracted BBG was confirmed using FTIR and UV–vis spectroscopy techniques. Several antioxidant tests, including DPPH and FRAP assays, as well as other radical-scavenging methods, demonstrated that BBG effectively neutralizes free radicals. Computer simulations, such as molecular docking and PPI mapping, indicated that BBG binds strongly to key proteins involved in cancer development. In vitro tests on A549 cells showed significant cell death and increased reactive oxygen species production, while BBG exhibited minimal cytotoxicity to healthy L929 cells and almost no toxicity to RBCs. These findings suggest that BBG has considerable potential as a natural compound with both antioxidant and anticancer properties, making it a promising candidate for future therapeutic applications in LC treatment.
For several years, some IRAK-4 inhibitors have been developed to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia; however, their interaction with the IRAK-4 kinase is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the interaction of some amine and furanone derivatives with IRAK-4 as a therapeutic alternative to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The theoretical coupling of amine and furanone derivatives with the IRAK-4 was carried out using the 5uit protein as a theoretical model. Besides, 1-439 PF-3758309, 336113-53-2, 509093-47-4, ND-2158, and emavusertib drugs were used as controls in the DockingServer program. The results displayed different types of amino acid residues involved in the interaction of amine and furanone derivatives with the 5uit protein surface compared to the controls. Besides, the inhibition constant was lower for amino derivatives 3, 9, 25, 33, and 36 compared with the controls. Other data indicate that the inhibition constant was lower for furanone analogs 1, 3, 7, 13, 27, 32, and 34 compared with PF-3758309, 336113-53-2, 509093-47-4, ND-2158, and emavusertib. In conclusion, theoretical data indicate that amine (3, 9, 25, 33, and 36) and furanones (1, 3, 7, 13, 27, 32, and 34) derivatives might have a higher affinity for the 5uit protein surface compared with the controls. This data suggests that both amino and furanone derivatives can act as IRAK-4 inhibitors, which may serve to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
