SOUTHERN JOURNAL OF SCIENCES

New tool for authors.

Background: The interview with Professor José de Ribamar, conducted by Luís de Boni, addresses various aspects of his career and contributions to chemistry in Brazil. The conversation includes his experiences in teaching, research, and university administration, as well as his role as President of the Federal Council of Chemistry (CFQ). Aims: The primary aim of the interview is to highlight Professor Ribamar's achievements and challenges throughout his career, and to explore his views on chemistry and its impact on scientific and educational development in Brazil. Methods: The interview was conducted in a question-and-answer format, allowing Professor Ribamar to share his experiences and insights in a detailed and personal manner. The interview was recorded, transcribed, and is available in both text and video formats. Results: Professor Ribamar detailed his academic and professional journey, including his undergraduate and graduate studies in chemistry, his contributions as a professor at the Federal University of Maranhão (UFMA), and his initiatives as a course coordinator and department head. He also discussed the impact of his research and his vision for the future of chemistry, emphasizing the importance of artificial intelligence and algorithms in predicting chemical models. Discussion: The interview provided a comprehensive overview of Professor Ribamar's contributions to chemistry in Brazil. He emphasized the importance of education and ongoing research for scientific advancement, as well as the need to adapt to new technologies. The discussion also addressed the challenges the scientific community faces and the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. Conclusion: Professor José Ribamar has significantly promoted and developed chemistry in Brazil in academia and public administration. His career illustrates the importance of dedication to education and research, and his reflections offer valuable lessons for future generations of scientists and educators. The interview serves as a testament to his lasting impact on the scientific community.

Background: Drug repurposing offers potential advantages for cancer therapy development, particularly when utilizing medications with established safety profiles and expired patents. While individual repurposed medications have been investigated for oncological applications, comprehensive comparative analyses of research distribution patterns across multiple therapeutic candidates appear limited in the literature. Understanding these patterns may provide insights into research priorities and potential knowledge gaps. Aim: This exploratory study was designed to quantify and compare the volume of scientific literature examining the anticancer potential of eleven selected off-patent medications across different pharmacological classes. Methods: Bibliometric searches were conducted across five databases (Google Scholar, BVS, PubMed, NIH, and Science.gov) using standardized search terms combining each medication name with "cancer" and "cancer treatment." The selected medications included ivermectin, fenbendazole, mebendazole, albendazole, metformin, propranolol, disulfiram, valproic acid, thalidomide, dexamethasone, and hydroxychloroquine. Basic statistical analyses were performed to examine the distribution patterns and correlations within the database. Results: The search yielded 3,226,066 total publications with considerable variation in distribution patterns. Dexamethasone accounted for the largest proportion (1,538,058 publications, 47.68%), followed by metformin (697,172 publications, 21.61%). Some medications with smaller overall publication volumes demonstrated higher proportions of treatment-specific research, such as fenbendazole (87.82%), disulfiram with copper (86.54%), and hydroxychloroquine with zinc (75.21%). The Herfindahl Index indicated a high concentration of research attention (0.2870). Discussion: The findings suggest substantial variation in research attention across the selected medications. While some medications dominate the literature, others with focused treatment-specific research may warrant further investigation. The inverse relationship observed between total publication volume and treatment specificity suggests that research patterns in this field may be more complex than absolute publication counts indicate. Conclusions: This preliminary bibliometric assessment reveals an uneven distribution of research attention among repurposed medications being investigated for cancer applications. These patterns may inform future research prioritization, though further qualitative analysis would be valuable to assess the clinical significance of these quantitative observations.