last updated by Pluto on 2025-11-20 08:25:43 UTC on behalf of the NeuroFedora SIG.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in The Transmitter on 2025-11-20 05:00:02 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
A new report from the HHS that is critical of gender-affirming care for minors follows a similar, widely criticized report in May
in Scientific American on 2025-11-19 22:30:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-11-19 22:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
Strong evidence suggests that food allergies are caused by a lack of exposure to food allergens—not by exposure to toxins
in Scientific American on 2025-11-19 22:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
NASA spacecraft across the inner solar system captured new views of Comet 3I/ATLAS—the third known interstellar object
in Scientific American on 2025-11-19 20:50:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
Humans and their ancestors have likely been kissing for a very long time
in Scientific American on 2025-11-19 19:45:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
Researchers tracked thousands of Americans for decades, finding no links between ingesting recommended levels of fluoride and lower cognitive skills
in Scientific American on 2025-11-19 19:05:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
Although these findings from JWST are yet to be confirmed, they mark the closest astronomers have come to locating the universe’s most ancient stars
in Scientific American on 2025-11-19 18:40:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-11-19 16:40:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
E-mails between Larry Summers and the now deceased financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein from 2018 and 2019 have raised questions about a relationship Summers pursued with a student
in Scientific American on 2025-11-19 15:50:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
A tiny, misplaced label may have slowly loosened a critical wire on the ship that hit Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, eventually causing a catastrophic failure
in Scientific American on 2025-11-19 15:25:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
Large language models should not be used to weed out retracted literature, a study of 21 chatbots concludes. Not only were the chatbots unreliable at correctly identifying retracted papers, they spit out different results when given the same prompts.
The “very simple study,” as lead author Konradin Metze called it, used LLM chatbots like ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, and others to see whether they would successfully identify retracted articles in a list of references.
Metze and colleagues compiled a list of 132 publications. The list comprised the 50 most cited, retracted papers by Joachim Boldt, a prolific German researcher who also sits at the top of the Retraction Watch Leaderboard. Another 50 were Boldt’s most cited non-retracted papers. The rest were works by other researchers with the last name “Boldt” and first initial of “J.” The study authors prompted each chatbot to indicate which of the listed references had been retracted.
On average, the 21 chatbots correctly identified fewer than half of the retracted papers, the authors reported October 10 in the Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. The LLMs also produced a large proportion of false positives, incorrectly classifying almost 18 percent of Boldt’s intact papers, and about 4.5 percent of other authors’ valid work as retracted.
After a three-month gap, the researchers queried seven of the 21 original chatbots with a different, shorter, prompt, as well as repeating the original prompt. “We know that the wording of the prompt may influence the answer,” said Metze, a researcher at the State University of Campinas, in Brazil. “If you ask a question to a chatbot, and you repeat the same prompt tomorrow, you may get different answers. This is not scientific, and it’s a great, great problem.”
Comparing responses from April and July, the researchers did find differences, as expected. Whereas the chatbots in the first round classified papers as retracted or not retracted, in the second round they created a new, hybrid reply, flagging a particular paper as possibly retracted, saying, for example, a paper was “worth double-checking,” “is likely one of the retracted ones” or “high-risk papers to verify.” In practical terms, this hedging is useless, Metze said.
The results of Metze and colleagues’ experiment are hardly surprising, said Serge Horbach, assistant professor in the sociology of science at Radboud University in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who has written about generative AI in research. “I read the article as a warning: People, please don’t use LLMs this way.”
But the paper replicates just what a conscientious author might do — enter a list of references for an LLM to check as a shortcut to the time-consuming process of checking them individually, said Mike Thelwall of the University of Sheffield, in England.
In August, Thelwall and colleagues asked ChatGPT to evaluate 217 articles that had been retracted, had expressions of concern, or had been flagged on PubPeer or another platform. They submitted each article to ChatGPT 30 times. None of the 6,510 reports generated mentioned the retractions or concerns, they reported in Learned Publishing.
ChatGPT “reported some retracted facts as true, and classified some retracted papers as high quality,” Thelwall said. “So it does not seem to be designed to be aware of, or careful about, retracted information at the time that we tested it.”
LLMs are also using material from retracted scientific papers to answer questions on their chatbot interfaces, according to a study in the Journal of Advanced Research in May 2025. “People are increasingly using ChatGPT or similar to summarize topics, and this shows that they risk being misled by the inclusion of retracted information,” Thelwall added.
Generative AI does have roles to play in the editorial process, Horbach said. But weeding out retracted papers is not yet among them, he said —and “it’s not going to lead to any better science.”
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.
in Retraction watch on 2025-11-19 14:57:51 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-11-19 14:30:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News: Science & Society on 2025-11-19 13:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
The sun’s current 11-year activity cycle has already peaked—but extreme outbursts from our star may still be in store
in Scientific American on 2025-11-19 13:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in OIST Japan on 2025-11-19 12:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
Melatonin supplements have become a ubiquitous sleep aid, but research shows that benefits are modest, and the heart health effects of long-term use are unknown
in Scientific American on 2025-11-19 12:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
The lovable Star Wars droid is helping to shed light on why some bird species are better at mimicking sounds than others
in Scientific American on 2025-11-19 11:30:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
As holiday feasts and stress approach, an expert explains how to keep your gut healthy without skipping the stuffing.
in Scientific American on 2025-11-19 11:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in For Better Science on 2025-11-19 06:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in The Transmitter on 2025-11-19 05:00:10 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
If you enjoyed Beth Gardiner’s feature about big oil’s bet on plastics, here are more books curated by Scientific American
in Scientific American on 2025-11-18 20:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-11-18 18:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
The first of three themes for next year’s World Conference on Research Integrity will be the risks and benefits of artificial intelligence for research integrity. In an ironic and possibly predictable turn of events, the conference has received “an unusually large proportion” of off-topic abstracts that show signs of being written by generative AI.
The call for abstracts for the conference, set for May in Vancouver, closed a month ago. Last week, peer reviewers received an email with “URGENT” in the subject line.
“If you haven’t already reviewed the 9th WCRI abstracts that have been allocated to you, please take note of the following,” the email read. “We’ve received several signals that an unusually large proportion of the abstracts are completely off-topic and might have been written by some form of generative AI.”
We reached out to the conference co-chairs to find out how many abstracts the conference received, how many seem to be AI-generated, and other details. Lex Bouter, professor emeritus of methodology and integrity at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, declined to answer specific questions while the team sorts out the issue. He provided a statement nearly identical to the text emailed to peer reviewers.
“Many of these abstracts seem to have single authors and unusual affiliations (perhaps fake),” the email stated. “This seems to be a new phenomenon we’re experiencing at WCRI, which may also partly explain why we received so many abstracts.”
The email noted that conference organizers have checked for plagiarism in abstracts since finding several cases of it in submissions to the 6th WCRI in 2019. Among abstracts for the 2026 conference, the plagiarism software Copyleaks found a few cases of plagiarism — and it indicated “a substantial amount” showed signs of generative AI (GAI) use.
“We believe many applicants probably used GAI for language and grammar polishing, and we believe that to be acceptable,” Bouter said by email. “But among the submissions there are a proportion that are clearly off-topic and low quality that look like they were generated by GAI.”
As in past years with plagiarized abstracts, almost all of those flagged this year were submitted by authors who also applied for travel grants, the email to reviewers stated.
“Consequently, we intend to further examine abstracts with AI scores exceeding 20% that will likely be accepted based on average review scores and are associated with travel grant applications,” Bouter said. “We will subsequently reject the abstracts (and the travel grant application) for which we believe that unacceptable GAI use has occurred.”
The organizers recommended that reviewers give the lowest score to abstracts that are completely off-topic. The review process is set to wrap up next week.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.
in Retraction watch on 2025-11-18 17:31:41 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
In recent weeks, dozens of infants in the U.S. have been infected with botulism in an outbreak linked to ByHeart powdered infant formula
in Scientific American on 2025-11-18 17:30:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News: Science & Society on 2025-11-18 16:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-11-18 14:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in OIST Japan on 2025-11-18 12:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in OIST Japan on 2025-11-18 12:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in OIST Japan on 2025-11-18 12:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in OIST Japan on 2025-11-18 12:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in OIST Japan on 2025-11-18 12:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
Deep emotional distress after birth kills many mothers. A new kind of drug offers better, faster treatment
in Scientific American on 2025-11-18 11:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
When anyone can forge reality, society can’t self-govern. Borrowing Denmark’s approach could help the U.S. restore accountability around deepfakes
in Scientific American on 2025-11-18 11:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
Letters to the editors for the July/August Issue 2025 issue of Scientific American
in Scientific American on 2025-11-18 11:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
Heimlich maneuver; training fleas
in Scientific American on 2025-11-18 11:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
Solve a holey shape conundrum in this math puzzle
in Scientific American on 2025-11-18 11:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
These valuable but difficult-to-extract metals are increasingly important to modern life
in Scientific American on 2025-11-18 11:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
What can AI “griefbots” do for those in mourning?
in Scientific American on 2025-11-18 11:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
Science in meter and verse
in Scientific American on 2025-11-18 11:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
Milliseconds of variability, now detected by fitness watches, can improve well-being
in Scientific American on 2025-11-18 11:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
Play this crossword inspired by the December 2025 issue of Scientific American
in Scientific American on 2025-11-18 11:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
NASA spent years and billions of dollars collecting Martian samples to bring home. Now they might be stranded
in Scientific American on 2025-11-18 11:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
As funding dries up, researchers face setbacks that threaten innovation and public progress
in Scientific American on 2025-11-18 11:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
Vaccines based on mRNA can be tailored to target a cancer patient’s unique tumor mutations. But crumbling support for cancer and mRNA vaccine research has endangered this promising therapy
in Scientific American on 2025-11-18 10:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
To keep profits rolling in, oil and gas companies want to turn fossil fuels into a mounting pile of packaging and other plastic products
in Scientific American on 2025-11-18 10:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in The Transmitter on 2025-11-18 05:00:16 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in The Transmitter on 2025-11-17 21:21:42 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
An international computing society has begun retracting conference papers for “citation falsification” only months after the sleuth who flagged the suspect articles was convicted for defamation in a lawsuit filed by one of the offending authors.
So far, the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) has pulled at least 27 of the papers, but dozens more remain, according to Solal Pirelli, a software engineer in Lausanne, Switzerland, who raised concerns about the articles more than two years ago. Some of the proceedings allegedly include plagiarized works, while others are plagued by citation stuffing.
The retraction notices from September 10 state:
The authors have violated the ACM Policy on Plagiarism, Misrepresentation, and Falsification by engaging in citation falsification by co-authoring works containing an extremely large percentage of unnecessary self-citations, including citations that were not used as references in the work.
“It’s good that ACM is beginning to clean up their scientific library,” Pirelli told us. “However, they have more work to do, especially if they ever plan on aligning with the industry standard” guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics.
“As it stands, it takes ACM more time to deal with problematic proceedings than it does for someone to organize a yearly edition of a conference with them, which is obviously not sustainable,” he added.
The society would not answer specific questions about the dubious conference proceedings. But Scott Delman, ACM’s director of publications, agreed “investigations take far too long to conduct” and said it was a “high priority” for the group to devote more resources to investigations.
Pirelli first reported the plagiarized conference papers to ACM in October 2022. He later flagged several more conference proceedings that contained exorbitant numbers of citations to the benefit of one or two of the conference chairs. Pirelli wrote about his findings in a blog post in January 2023 after ACM failed to respond to his concerns.
Half a year later, one of the conference chairs, Shadi Aljawarneh, a computer scientist at the Jordan University of Science and Technology in Irbid, sued Pirelli for defamation, as we reported in November 2023.
“This guy is suing me because … I uncovered his whole … scam association that was organizing a bunch of conferences that may or may not have even happened,” Pirelli told us at the time. “One of them was supposedly in Kazakhstan in a time when Kazakhstan was closed due to COVID.”
In June of this year, the court found for Aljawarneh. Pirelli is appealing the verdict and declined to comment on the case, but said the retractions confirm he “was right to report these papers.”
The reference lists of most of the suspect papers are dominated by works by Aljawarneh, who was among the chairs of all of the conferences, and his frequent coauthor Vangipuram Radhakrishna, a computer scientist at Vallurupalli Nageswara Rao Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering & Technology in Hyderabad, India. Radhakrishna chaired one of the conferences along with Aljawarneh and others.
One of the retracted papers, for instance, lists 31 articles by Aljawarneh and 51 by Radhakrishna, none of which are cited in the paper itself. Neither researcher replied to requests for comment.
”While we have seen a steady rise in cases over the years … the good news is that the total number and percentage of published papers that have been compromised by bad actors remains relatively small,” Delman said. “Most misconduct is identified prior to the publication stage, so in general the system is working as intended.”
Many of the questionable papers Pirelli identified have yet to be retracted, including one containing a user manual for a university IT system. The same is true of the allegedly plagiarized proceedings that Pirelli reported to ACM in 2022, although they received an expression of concern.
Delman would not comment on “any additional penalties that may be imposed on specific bad actors” but referred us to the group’s policies for such punishment, which include temporary publishing bans.
”Some of the public criticism we have received on sites like PubPeer is fair and some of it is not,” Delman said. “I do agree that investigations take far too long to conduct, and it is a high priority for ACM to address this by devoting more resources to investigations and the decision-making and appeals processes over the coming months to reduce the time it takes to post Expressions of Concern and Retraction Notices to warn the community of integrity issues related to published articles. We are also considering updates to some of our policies and procedures to accelerate and streamline decision-making, while ensuring due process for respondents to allegations.”
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.
in Retraction watch on 2025-11-17 18:21:25 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
In a successful transplant in a man with brain death, scientists prevented the immune system from attacking a genetically modified pig kidney for 61 days, the longest such an experiment has lasted
in Scientific American on 2025-11-17 17:00:00 UTC.