Planet Neuroscientists

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Weekend reads: NEJM launches rival to MMWR; Former NIH official gets expression of concern; ‘1 in 5 chemists’ added errors to papers: study

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Exclusive: Journal to retract Alzheimer’s study after investigation finds misconduct
• Less is more: Academic publishing needs ‘radical change,’ Cambridge press report concludes
• Exclusive: American Heart Association reviewing award to rocket scientist with seven retractions
• ‘Confusing and frankly, disturbing’: When researchers are impersonated
• Despite new retractions, suspect organ transplant papers remain in the literature 

Did you know that Retraction Watch and the Retraction Watch Database are  projects of The Center of Scientific Integrity?  Others include the Medical Evidence Project, the Hijacked Journal Checker, and the Sleuths in Residence Program. Help support this work.   

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

• “NEJM and public health group are launching rival” to CDC’s “vaunted Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.”
• Paper by former senior National Institute of Aging official gets expression of concern after reporting by Science.
• “1 in 5 chemists have deliberately added errors into their papers during peer review, study finds.”
• Primatologist settles lawsuit following “termination over alleged mishandling of contracts.”
• “AI-powered fraud: Chinese paper mills are mass-producing fake academic research.” 
• Professor “serves legal notice” to vice chancellor of university “accusing him of plagiarizing a research paper.”
• “Fifty Years of Retracted Medical Publications From 1975 to 2024.”
• “AI tools combat paper mill fraud in scientific publishing as peer review system struggles.”
• “Research funders urged to drive culture shift on negative results.”
• Statistical power in exercise science, which researchers say contributes to lack of replicability, “may be as low as 30%,” study finds. 
• “How to spot fake scientists and stop them from publishing papers.” A link to our 2020 breaking coverage of a fictitious author.
• “Errors in document-type classification: a focus on engineering publications and their publishers.”
• Paper by a Ph.D. student in Vietnam is retracted amid controversy over his publication record, including publishing “most of” his international articles in predatory journals.
• “Diamond Dreams, Unequal Realities: The Promise and Pitfalls of No-APC Open Access.”
• “Why AI transparency is not enough.”
• “How journals can break down barriers for Latin American scientists.”
• “The mirage of Open Access: articles free of charge for citizens are strangling universities.”
• A Nature journal “is encouraging authors to include” citation diversity statements, which one researcher says “reduce scholars to statistics, threaten academic rigor, and add yet another ideologically conformist hoop for academics to jump through.”
• “Common research monkey is endangered, conservation group confirms.” And “Alternatives to animal testing are the future — it’s time that journals, funders and scientists embrace them,” say researchers.
• “In an age of intense scholarly competition, experts say academic fraud is rising.”
• “Why Ph.D scholars struggle to publish: A crisis of research training and integrity.”
• “Authors publishing in companion open access journals incur higher publication costs, and yet, receive fewer citations per publication,” study finds. 
• “Will AI + OA be OK?”

Upcoming talks

• “How Should Institutions Respond to Allegations of Misconduct?” with our Ivan Oransky (October 27, 2025 Health Academy Conference, Washington, D.C.)
• “Retractions: On the Rise, But Not Enough,” with our Ivan Oransky (October 28, virtual)

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 2025-10-25 10:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Despite new retractions, suspect organ transplant papers remain in the literature 

Six years after researchers called for the retraction of more than 400 papers about organ transplantation amid suspicion the organs used in the studies came from executed Chinese prisoners, journals are still working to clear the record. 

Although more than 40 papers were retracted or otherwise flagged shortly after the 2019 study was published, by our count, only 44 of the 445 papers have been retracted to date. At least 17 of the articles marked with expressions of concern in 2019-2020 remain as such. 

The analysis, published in BMJ Open, found more than 400 studies of organ transplants in China that didn’t report whether the sources gave their consent for donation, nor assurances the organs involved did not come from executed prisoners. As reported by The Guardian in 2019, the study exposed “a mass failure of English language medical journals to comply with international ethical standards in place to ensure organ donors provide consent for transplantation.”  Thirteen retractions this year directly cite the Rogers paper.

The latest retractions came October 10, when an Elsevier journal retracted eight studies of liver transplants. The journal, Clinics and Research in Hepatology and Gastroenterology, was one of 173 journals named in the 2019 study. 

The retraction notices cite the 2019 paper and state the journal “contacted the authors to clarify concerns that pertinent details regarding the source of the organs used, consent of participating individuals, and ethical approval were lacking and/or unclear in the current article. The authors did not respond,” the notice continues.

Wendy Rogers, a bioethics researcher at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, who led the 2019 study, told us the recent uptick in retractions may be the result of emails sent by a volunteer in late 2024 and 2025 to each of the named journals. The volunteer, Simone Francis, is the communications officer for the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China. Some journals didn’t reply at all “while others engaged to some extent,” Rogers said. 

A representative from Elsevier confirmed the retractions in CRHG were the result of the organization contacting the journal in August 2023, which was when Elsevier first learned of the issue, the representative said. The “impacted journals promptly initiated an ethics investigation into the relevant publications,” the representative said, but noted “editorial decisions, including whether to retract, are made independently by each journal’s Editor-in-Chief.”

“The broader investigation remains ongoing,” the spokesperson wrote. 

As we reported in 2019, Rogers and her colleagues did not follow up with any journals after publishing the call for retractions. 

The rest of the 2025 retractions appear in four journals published by Karger, all of which note none of the authors responded to the journals’ requests for additional information. 

“It is deplorable that many journals have not retracted unethical transplant research in which the transplanted organs came from non-consenting prisoners of conscience who were killed in the process,” Rogers told us. “Journals have strict human rights and business obligations, which are breached by publishing research that raises credible concerns about human rights abuses.” 

Rogers also said journal editors are in a “strong position to raise the ethical standards of research by refusing to publish papers that raise concerns about human rights abuses, including organ trafficking and forced organ harvesting.”

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 2025-10-24 20:35:27 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Ancient DNA Reveals New Diseases behind Napoleon’s 1812 Russian Retreat

Disease-causing bacteria that have been recently discovered in the teeth of Napoleonic soldiers may have spurred the massive infantry’s demise during its retreat from Russia

in Scientific American on 2025-10-24 17:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

A conference just tested AI agents’ ability to do science

in Science News: Science & Society on 2025-10-24 16:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Napoleon’s retreating army may have been plagued by these microbes

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-10-24 15:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Brain cancer can dissolve parts of the skull

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-10-24 13:30:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

FDA Warns People Not to Eat Recalled Eggs Contaminated with Salmonella

This is the third Salmonella-related egg recall of 2025. Here’s what to do if you have recalled eggs

in Scientific American on 2025-10-24 13:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Why Bird Flu Is Surging Again—And What It Means for Public Health

After a quiet summer, bird flu cases are rising again. Scientists expected the development, but what happens next is still uncertain

in Scientific American on 2025-10-24 11:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Bearded Vulture Nests Hold 600 Years of Human Artifacts in Spanish Caves

Cliff-rappelling scientists uncovered a crossbow bolt, part of a slingshot and 25 shoes in ancient vulture nesting sites

in Scientific American on 2025-10-24 10:45:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Why Aren’t All Comets as Bright as Comet Lemmon?

A comet’s brightness depends on how it’s made, how and when we see it, and even a bit of unpredictable luck

in Scientific American on 2025-10-24 10:45:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

The Dangerous Data Gap in Pregnancy Drug Research

Despite the widespread use of medication during pregnancy, a lack of clinical research leaves patients and doctors navigating treatment with dangerously few data.

in Scientific American on 2025-10-24 10:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Schneider Shorts 24.10.2025 – Our eureka moment

in For Better Science on 2025-10-24 05:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Remembering GABA pioneer Edward Kravitz

in The Transmitter on 2025-10-24 04:00:48 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Hurricane Melissa Could Drop Two Feet of Rain on Jamaica

Melissa is currently a slow-moving tropical storm that is expected to rapidly intensify to a major hurricane—a brutal combination will drench Jamaica and other Caribbean islands

in Scientific American on 2025-10-23 20:30:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Duck-Billed Dinosaur ‘Mummies’ Are Clay Molds Formed by Microbes, Scientists Say

Wyoming’s “dinosaur mummies,” once thought to preserve fossilized flesh, are actually detailed clay molds formed by microbes as the creatures decayed

in Scientific American on 2025-10-23 19:15:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

The Rise of AI ‘Chatfishing’ in Online Dating Poses a Modern Turing Test

Forget fake profile pics on dating apps—AI is now doing the talking, and we can’t tell the difference

in Scientific American on 2025-10-23 17:35:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

What Medications Are Safe to Take While Pregnant? Studies Are Lacking

Less than 1 percent of clinical trials include pregnant or breastfeeding people. Experts say that needs to change

in Scientific American on 2025-10-23 16:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Which At-Home Remedies Actually Help When Sick with a Cold or Flu?

Should you take vitamin C or zinc when you are sick with a common cold or influenza? Immunologist Zachary Rubin explains which at-home remedies actually help.

in Scientific American on 2025-10-23 16:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

NASA's Bet on SpaceX’s Starship May Give Moon Race to China

Former NASA officials warn that the U.S. looks poised to lose its self-declared race to beat China to the moon

in Scientific American on 2025-10-23 15:30:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

‘Confusing and frankly, disturbing’: When researchers are impersonated

Ariel Karlinsky was confused. A Ph.D. student at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, he had just received a message stating the paper he had submitted to an economics conference in Moldova had been accepted.

But Karlinsky hadn’t submitted his work to the conference. In fact, he had never even heard about the event.

At first, Karlinsky assumed a predatory conference had signed him up without his knowledge. But he recognized the name of one of the organizers, the National Institute for Economic Research, which he knew to be legitimate.

Someone, it turned out, was impersonating Karlinsky. On August 11, that someone had submitted one of the researcher’s papers to the conference under Karlinsky’s name from an email address that looked like it could be his. Only  because the conference organizers replied to the university email address listed in his paper, instead of the one used for the submission, did the real Karlinsky learn of the scam.

“I have no idea what the impersonator was trying to achieve,” Karlinsky told us. “Had the organizers not emailed me, but him, with acceptance, would he have shown up pretending to be me? This is very confusing and frankly, disturbing.”

Identity theft is a growing threat to academia. Fraudsters may impersonate reviewers or former colleagues to make sure articles they or their accomplices write receive favorable reviews. Journals may be hijacked, swindling authors into paying hundreds of dollars for useless publications. Or researchers may find their names on papers they never wrote. 

That recently happened to Mohamed Shaaban, an electrical engineer in Taiwan.

A professor at National Chung Cheng University in Chiayi, Shaaban says he was on vacation when found out about the article, published in Results in Engineering in August. The notification came from the journal to his institutional email address, despite the fact it hadn’t been used throughout the study’s submission process or during peer review. 

While university email addresses are the go-to means for identity verification, a recent analysis has revealed that fraudsters have found ways to breach this safeguard as well, identifying 94 fake profiles from a pool of thousands set up for AI conferences in 2024 and 2025. 

What’s more, the study contained factual errors and some of its figures appear to be generated using artificial intelligence, according to Shaaban, who believes the scam was meant to damage his reputation. 

Shaaban immediately informed the journal and took to social media to address his concerns, leading to media coverage. 

A couple of days after the paper was published, the journal’s editor-in-chief received an email suggesting the fraudulent article was plagiarized from another study recently published in Applied Energy. An anonymous comment on PubPeer suggested the same thing. 

Shaaban forwarded us emails from someone claiming to be Yuntian Chen, a coauthor on the Applied Energy study. The emails raise concerns about the now-retracted paper. 

Emails from that same address were also sent to Shaaban’s university colleagues and as well as his institution’s president, demanding administrative action against Shaaban. The sender also wrote dozens of other emails, with Shaaban copied, to other universities in Taiwan, the country’s Ministry of Higher Education, The University of Hong Kong (where Shaaban completed his doctorate), and to two universities in Malaysia where he previously worked. 

We’ve reached out to Chen, of the Eastern Institute of Technology, in Ningbo, China, for comment but have not heard back. 

“A well-tailored plot to smear my reputation as a scholar and academic,” Shaaban wrote on LinkedIn about the experience. “It’s unbelievable to see how evil and criminal [someone] can be.”

The journal retracted the study in September. The notice reads: 

After investigating the matter, the institution has confirmed that Prof. Shaaban was not involved in the submission of this article and that a suspicious email address had been used to impersonate him.

But Shaaban, who often posts about research misconduct on his Facebook page, is not satisfied.  He wants the paper to be removed entirely from the web and for the journal to conduct an in-depth investigation into who paid the article-processing charge for the manuscript. 

“Nobody is writing a paper and submitting a paper on behalf of you for a [top-tier] journal. That doesn’t make sense,” he said. 

Elsevier does not “remove the name of an author from a published article, nor do we remove an article solely because an author was added without their consent,” a spokesperson for the company told us. “Removals are considered only in very limited cases, and misconduct of this nature does not typically meet the criteria for removal.” 

We reported one of those limited cases in 2023 when three publishers, including Elsevier, removed authors whose names had been forged by another after the publishers received letters from an attorney hired by one of the individuals.

The spokesperson also said Elsevier is reviewing whether other submissions were made to its journals impersonating Shaaban. 

Shaaban worries that this saga will affect his career going forward. “It would always be listed in my record that I have a paper retracted,” he says, “and if people wanted to target you, they can easily say you have one retracted paper and they wouldn’t delve into the reasons.”

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 2025-10-23 12:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Static Electricity Helps Parasitic Nematodes Leap onto Insects

For microscopic worms, physical laws we seldom notice take on life-or-death importance

in Scientific American on 2025-10-23 10:45:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Echoes of memory: A conversation beyond the lab

Interview with Prof. Matthew Larkum

The post Echoes of memory: A conversation beyond the lab appeared first on Neurofrontiers.

in Neurofrontiers on 2025-10-23 09:02:21 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Protein tug-of-war controls pace of synaptic development, sets human brains apart

in The Transmitter on 2025-10-23 04:00:27 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

How the CIA’s Kryptos Sculpture Gave Up Its Final Secret

Uncovering the CIA’s Kryptos puzzle took three parts math and one part sleuthing

in Scientific American on 2025-10-22 18:30:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Exclusive: American Heart Association reviewing award to rocket scientist with seven retractions

The American Heart Association is reviewing its decision to give an award to the architect of a controversial theory that is the subject of eight seven retracted papers, Retraction Watch has learned. In the meantime, the researcher is using the award to contest several of the retractions. 

The Paul Dudley White International Scholar Award “recognizes the team of authors with the highest-ranked scientific abstract from every participating country for each AHA scientific meeting,” according to the award website.

At its Basic Cardiovascular Sciences 2025 conference in July, the association gave the award for best  abstract from India to work describing “Sanal flow choking” theory, which is named after lead author, V. R. Sanal Kumar, a professor of aerospace engineering at Amity University in New Delhi. As we have previously reported, some scientists have denounced the concept as “absolute nonsense” and “inaccurate and paradoxical” — and earlier this year, a journal said it “fundamentally violates” a law of thermodynamics. 

Following the conference, Kumar sent emails to at least three journals — Scientific Reports, AIP Advances, and Global Challenges — requesting the reversal of his retractions, citing the AHA award. He copied us on those emails. 

“The importance of the Sanal flow choking concept has been further validated,” Kumar wrote in the email to editors at Scientific Reports, which retracted one of his papers in 2023. “The American Heart Association recognized this work by conferring the 2025 Paul Dudley International Scholar Award.”

Kumar told us the award “reinforces the scientific credibility and translational value” of the theory. 

Suzanne Grant, vice president of media relations for the AHA, told us the award “was based on abstract scores only.” She also told us “immediately” after the meeting in July, the AHA “learned of the retraction history” of Kumar. The organization was scheduled to review the award decision this week, Grant said. 

Grant also said the AHA has “revised the process for the review” of future award submitters “to focus more on the quality of science rather than solely on the highest score for each country.” 

In a post on Instagram on July 26, Vyadh Aerospace, for which Kumar conducts research, said the award brought the research team “A Step Closer to the Nobel Prize.” 

Previous retractions don’t always get in the way of awards. As we wrote in 2018, Carlo Croce, a cancer researcher at The Ohio State University who lost several papers for image manipulation, was awarded over $300,000 from a charitable organization after decades of misconduct allegations.

Update, Oct. 23, 2025: The headline and first paragraph previously said Kumar had eight retractions. He has seven.

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 2025-10-22 15:48:40 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Google Measures ‘Quantum Echoes’ on Willow Quantum Computer Chip

“Quantum echoes” rippling through Google’s quantum computer chip Willow could lead to advances in molecular chemistry and the physics of black holes

in Scientific American on 2025-10-22 15:25:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Zoo Lunch Mishap Reveals Lizards’ Hidden Fire Detector

Australian “sleepy” lizards are not so sleepy when it comes to fire

in Scientific American on 2025-10-22 14:30:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Earth’s Falling Reflectivity Means the Planet Is Getting Darker—And Hotter

The planet’s brightness is dimming—changing rainfall, circulation and temperature

in Scientific American on 2025-10-22 14:05:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Rewire Your Career: Johanna Jackson

in Women in Neuroscience UK on 2025-10-22 14:01:11 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

What all parents need to know to support their teens in college

What all parents need to know to support their teens in college

With the semester well underway, your college student is probably juggling a lot—classes, homework, exams, and writing assignments—all while managing friendships, jobs, and other responsibilities. This balancing act can be tough for any young adult, but it’s often especially challenging for students with ADHD. In high school, your teen may have benefitted from built-in structure and support systems (e.g., teachers, parents) that helped them stay on track and meet their goals. In college, those supports tend to fade, leaving students to navigate much more on their own.

As a parent, you can play an important role in helping your student adjust to these new demands. Sometimes this means offering a little extra “scaffolding”—gentle support and guidance—to help them build the skills they need to thrive on their own. That’s exactly why I wrote Mastering the Transition to College: The Ultimate Guidebook for Parents of Teens with ADHD. It’s packed with practical information and strategies to help you and your teen navigate these years successfully. This blog post offers a first look at some of those tips, so you’ll have tools ready if your student starts to struggle, academically or otherwise, this semester.

1. Communication and collaboration are key. You probably know from the high school years that giving unsolicited advice to your teen can backfire. Pushing too hard often leads to resistance. Instead, try to use a calm, collaborative tone. Let your teen know you’re there to support and guide them, but that they are in control of their own decisions. Approaching conversations this way helps your teen feel respected and more open to brainstorming solutions with you.
2. Set goals. Before you can help your teen make changes, it’s important to first understand what they want. Ask about their goals, not just in academics, but in all areas of their life that matter to them. Once you know their priorities, you can work together to map out what steps are needed to get there. This also makes it easier to guide them without feeling like you’re imposing. Some of these steps may be addressed in the tips below.
3. Help your teen establish an organizational system. This may sound obvious, but it’s incredibly powerful: having a clear system to track tasks and deadlines is a game changer. Encourage your teen to choose a system that works for them. It could be a paper planner, a phone app, or a calendar on their laptop. The key is sustainability, so expect some trial and error as they experiment. Whatever they choose, the idea is that the system should be sustainable. The goal is to help them feel in control of their time, not overwhelmed by it.
4. Encourage your teen to develop a system for completing tasks. College life means that the to-do list is rarely empty. Your teen may feel as if their tasks are never-ending… as one is completed, another is added to the list. Therefore, developing a method for triaging what needs to get completed and by when will be crucial. An approach that balances what is important vs. what is urgent is often a good place to start.
5. Discuss all available campus resources with your teen. College campuses offer a lot of support to help your teen succeed. However, students (and parents) often find it difficult to know what resources are available and how to access them. Resources may be academic in nature (e.g., tutoring, office hours, advising, academic accommodations, writing center), mental health related (e.g., student health center, counseling center, skills groups), or logistical (e.g., career services, resident assistants). Knowing what resources to use, when, and how to access them will be essential for ensuring a successful college career. Further, if your teen needs more support than your conversations with them or my book can provide, finding a licensed professional may be a helpful next step. Outside help can be an important part of your teen achieving success.

I hope these tips provide you with a solid starting point in supporting your teen with the transition to and through college. For even more guidance and detailed advice as to how to implement these strategies, check out my book Mastering the Transition to College: The Ultimate Guidebook for Parents of Teens with ADHD.

^{Feature image: photo by Joshua Hoehne via Unsplash.}

OUPblog - Academic insights for the thinking world.

       

Related Stories

• Back to school for happy and healthy kids
• 5 books to master your transition to college [reading list]
• Open Access Week: Nothing about me, without me

 

in OUPblog - Psychology and Neuroscience on 2025-10-22 12:30:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Most women get uterine fibroids. This researcher wants to know why

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-10-22 12:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

How Word Choice and Effort Make Apologies Sound Genuine, according to Psychologists

The words we choose when apologizing—especially longer, effortful ones—can signal sincerity and make our apologies feel more authentic.

in Scientific American on 2025-10-22 10:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Neurons tune electron transport chain to survive onslaught of noxious stimuli

in The Transmitter on 2025-10-22 04:00:45 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Vicente Raja brings ecological psychology concepts to neuroscience

in The Transmitter on 2025-10-22 04:00:05 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Less is more: Academic publishing needs ‘radical change,’ Cambridge press report concludes 

Academic publishing needs “renewed focus and collective action” to embrace new approaches and ensure the future of the industry, concludes a report from Cambridge University Press, released last week. 

What started as an exploration of barriers to open access models turned into a call for “radical change” in academic publishing. “It has been clear for some time that the publishing ecosystem is under increasing strain,” Mandy Hill, managing director of Cambridge University Press, wrote in the introduction to the report. “This was the case before the growth of open access, but it is also clear that the shift to open has not solved the problems, as some early open access advocates may have hoped.”

The report, which followed workshops and interviews with stakeholders, includes results of a survey of more than 3,000 researchers, librarians, funders, publishers and societies. 

Among its observations and recommendations:

• The growth in volume of research articles is overwhelming the system, as other coverage has noted, due to AI-generated articles and paper mill output and the increase  in scientific research more generally. 
• Economic models for publishing need reform, as “pay-to-publish and pay-to-read models continue to undermine financial sustainability” while budgets for both models remain static or shrink.
• The academic reward system continues to incentivize quantity over quality, and “the challenges in academic publishing are inseparable from broader issues of recognition and reward.”

“We fundamentally believe that publishing less – but better – is essential for the health of the entire research system worldwide,” the authors of the report state. 

To learn more about the recommendations and what comes next, Retraction Watch spoke with Hill, who stepped away from the Frankfurt Book Fair for our conversation. The text has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Retraction Watch: We read a lot of reports on the state of publishing. This report makes some fairly provocative statements about what specific changes are needed. Why is that?

Mandy Hill: Doing the work over the past six months, through the survey, through the workshops, really brought home that enough is enough. We’ve got to stop talking about the problem and start doing something about it. [It has been like] everyone walking past a burning building going, “Oh, that house is on fire.” And then maybe a couple of people getting buckets of water and throwing them at the fire and saying, “Yeah, [I’ve] done my bit. Tried, didn’t work.” The only thing that is going to make the difference to put this fire out is us all working together in a concerted way to really tackle it. 

So you’re right. We have tried to make pretty provocative statements about how serious this now is. It’s not going to be sustainable if we don’t make change. I’ve chatted to a few other publishers, including some of the large commercial publishers, and they agree that the rate of submission, and then the resultant output, is unsustainable. I think everyone sees that the incentives are wrong for some people to want to change that, but I think everyone sees we’re reaching a crunch point where something has to change. 

As a publisher, what I don’t want to do is say, “The problem’s over there. Somebody else needs to sort it.” We want to say, actually, we’re all in this together. But we have to see this as a systemic challenge where no one piece can be fixed without everything else being fixed.

Retraction Watch: So to that end, what is Cambridge University Press willing to do? What changes will you make? 

Hill: We made the conscious choice to not come up with a 10-point plan of what Cambridge is going to do, because that wouldn’t have solved this. The biggest thing we can do is grab people by the hair or the hand or whichever it’s going to take to get them around the table, and make that collective action work.

Realistically, we publish 20,000 research articles a year. We’re a relatively small piece of the publishing puzzle. We alone can’t change things, but that cannot be our “get out of jail free” card. So there are some things we want to do through demonstration. 

We’re looking at ourselves in the mirror. Are all of our journals adding value in their communities? What can we do to ensure they are? We’ve been very clear in our strategy that we will never be driven by quantity, that there will be times when journals will grow, but that’s always got to be quality driven. 

Probably the biggest way we hope we can make wider action is as a department of the University of Cambridge. We actually think the convening power of the University of Cambridge with us as a part of it — we’re both a leading university and a leading publisher — and with those two sides of our identity, we think we can really pull people together. We’ve already tried to have conversations with funders, but we hope to expand that. 

Retraction Watch: Do you think the administration at the university is up for these conversations? Do they acknowledge the problem and acknowledge that they can play a role in making changes that influence the wider circle?

Hill: My hesitation is not wanting to put words into the mouth of the university. What I can say, though, is that we have had conversations, not only with the vice chancellor, but also with the pro vice chancellor of research and the university librarian, and they are very supportive of what we’re doing and want to work with us on that idea of convening. I think the University of Cambridge is a micro-example of the complexities of solving a problem like this. They would acknowledge themselves that this is going to be a really tricky one to solve, and there aren’t going to be easy answers. They’ve certainly said they are very keen to work with the idea of convening conversations to drive collective action.

Retraction Watch: In terms of a business model for the university press, what would publishing less look like? Is that sustainable for an academic publisher?

Hill: There are a number of journals, particularly that have been created over the past few years, that aren’t adding value and are just churning out quantity. One of the questions I’m asking my team is, how do we know if journals are valued by the community? What is a good rating of value? Is it something that people think, “I want to publish in that journal because I agree with the editorial policies?” Or, “They really support the development of my articles.” There’s something about the journal that is genuinely valued, and that’s something hard to quantify. 

The other piece in the report is really talking about alternative publishing platforms. If we say there’s a whole chunk of content that does get benefit from being published in journals, fantastic. But there’s other content that’s not benefiting from being published in journals. It doesn’t warrant the cost that it’s adding into the system. It could be either of those things. There needs to be credible, scalable alternatives. So another part of the conversation we want to be part of is, what do those look like? At the moment there are loads of little things going on. Very few of them have got genuine scale, and so the reinvention of the wheel going on and the hidden costs in the system are not useful. 

So in answer to your question, if we were to publish fewer journal articles, can we use our publishing services to support other publishing outlets? What exactly does that look like? Ask me in five years.

Retraction Watch: You write in the report, “The dominance of the impact factor must be replaced with more balanced metrics that acknowledge the real value of research outputs.” What do you mean by that? 

Hill: How long has this been talked about? DORA has been around for how many years [saying] that the impact factor should not be used as a proxy for the quality of the individual articles that are published in that journal? And they shouldn’t, and the impact factor of where a researcher has had their research published should not be used in promotion decisions. It feels like forever, but it hasn’t changed behaviors. So there’s a cultural change that’s required. 

We’ve got to think together. I think it’s going to be quite a complex one, and may well vary by subject. Maybe it’s how we’re going to value different outputs.The dependence on the journal article at the moment is really not reflecting the variety of research outputs that there are now. And we’re kind of shoving all research into a journal-shaped output, and it doesn’t really do a lot of things any favors. We should have more versatility.

Retraction Watch: In the survey portion of the report, you found 86% of respondents agreed that a future where the majority of research articles are made freely available is desirable, and 69% agreed that the move to more open access journal publishing so far has made high quality research outputs easier to discover. Is a majority open access world a sustainable business model for both the publishers and for the researchers?

Hill: I strongly believe we would think about open access as the default model, because we can see there’s so much evidence now in terms of citations and usage, and the way researchers around the world can access, the geographic distribution of usage that open access is better for research. It’s more equitable. We’ve got to have a system designed like that. So I think the question is not if it’s sustainable, it’s how we make it sustainable. 

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 2025-10-21 19:02:12 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Retinal Implant Allows People with Blindness to Read Again in Small Trials

An electronic retinal implant has improved vision in people with age-related macular degeneration—but it isn’t a full restoration, and it didn’t improve participants’ quality of life

in Scientific American on 2025-10-21 14:45:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

COVID-related smell loss may last years

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-10-21 13:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Connecting continents through innovation: OIST’s role in advancing digital agriculture

in OIST Japan on 2025-10-21 12:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

La Banda di Ando

in For Better Science on 2025-10-21 05:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Gene variants accumulate in older men’s sperm; and more

in The Transmitter on 2025-10-21 04:00:55 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

This paper changed my life: Sandra Jurado marvels at the first-ever 3D model of a synaptic vesicle

in The Transmitter on 2025-10-21 04:00:25 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Exclusive: Journal to retract Alzheimer’s study after investigation finds misconduct

A journal says it will retract a 2019 paper on an Alzheimer’s treatment after an institutional investigation found research misconduct, according to emails seen by Retraction Watch. The move comes four years after another investigation by the same university uncovered image duplication in a different paper by a similar group of authors.

The paper, published in Biological Psychiatry, describes the potential of an apoE antagonist for treatment in Alzheimer’s disease. 

A 2019 news release by the University of South Florida, home to several of the researchers involved in the study, called the work “promising.” Lead author Darrell Sawmiller, an assistant professor at USF, said the study represented “the first time … we have direct evidence” apoE “acts as an essential molecule” in the mechanisms leading to Alzheimer’s. 

The paper has been cited 32 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. Jun Tan, the corresponding author on the paper, is no longer with USF but was formerly the Robert A. Silver Chair in Developmental Neurobiology at the university. His most recent publication lists dual affiliations with institutions in China. 

We have asked the university for the investigation but have not received a reply. 

Tan was one of several dozen researchers who study Alzheimer’s disease whose papers had been questioned on PubPeer and described in investigative journalist Charles Piller’s recent book, Doctored. According to the book, Tan “did not respond to queries about apparent image doctoring in fifteen studies — many concerning amyloid-beta in animal testing.”

The article marks the second retraction for Sawmiller, Tan, and several other common authors. The first was a 2017 paper in Cell Death and Disease.  A USF investigation into that work found “inappropriately duplicated images” and that the “text associated with them are not scientifically defensible,” the December 2021 notice says. The paper, which describes lithium’s potential as a treatment for Alzheimer’s, has been cited 21 times. 

Sleuth Kevin Patrick raised concerns about the Biological Psychiatry paper on PubPeer in October 2021. One of the images in the paper “seems to be duplicated … although the brightness is slightly different, suggesting that this isn’t merely due to an error during figure assembly,” Patrick wrote under his known pseudonym “Actinopolyspora biskrensis.” 

Patrick sent the PubPeer comment to the journal that same month. Editor Rhiannon Bugno told Patrick in January of this year the journal had “continued to regularly follow up with the institution.” Bugno also wrote the university told her the “investigation itself was concluded,” but USF “has yet to share any information/findings from the investigation with us.” She followed up in a later email saying the journal was “considering whether to take any action in the interim.” 

On September 16, Bugno told Patrick in an email USF “has informed us that research misconduct was identified. Therefore, we are retracting the paper.” Bugno did not reply to our email asking when the journal plans to issue the retraction. 

During Tan’s tenure at USF, he was the principal investigator on over $6 million in grants from the National Institutes of Health, according to NIH RePORTER. 

Tim Kersjes, head of research integrity, resolutions, at Springer Nature, told us the investigation into the Cell Death and Disease paper was initiated by comments on PubPeer, but USF reached out while the investigation was in progress to recommend retraction. 

Patrick had also flagged that paper on PubPeer, noting in a 2019 comment two parts of a figure which “appear to include multiple areas of overlap.” In 2021, after the article was retracted, Patrick wrote on PubPeer the concerning images “seem to originate from the Ph.D. thesis of the first author,” Ahsan Habib. Habib earned his doctorate from USF in 2018 and is an author on both the Cell Death and Disease and Biological Psychiatry papers. His LinkedIn profile says he is currently a lab tech at food company HP Hood LLC and was formerly a postdoctoral fellow at the National Institute on Aging. 

Habib did not respond to our request for comment to his professional and personal emails. We also reached out to Takashi Mori, another common coauthor currently a researcher at Gifu University in Japan, who did not respond to our request for comment. Both disagreed with the retraction in Cell Death and Disease, according to the notice. 

Sawmiller also did not respond to our request for comment.

Sawmiller, Tan, and Habib, as well as other shared authors on the two papers, received two expressions of concern from Sage’s Cell Transplantation in 2022. One, on a paper published in 2015, was issued after Patrick’s PubPeer comment pointed out “unexpected” image duplication. A coauthor on that paper was Paul Sanberg, who, as we reported at the time, was co-editor-in-chief of Cell Transplantation and had financial ties to the work, neither of which were disclosed in the conflict of interest section. 

Sanberg, executive director of USF’s Center of Excellence for Aging, is also a coauthor on the soon-to-be-retracted paper in Biological Psychiatry.

The second expression of concern in Cell Transplantation, for a paper published in 2018, came shortly after the first and followed Patrick’s PubPeer comments pointing out a splice in one of the figures. 

Tan was the corresponding author for all four of the papers and, according to all the notices, didn’t respond to the journals’ inquiries. The Cell Transplantation notices state the “remaining authors noted that the corresponding author has access to all of the data underlying the findings.” Tan did not respond to our multiple requests for comment to several email addresses under his current affiliations.

Several of Tan’s other papers have been flagged on PubPeer for image issues, including a second paper from Cell Death and Disease, which Springer Nature has confirmed they are now investigating. 

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 2025-10-20 18:48:24 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

‘No Kings’ Protesters Reject Political Violence, Survey Shows

Massive marches nationwide in the U.S. marked a turn against an increasing acceptance of political violence among protesters, report sociologists

in Scientific American on 2025-10-20 18:15:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Guppies fall for a classic optical illusion. Doves, usually, do too

in Science News: Psychology on 2025-10-20 18:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Storytelling Methods Alter How Memories Are Stored in the Brain, Neuroscientists Find

Telling the same story in different ways can change the brain networks that the listener uses to form memories

in Scientific American on 2025-10-20 17:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Even for elite athletes, the body’s metabolism has its limits

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-10-20 15:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Study of Ultramarathon Runners Suggests There’s a Fundamental Limit to Human Metabolism

A new study finds that even elite endurance athletes run up against a hard metabolic ceiling

in Scientific American on 2025-10-20 15:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Not just Risk, But Recovery: The Stroke Sex Divide in Women  

in Women in Neuroscience UK on 2025-10-20 14:00:19 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

OIST Global Admin Training Program Strengthens Inter-University Collaboration

in OIST Japan on 2025-10-20 12:00:00 UTC.

- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -

Cells Have a Crystal Trigger That Makes Them Self-Destruct When Viruses Invade

A special class of immune proteins protect us from pathogens but also drive inflammation and cell death

in Scientific American on 2025-10-20 10:45:00 UTC.