Planet Neuroscientists

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

OIST and BizReach Sign Memorandum of Understanding to Hire Business Professionals to Accelerate University Spin-Out Startups

in OIST Japan on 2025-11-26 12:00:00 UTC.

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

Sex hormone boosts female rats’ sensitivity to unexpected rewards

in The Transmitter on 2025-11-26 05:00:27 UTC.

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

Skipping Meals before Thanksgiving Dinner Can Be Bad for Gut Health

Skipping meals before a big holiday feast probably isn’t the best idea for gut health, experts say. Here’s how to prevent overeating on an empty stomach—and tips for if you do

in Scientific American on 2025-11-25 19:50:00 UTC.

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

Meet the researcher aiming to halt use of ‘fundamentally flawed’ database linking IQ and nationality

Rebecca Sear is on a mission to convince publishers to retract articles that use a database that purports to rank countries based on intelligence.

To maintain the integrity of scientific literature, the professor of psychology at Brunel University of London and her colleagues are writing to journals that are publishing papers that rely on the so-called National IQ database, which aims to rank countries based on intelligence. It has drawn criticism for the way the data were collected. Sear’s efforts have so far led to two retractions.

“There is absolutely no scientific merit whatsoever in the National IQ database,” Sear told Retraction Watch. “That means that any conclusions drawn from the database will be faulty and worthless.”

The database was first published in 2002 after psychologists Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen constructed what they claimed were averaged estimates of IQ scores for different countries. Critics say the database fueled networks of “race science” activists who argue Western countries are under threat from certain ethnic groups with low intelligence and higher propensity to commit crimes. 

In 2019, Lynn, a self-proclaimed “scientific racist,” was stripped of his emeritus status by Ulster University in Northern Ireland after students protested against his views, as we reported. By our count, three of Lynn’s papers have been flagged with expressions of concern. 

While Sear hasn’t tracked how many papers Lynn — who died in 2023 — himself authored, she is tracking the number of studies using his dataset. She shared a list with us that as of now contains 174 such studies. 

The latest retraction was issued November 2 by Cross-Cultural Research, which pulled a 2023 study Sear had flagged. The paper, “Likely Electromagnetic Foundations of Gender Inequality,” has been cited twice, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. 

The retraction notice doesn’t identify Sear by name but acknowledges she raised the concerns. It states: 

Given the concerns raised by the reader, and that the original round of peer review did not meet the journal’s standards, the Journal Editor and Sage conducted a post-publication peer review of this article. Sage contacted the author for comments on the concerns raised.

Study author Federico R. León of the San Ignacio de Loyola University in Lima, Peru, agreed to the retraction, the notice states. He did not respond to our request for comment. 

The other retraction prompted by Sear’s reporting, which we covered when it occurred last year, was for a 2010 paper about intelligence and infections published by the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 

Sear told us she has written to editors at 18 journals that have published papers using the IQ database. So far, however, her efforts have led to just those two retractions. 

“The others, I was either ignored or just brushed off by the editors or publishers concerned on the whole,” she said. “I genuinely thought that when concerns were raised about research integrity of papers, something would be done, and that’s not the case.”

The dataset isn’t well known outside psychology, Sear noted, so editors from journals from other disciplines may not know that it is “fundamentally flawed,” she said. According to one 2010 critique, which failed to replicate the database’s low IQ estimates for Africans, Lynn’s methods for selecting data were “unsystematic” and “too unspecific to allow replication,” the authors wrote.   

Jelte Wicherts, a statistician and methodologist at Tilburg University in the Netherlands who coauthored that 2010 critique, told us that although Lynn’s colleague, David Becker, has since addressed some methodological issues, the updated iterations of the database are still flawed. 

“Becker’s NIQ database inherited many of the fundamental flaws in Lynn’s original national IQ work that we showed quite clearly to be unsystematic and biased towards Lynn’s expectations,” Wicherts told us. “Until it has been validated with rigorous means, I would not recommend the use of Becker’s IQ data in peer-reviewed research.”

Becker, now based at the Chemnitz University of Technology in Saxony, Germany, did not respond to a request for a comment.

However, one researcher who has multiple studies on Sear’s list and spoke to Retraction Watch on the condition of anonymity, told us: 

At the time those papers were written, I was not fully aware of the depth of the controversy on that topic and its connection to racialized interpretations of intelligence. Researchers in developing countries are far from such debates, they are under more pressure to publish more research papers. So, my focus then was on contributing to empirical growth and development research, not on questions of race. I stopped using it and publishing papers in impact factor journals and have not relied on it in my more recent research. 

The Lynn dataset never met the “minimal standards” for being published, even when it was collected, said Gregory Kohn, an associate professor of psychological and brain sciences at the University of North Florida. “I think there is a burgeoning consensus that is long overdue, that this dataset was not collected in a disciplined way to make any reasonable conclusions,” Kohn said.

Last December, publishing giant Elsevier said it was reviewing papers its journals had published in the past using the dataset. According to the Guardian, Lynn had published more than 100 papers in Elsevier journals, including several iterations of the NIQ database. 

An Elsevier spokesperson told us: “In line with our commitment to investigate this matter thoroughly, we invited prominent members of the scientific community to aid us in gathering a consensus on the flaws in the national IQ database and other similar projects. This piece of work is nearing completion.” 

One study on Sear’s list is a 2019 paper published by the journal Intelligence, which explored the link between national IQ and scores on a graduate admissions exam  that was co-authored by psychologist Bryan Pesta. 

On November 4, a U.S. appeals court dismissed an appeal from Pesta, who was stripped of his tenure and fired by Cleveland State University after his colleagues claimed he engaged in research misconduct by misrepresenting his intended use of data from the National Institutes of Health to advance a theory that genetic differences lead to a racial IQ gap. 

While Pesta has argued his academic freedom had been violated, the court found that, “Whatever the controversial nature of [Pesta’s work], CSU officials were reasonably alarmed by Pesta’s cavalier handling of sensitive genomic data, misleading representations to the NIH about the nature of his research, failure to observe basic conflict-of-interest reporting, and the impact that his actions had on CSU as a research institution reliant on the NIH.”

A spokesperson for Cleveland State told us: 

The ruling confirms that the university and its employees acted properly and that the law and facts support our position. We strongly believe our faculty are entitled to full freedom in their research, but they must adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity and professional ethics. 

Sear said  journals should retract every paper based on Lynn’s database.  “Every paper that is published using the database effectively justifies the use of the database,” she said. 

Lynn’s work is systematically biased, Sear said, because it has unrepresentative samples — with relatively higher rural populations and numbers of children for some nations — leading to a skewed picture. 

“So as long as papers which have used the database sit in literature, that will make it easier for people to continue using a worthless database,” she says. “Retracting these articles is particularly important in order to essentially stop the continued use of the dataset.” 

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 2025-11-25 18:24:22 UTC.

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

Trump Orders Genesis Mission to Advance AI Breakthroughs

A new federal initiative aims to accelerate scientific discovery by uniting artificial intelligence with large federal datasets

in Scientific American on 2025-11-25 18:10:00 UTC.

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

Scientists Identify Five Distinct Eras of Human Brain Aging

Human brains go through five distinct phases of life, each defined by its own set of characteristics, according to a new study

in Scientific American on 2025-11-25 16:00:00 UTC.

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

Which Thanksgiving Pie Causes the Biggest Blood Sugar Spike: Pecan, Apple or Pumpkin?

Scientific American asked experts which type of Thanksgiving pie spikes blood sugar the most—and how to eat healthier while still enjoying the holidays

in Scientific American on 2025-11-25 13:00:00 UTC.

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

Okinawa School in Physics returns with a renewed focus on quantum technologies

in OIST Japan on 2025-11-25 12:00:00 UTC.

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

AI Is Transforming Thanksgiving Meals, Memories and Family Traditions

As AI slips into kitchens, conversations and memories, Thanksgiving has become a test of how much we’re willing to outsource

in Scientific American on 2025-11-25 12:00:00 UTC.

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

This Fossil Is Rewriting the Story of How Plants Spread across the Planet

An enigmatic group of fossil organisms has finally been identified—and is changing the story of how plants took root on land

in Scientific American on 2025-11-25 11:30:00 UTC.

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

A bit of Frye and Rossignol

in For Better Science on 2025-11-25 06:00:00 UTC.

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

SHANK3 deficiency and behavior in mice; and more

in The Transmitter on 2025-11-25 05:00:46 UTC.

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

Remembering Mark Hallett, leader in transcranial magnetic stimulation

in The Transmitter on 2025-11-25 05:00:21 UTC.

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

First Human Dies of Rare H5N5 Bird Flu Strain. Here’s What You Need to Know

H5N1 bird flu has been circulating in U.S. wildlife since late 2021 but has caused only one human fatality. Now a different type of bird flu has also caused a death

in Scientific American on 2025-11-24 22:10:00 UTC.

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

MAHA Summit Features Talk of Psychedelics and Immortality

The Make America Healthy Again summit, attended by RFK, Jr., and J.D. Vance, gave a sense of what’s driving U.S. health policy

in Scientific American on 2025-11-24 21:00:00 UTC.

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

arXiv receives $7 million in gifts and grants from Schmidt Sciences and NASA

We are pleased to announce that Schmidt Sciences and NASA have generously awarded arXiv $7 million in gifts and grants, respectively, to allow arXiv to complete its technology migration project and to explore ways to improve the arXiv experience through personalized and fair discovery of new preprints.

arXiv began its cloud migration and code modernization project in 2023 with support from the Simons Foundation. This additional funding from Schmidt Sciences will allow arXiv to maintain an expanded software development team and complete the modernization effort without impacting ongoing operations. 

“Schmidt Sciences is thrilled to help support arXiv migrate to modern, scalable cloud technology, and ensure it can sustainably meet the accelerating demands of the global research community,” said James Ricci, director of Science Systems at Schmidt Sciences. “We hope that this will continue advancing open science for years to come.”

Through funding from NASA, faculty members in Cornell University’s Department of Computer Science will build and evaluate discovery and dissemination tools that are fairer and more effective than existing methods. NASA funding will also equip arXiv to expand into subject areas of interest to NASA.

“I am profoundly grateful for this generous support from both Schmidt Sciences and NASA,” said Greg Morrisett, the Jack and Rilla Neafsey Dean and Vice Provost of Cornell Tech. “This investment will ensure that arXiv can grow sustainably and continue to serve the needs of the global research community well into the future.”

“arXiv is in the midst of a technology transformation to meet future challenges, and to respond effectively to changes affecting the research community. The funding from Schmidt Sciences and NASA will allow us to complete our technology migration while simultaneously exploring ways to improve the service,”  said Ramin Zabih, arXiv Executive Director and professor of computer science at Cornell Tech. “We are grateful to Schmidt Sciences and NASA for supporting arXiv in its efforts to build a stronger foundation for the future.”

In addition to these recent gifts and grants, arXiv receives ongoing support from the Simons Foundation as well as from academic and research libraries, universities, research organizations, professional societies, sponsors, and individual donors.

To read the full announcement from Cornell University, visit the Cornell Chronicle.

in arXiv.org blog on 2025-11-24 20:46:04 UTC.

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

Hayli Gubbi Volcano Erupts in Ethiopia for First Time in More Than 12,000 Years

The Hayli Gubbi volcano, long thought to be dormant, sent ash nine miles into the sky in an eruption on Sunday

in Scientific American on 2025-11-24 20:30:00 UTC.

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

China to Launch Rescue Shenzhou-22 Spacecraft for Stranded Astronauts

The Shenzhou-22 spacecraft is set to launch November 25

in Scientific American on 2025-11-24 19:10:00 UTC.

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

We’re hiring! Engineering Director

Join arXiv! Want to make an impact on open science? Come help lead the team working on arxiv.org, one of the most integral websites for open scholarly communications and scientific discovery.

arXiv is hiring for an Engineering Director. This newly created position will provide hands-on leadership and guidance to shape arXiv’s engineering strategy. arXiv is in the midst of a critical period of change – we’re working to complete a major technology migration while also building out processes and developing a resilient, future-looking engineering team. This strategic role is crucial to helping arXiv successfully navigate this change, building out our team and aligning team expertise with technical needs, strategizing and guiding system design and architecture, and communicating project goals, guideposts, and progress with a diverse group of arXiv stakeholders.

arXiv is a part of Cornell University, headquartered at Cornell Tech, and all roles are hired through our parent organization. While this position is currently classified as “Temporary” it is both full time and benefits-eligible, and there is potential for the role to become regular / permanent at the end of the 1-year term. Visa sponsorship is not available.

Read more about this senior leadership position and apply directly through Cornell University’s career site.

For a brief, inexhaustive list of required and preferred qualifications, please see below:

Required Qualifications

• 7-10 years of experience as a technical contributor to an engineering team
• At least 5 years of experience managing individual contributors in an engineering environment
• At least 3 years of experience managing engineering managers
• Proven leadership experience fostering collaboration and inclusion within technical teams and with external stakeholder groups
• Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Software Engineering, Information Systems, or a related technical field (or similar qualifications)
• Excellent stakeholder management skills and technical fluency

Preferred Qualifications

• Experience leading engineering teams following Agile methodology
• Experience developing and maintaining online publishing platforms
• Understanding of Open Science principles and the needs of Open Science stakeholders
• Master’s degree in relevant field

This role is complex, mission critical, and like most roles, more than simply a list of qualification requirements – it is important for candidates to fully read the job description and expectations before applying to ensure a good fit and alignment with open science principles and arXiv’s mission.

The targeted hiring range for this role is $178,000 – $200,000, dependent on experience. This role can either be fully remote or hybrid-remote with a primary work location at the Cornell Tech campus in NYC. This role involves managing a team operating primarily in the Easter Time (ET) zone, so candidates should be prepared to work standard hours significantly overlapping with this time zone.

in arXiv.org blog on 2025-11-24 19:07:14 UTC.

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

How Bad Will Flu Season Be This Year?

U.S. flu rates remain low, but experts are keeping an eye on a new strain that’s been linked to unexpectedly early and severe seasons in several other countries

in Scientific American on 2025-11-24 18:45:00 UTC.

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

GLP-1 Pill Fails to Slow Alzheimer’s Progression in Clinical Trial

Top-line results from two large clinical trials by Novo Nordisk, the company behind Ozempic and Wegovy, found oral semaglutide failed to slow down Alzheimer's progression

in Scientific American on 2025-11-24 18:15:00 UTC.

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

‘Butt breathing’ could help people who can’t get oxygen the regular way

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-11-24 18:00:00 UTC.

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

Spotlight On: Nathalie Rochefort

in Women in Neuroscience UK on 2025-11-24 15:00:31 UTC.

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

Exclusive: ‘Highly problematic’ policy has Saudi university pressuring faculty to cite its research 

At Prince Sultan University in Saudi Arabia, faculty members must help raise their school’s academic standing not by doing impactful work, but by citing the institution’s research in their papers, according to a document Retraction Watch has obtained.

In an interoffice memo from 2022, Ahmed Yamani, president of the Riyadh-based institution, referred to “the rule of the requirement of citing 3-4 relevant publications in each paper” whose aim was “increasing the exposure of PSU research work and increasing the total number of PSU citations.”

Coordinated citation efforts can boost the rankings of institutions and individual researchers. The Committee on Publication Ethics considers citation manipulation unethical. 

The memo, titled “Follow-up on publication fees and incentives 2023,” added, “If no PSU publication is related to the paper to be submitted, the PSU authors do not need to cite the PSU papers.” It continued, “We urge faculty members to cooperate in raising PSU citations and impact.”

Yamani did not reply to requests for comment.

We have reported in the past on coercive citation at Iraqi universities, where both students and researchers are required to cite their institutions’ journals and research.  

The Saudi policy differs by including the clause on relevance – an apparent nod to intellectual freedom and research integrity, said Diana Hicks, an expert in publication metrics and a professor emeritus at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta.

Despite this, she told us, “it certainly feels like mandating metrics gaming and so would encourage a culture not focused on integrity.”

Ludo Waltman, an expert in research assessment at Leiden University in The Netherlands, agreed, calling Prince Sultan’s citation requirement “highly problematic.”

“Because of the ‘relevance’ criterion, this perhaps doesn’t constitute coercive citation in a strict sense, but in a practical sense this memo puts strong pressure on PSU researchers to cite work from their own university, so this is very close to coercion,” he told us. “It is also problematic that the ‘relevance’ criterion states that PSU researchers don’t need to cite PSU work if they cannot find relevant work. The criterion should state that PSU researchers must not cite PSU work if it is not relevant.”

The memo referred to feedback received from the school’s Research and Initiatives Center on “the publication fees for 2023.” To be reimbursed for publication fees, the memo stated, 40 percent of a paper’s authors must be faculty members at the university. Whether this policy is meant to prevent the school’s researchers from being gifted authorship simply to help pay publication fees is unclear.

Earlier this fall, Mohamed Bououdina, a hyperprolific physicist and administrator at Prince Sultan, lost a 2024 paper in Heliyon due to the addition of eight irrelevant citations, according to the retraction notice.

Elsevier, the journal’s publisher, would not tell us which citations it found irrelevant. But at least two references coauthored by fellow Prince Sultan physicist Mohammed Benali Kanoun could qualify. The works are cited after a sentence stating nanomaterials ”are more hydrophobic than conventional bone grafts,” although neither reference mentions hydrophobicity or bone grafts.

Bououdina, who is an aide to the university’s president and associate director of the Research and Initiatives Center, also has earned a retraction for using tortured phrases suggestive of plagiarism in another paper. He has had several papers flagged on PubPeer, including for potential image manipulation and data fabrication. Bououdina did not respond to a request for comment.

Waltman said he did not know how common institutional self-citation policies are. But he stressed that ”choosing citations politically, rather than purely based on relevance, is not specific to particular countries or regions. This is done by researchers all over the world, but usually in more subtle ways, without explicit policies that mandate this.”

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 2025-11-24 14:23:02 UTC.

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

3,000 steps per day might slow Alzheimer’s disease

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-11-24 14:00:00 UTC.

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

Raccoons Are Changing, COP30 In Brazil, and New Fluoride Research

Your Monday news roundup, in audio form, including the cutest raccoons, COP30 takeaways and more on a new study on fluoride and cognitive decline.

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

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

Create Your New Reality

What if I told you that a 7-day meditation retreat could rewire your brain, reprogram your cells, activate natural pain-relief mechanisms, and heal nearly every ailment through the power of thought alone? 

And it’s backed by science! 

“Sign me up,” you say.

But wait, before you invest $2,500 dollars, let me tell you about the amazing new study published in Communications Biology.

“This intensive non-pharmacological mind-body intervention produces broad short-term neural and plasma-based molecular changes associated with enhanced neuroplasticity, metabolic reprogramming, and modulation of functional cell signaling pathways…” says the abstract. 

“Science is the new language of mysticism,” says the maestro of meditation. 

The Paper

This paper reports an ambitious, logistically difficult study of 20 participants before and after they attended a week-long meditation retreat. A raft of blood and brain biomarkers were collected by a team of researchers from UC San Diego, a meditation research conglomerate, a clinical trials consulting firm, and the Institute of Advanced Consciousness Studies.  [registration in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06615531]

The retreat consisted of three mind-body interventions:

• Reconceptualization (25 hours)
• Meditation (33 hours)
• Guided healing rituals (5 hours) conceptualized as “open label placebo”

There was no way to differentiate any unique biological correlate(s) because the “mind-body” components were always delivered together. I will leave aside (for now) the possibility that all three interventions might be placebos, because THERE WAS NO CONTROL GROUP exposed to a different condition, an alternate treatment, or even a waiting list.

Reconceptualization: 

"Daily lectures emphasized the body’s self-healing abilities, the mind’s capacity to shape lived reality, and the healing power of present-centeredness and mystical-type experiences."

Meditation: 

"All meditations were guided, delivered with atmospheric music, and taught Kundalini techniques, which combine conscious meta-awareness and conscious breathing exercises with slow, ascending, focused interoceptive attention on purported energetic centers along the midline..."

Guided healing: 

These "brought 6–8 “healers” around one “healee” in which the former were instructed to practice loving-kindness compassion meditation while focusing attention on their heart, hands, and on the latter’s body."

The study generated a staggering number of data points¹ (~100,000). Collecting and analyzing such a wide array of measures took an extraordinary amount of work, and the authors are to be commended for this. They created a nifty figure of their outcome measures (shown below).

Before offering my own opinion, here's how the authors presented their work to the public:

GROUNDBREAKING RESULTS: THE DISCOVERY THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING 

-- This is from a paid press release. 

The landmark study demonstrates how intensive meditation can trigger the same profound brain activity previously documented only with psychedelic substances – while simultaneously activating measurable biological transformations throughout the entire body. 

In just seven days, without any pharmaceutical intervention, retreat participants achieved what researchers are calling a "biological reset" – rewired neural networks, boosted cellular nerve cell growth, reprogrammed cellular energy systems, and activated natural pain-relief mechanisms. Research data also shows study subjects' "mystical experience" scores – measured via self-reporting – increased significantly in a group of 20 individuals within the seven-day event. 

OK then. Well... My take is different. I suggest some of these claims are not supported by scientific evidence, based on procedural and analytic flaws that occur throughout the manuscript and supplementary materials. 

Claim 1. Enhanced Neuroplasticity (greater neurite outgrowth)

“Participants’ anecdotal reports consistently emphasize radical psychological breakthroughs, and previous meditation studies have reported increased BDNF levels consistent with enhanced neuroplasticity. To investigate whether the intervention affected circulating plasma factors conducive to neuroplasticity, we treated cultured glutamatergic PC12 neuroendocrine cells with NGF (nerve growth factor) and 1% pre- and post-intervention plasma and quantified neurite outgrowth length.”

Result 1. PC12 cells treated with plasma from all 20 participants

PC12 cells are not primarily glutaminergic. PC12 is a cell line derived from a pheochromocytoma (tumor) of the rat adrenal gland. The cells synthesize, store, and release catecholamines. PC12 cells can be induced to differentiate into neuron-like cells. When treated with NGF, they extend neurite-like processes. Subsequent treatment with a variety of agents can elucidate specific cellular mechanisms.

Here, a problematic choice was that plasma from all 20 participants was combined into one soup, which eliminated individual variation and prevented mechanistic insights. Further, plasma samples from novice and advanced meditators (who showed different molecular profiles in other analyses) were pooled.

“Previous studies have characterized meditation as a hypometabolic state and reported enhanced glycolysis in Tibetan Buddhist monks. To test the intervention’s effect on real-time metabolism, we treated BE(2)M17 human neuroblastoma cells with 1% plasma from all participants for 60 min and performed Seahorse XF assays.”

Once again, the claim of “significant” changes in glycolysis is based on comparing two pooled samples (basically n=1 vs. n=1). We can't determine which plasma components (or which individual participants) drove the metabolic changes. *

The authors didn't explain their criteria for choosing 19 proteins involved in glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation (out of hundreds). Was the selection biased in some way? Were important proteins missing?

Claim 3. Modulation of Functional Cell Signaling Pathways (proteomics)

“To investigate the intervention’s effects on the plasma proteome, 7596 proteins were quantified with the SomaScan Assay v4.1.   ...  Volcano plot analysis (Fig. 5A) revealed 21 significantly altered proteins. Cofilin-2 (COF2) and Enoyl-CoA hydratase were significantly upregulated, which suggests enhanced cellular processes related to cytoskeletal regulation and fatty acid metabolism.”

Result 3A. Only 21 out of 7596 proteins were significantly altered (far less than chance)

How did that happen?? The proteomic and metabolomic analyses were exploratory and hypothesis-free, but... with 7,596 proteins tested at p < .05, the expected number of false positives is ~380 proteins (5% of 7,596). Statistical correction for multiple comparisons was inconsistently applied across measures. Even within the Proteomics category, Table 5 says p<.05 but the Methods (p. 14) indicate that FDR correction was applied (false discovery rate).

Result 3B. Tiny Effect Size (Fig. 5A, linear fold change of 0.25 in either direction) 

This means there was only a 25% increase or decrease in these proteins after the retreat, which may be within technical or biological noise levels. Most studies require at least 1.5 fold changes for biological relevance. Elsewhere, for the protein-protein interaction networks in Fig. 5B, they used either p<.05 OR fold change >.5, which is still problematic. Use more stringent criteria instead (FDR < 0.05 AND fold change > 1.5).

Across the entire study, the chance of false positive results is high.

Claim 4. Upregulation of Anti-Inflammatory and Inflammatory Markers (dynamic process of immune modulation)

“To assess whether the intervention elicited inflammatory or anti-inflammatory cascades, we examined a panel of 23 inflammatory and 21 anti-inflammatory proteins (Fig. 5E). We found significant upregulation of inflammatory markers ... Interestingly, we also observed a significantly upregulated anti-inflammatory markers index... Concurrent activation of both pathways suggests a dynamic process of immune modulation, possibly reflecting enhanced cellular turnover or repair mechanisms.”

Result 4A. Upregulation of Inflammatory Markers is Bad (negative effects of the retreat?)

This result is certainly the opposite of what would be expected. Some studies suggest that meditation can reduce inflammatory markers (lower IL-6, TNF-α, CRP, etc.). For an intervention that ostensibly promotes well-being and neuroplasticity, increased inflammation is counterintuitive and potentially harmful. The authors didn't consider alternative explanations, such as: 

• Stress – the intensive retreat format (10-12 hours daily) could be physically/psychologically stressful
• Sleep Deprivation – long meditation hours might reduce sleep and trigger inflammation 
• Dietary Changes – retreat food and eating patterns might differ from normal

Result 4B. Incorrect Statistical Reporting (namely, incorrect effect sizes)

This occurs elsewhere in the paper, but here are three examples. 

Claim 5. Alterations in Functional Brain Activity (related to meditation)

“To characterize the neural signature of the meditative state, participants underwent structural and blood-oxygenation-level-dependent (BOLD) functional MRI scans during rest (5 min) and meditation (15 min). 
...
fMRI data showed that this meditation style functionally disrupts the default mode and salience networks (responsible for self-referential thought and allostatic regulation) and cerebellum-prefrontal predictive processing circuits involved in integrating internal models with external sensory data.”

Result 5A. Explosion of fMRI Features (an excess of networks, regions, and parcellations)

The authors chose redundant and superfluous ways to analyze the data, increasing the risk of false positive results.

Result 5B. Significant Results Caused by Head Motion? (difference between rest and meditation)

During the 5 minute resting state scan, participants were told to “not move, keep eyes open, stay awake, and think about whatever you want, but do not meditate.”  During the 15 minute meditation scan, participants were instructed to “not move, listen to the guided meditation soundtrack, and meditate as suggested by the audio while keeping your eyes open.”

A few things:

• The guided meditation has a bombastic audio soundtrack, while the resting state is silent 
• It would have been beneficial to compare auditory cortex activity for meditation vs. rest
• Breathing exercises during meditation can increase head movement

The authors admit this show-stopping confound of greater head motion during the meditation scan. 

“Participants moved more during meditation than rest, a potential confound revealed by the significant effect of task (meditation, rest) on mean framewise displacement on a two-way (task × time) repeated measures ANOVA (n = 19, F(1,18) = 25.1, p = 0.00009, η²p = 0.58).”

Thus, the functional connectivity differences between meditation and rest could explained by head motion, not by changes in brain activity. Even tiny movements (0.5 mm) create spurious correlations between regions. The effect size above indicates that 58% of variance in movement was explained by meditation vs. rest. The whopping p-value above was reported in the abstract, but in a different context:

“Meditation decreases functional integration in the default mode (p = 0.00009) and salience networks (p = 0.000003).”

Result 5C. Errors in the Framewise Displacement Spreadsheet (supplementary material)

Framewise displacement (FD) is a quality control metric that considers changes in six head motion parameters from one frame to the next. The authors said their results “were robust to excluding BOLD runs with mean framewise displacement > 0.3 mm, indicating they were not due to higher meditation-associated head motion.” I wasn't sure what they meant by "run" (an entire 5 min block? how many blocks tossed? why wasn't a more stringent cutoff used?). 

At any rate, the Supplementary Material lists a temporal string of FD values for all subjects and conditions. Some numbers in the spreadsheet looked like this, '0.5053053200000001 (an extraneous apostrophe) while the pre and post values for the Rest condition were identical, suggesting some kind of copy/paste error (see screenshot below).

Claim 6. Machine Learning Models Discriminated Pre- and Post-Meditation States with High Accuracy

“We applied machine learning to identify the most biologically relevant features across time point (pre/post) and experience level (novice/advanced) datasets. Each dataset was preprocessed (log-transformed and auto-centered) and missing data was imputed to ensure feature scaling, normalization consistency, and data integrity and comparability across modalities. Post-preprocessing, ELISA, metabolomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics datasets were concatenated into a single feature matrix used as input for an eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) classifier chosen for its ability to handle high-dimensional data. ... both models achieved strong discrimination between pre- and post-meditation states (XGBoost AUC = 0.86; Random Forest AUC = 0.90).”

Result 6. Extreme Overfitting (with no way to validate in an independent sample)

Unless I'm mistaken, they dumped ALL the data, including ~36,500 fMRI features, into one giant classifier. This guarantees overfitting. With 100,000 features and 20 samples, the model can memorize the training data. In contrast, 1 feature per 10 samples is often recommended as the minimum for stable ML. There was no validation set, because you can't split 20 samples into training and testing sets. There was no independent cohort, so you can't see if the findings will generalize to another population. The impossibly high AUCs of 0.86-0.90 are meaningless: you could basically use random numbers and get these values. 

Then there were exploratory correlations between self-report scores on the Mystical Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) and the top 14 features per model, which I'll skip for now. [The MEQ is typically used to rate psychedelic experiences, not meditative experiences. The scores here are a clear reflection of this difference.]

Major Weaknesses

1. No control group (can't separate meditation from the passage of time)
2. Massive overfitting (100,000 features, 20 people)
3. Major motion confound
4. Uncorrected multiple comparisons
5. Inconsistent statistics
6. Possible p-hacking and post hoc explanations

Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

The meditation teacher (Dr. Joe Dispenza) is an author on the paper. He declared his employment with Encephalon, Inc., which offers the meditation retreats. However, the $10 million award (gift) to the senior author (Dr. Hemal H. Patel of UCSD) from InnerScience Research Fund isn't fully explained. Dr. Joe owns InnerScience. So the person who ran the week-long retreat for 1,444 attendees in San Diego (see CONSORT flow diagram in Fig. 1D) also funded the research project and co-authored the article. Dr. Patel recently received another $2.45 million from InnerScience.

Next time we'll take a closer look at Dr. Joe Dispenza.

* CORRECTION (November 23 2025): I believe the comments I wrote for Result 2A are wrong, due to my misreading of the authors' quoted text in Claim 2. However, Figs. 4D and 4F (p. 6 of the paper) do show individual data points. The analysis for Claim 2 — Metabolic Reprogramming — did NOT use pooled plasma.

On the other hand, Result 1 — PC12 cells treated with plasma from all 20 participants — DID use pooled plasma, as quoted on p. 15:

"PC12 cells ... were cultured in [media] under standard conditions... On Day 0, differentiation was induced by plating cells ... and culturing them with Opti-MEM medium supplemented with 0.5% FBS, 1% penicillin/streptomycin, 50 ng/mL NGF, and either 1% human plasma pooled from pre- and post-intervention or no plasma (control cells)..."

"PC12 assay plates were prepared with pooled plasma (n = 20) with 2 technical replicates (wells) per treatment (pre-plasma/post-plasma/no treatment)."

A more detailed version of this post appears at PubPeer. A commenter there pointed out that the study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov after it was completed. 

Footnote

¹ To preview, my take is that ~100,000 data points per participant (n=20 or less) were fed into machine learning (ML) models. Oh no.

Reference 

Fig. 9. Potential cortical implementation. Hierarchical predictive coding scheme showing how the three mind-body techniques may synergistically facilitate a more flexible and adaptive predictive system.

in The Neurocritic on 2025-11-14 12:41:00 UTC.

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

The Paris Climate Agreement Is Turning 10—These 5 Charts Show What Progress We’ve Made

The 2015 Paris Agreement forged a path for the world to stave off the worst climate change scenarios. Here’s where we stand 10 years later

in Scientific American on 2025-11-22 13:45:00 UTC.

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

Do Brain-Decoding Devices Threaten People's Privacy?

Ethicists say AI-powered advances will threaten the autonomy of people who use neurotechnology

in Scientific American on 2025-11-22 13:00:00 UTC.

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

Weekend reads: Our cofounder credited in fake citation; ‘Substantial’ undisclosed COIs in psychiatry research; an AI threat to online surveys

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Computing society pulls works for ‘citation falsification’ months after sleuth is convicted of defamation
• Research integrity conference hit with AI-generated abstracts
• AI unreliable in identifying retracted research papers, says study
• Lancet journal retracts COVID-19 metformin paper nearly 2 years after authors request correction
• Springer Nature flags paper with fabricated reference to article (not) written by our cofounder
• COVID-19 paper by scientists at Harvard, Duke gets expression of concern for ‘unreliable’ data
• Exclusive: Reviewer recommended against publishing paper on DNA in COVID vaccines

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):

• “Substantial undisclosed financial COIs were identified among the top 10 earners in high-impact psychiatry journals” in the U.S., finds study.
• “A Researcher Made an AI That Completely Breaks the Online Surveys Scientists Rely On,” evading detection 99.8% of the time. 
• “More than 200 Korean papers retracted over AI use.”
• Elsevier finally retracts the last of five papers a group of researchers in Ireland reported more than a decade ago. See our April story.
• “The potential and limits of scrutiny in medical research”: an editorial by The BMJ’s editor-in-chief. Sleuth Dorothy Bishop responded that the journal’s open data policy is “not a failure” after The BMJ issued an expression of concern for a paper with data that didn’t match the study. 
• “NIH grant cuts have disrupted hundreds of clinical trials, study finds.”
• “The Hidden Crisis of Bad Science,” a podcast episode with James Heathers from our Medical Evidence Project.
• “Researcher accused of grant misuse wins damages as European Anti-Fraud Office removes ‘unlawful’ press release.”
• “Are the Deals to Save Research Funding Good For Research?”
• “Are we ready for a multipolar world of research?” asks Elsevier executive.
• “What Retractions Tell Us About Research Integrity in Mexican Academia.”
• “Scientific fraud: analysis of a growing phenomenon.”
• “In Memoriam: The Sudden Demise of the AMA Journal of Ethics.” A link to our coverage. 
• “Lessons from a long road to a first-author paper.”
• “Systematic reviews on the same topic are common but often fail to meet key methodological standards: a research-on-research study.”
• “The Pressure to Publish Is Challenging the Foundations of Academic Integrity”: Reflections from the Heidelberg Laureate Forum in September. 
• “The domination of scientific publishing in the Global North by major commercial publishers is harmful to science,” say researchers, who ask the scientific community to “re-communalise publishing to serve science not the market.”
• “Impact Metrics on Publisher Platforms: Who Shows What Where?”
• Researchers look into the “Feasibility and Outcomes of a Scientist-Designed Peer Review Model Separating Quality and Impact.”
• “‘In Defense of Francesca Gino’: HLS Professor Lawrence Lessig Uses Podcast to Tell Former HBS Professor’s Side in Tenure Denial Story.”
• “How English-Centric Metrics Distort Global Scientific Productivity.”
• “HHS names authors and releases peer review comments for gender dysphoria report.”
• “Scientific Writing in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.”
• Scholar calls for retraction of 2018 article that includes a paragraph stating historians ‘entirely fabricated’ ancient Greece, citing a news story from the satirical news site The Onion.

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 2025-11-22 11:00:00 UTC.

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

Exclusive: Reviewer recommended against publishing paper on DNA in COVID vaccines

Rolf Marschalek was on vacation when he saw a new paper had been published in the journal Autoimmunity. Marschalek, a biochemist at Goethe University Frankfurt in Germany, was “very upset,” he told Retraction Watch – because he’d peer-reviewed the manuscript and had recommended against publication. 

The authors of the paper claimed to find DNA in mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines above regulators’ suggested amounts. The article appeared online September 6, and within weeks the publisher began an investigation into concerns about its content, as we reported previously.

In Marschalek’s initial review, which he provided to us, he detailed how Qubit fluorometry, one of the methods the authors used to measure the amount of DNA in the vaccine vials, was “not suited” for use when samples contain much higher amounts of RNA than DNA, as is the case with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. He cited a paper he and colleagues had written about methods of quantifying amounts of RNA and DNA in mRNA vaccine vials, including Qubit. 

The authors reported using the RNase A enzyme to break down RNA before measuring the amount of DNA, they wrote in the paper. According to Marschalek, the treatment time was too short to fully eliminate RNA in the samples. 

He also singled out Figure 2 in the paper, which depicts the amount of DNA in a vaccine lot alongside the number of adverse events reported for each lot. The figure “clearly tells the reader that there is no correlation” between side effects and DNA content, Marschalek wrote in the review. 

The authors  — David J. Speicher of the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada; independent researcher Jessica Rose, and Kevin McKernan of the Beverly, Mass.-based company Medicinal Genomics — submitted a revision, which Marschalek reviewed in July. “They didn’t change all the things I recommended,” he told us, and he wasn’t satisfied with the revisions. 

“Thus, the revised version of the authors have strengthened my opinion that the whole paper is ‘a mission’ for the ‘anti-vaxx community’ and not a scientific paper,” he wrote in his review of the revision. He again recommended against publication. 

Only one other time in his career has Marschalek recommended rejecting a paper and seen it published, he said. 

He complained to the editor of Autoimmunity, who told him he could submit a letter to the editor, he said. He did so, but it was not published, because the journal does not publish letters to the editor, a representative of Taylor & Francis, which publishes the journal, told him. However, the publisher began an investigation of the article soon after. Scientific sleuth Kevin Patrick had also contacted the publisher with critiques of the article he had posted on PubPeer. 

In his letter, Marschalek summarized the critiques in his reviews and concluded: 

If the scientific community does not collectively act to counter such pseudoscientific narratives, the proliferation of misinformation threatens to erode public trust and compromise the integrity of biomedical research.

Paolo Casali, editor in chief of Autoimmunity, confirmed Marschalek did review the paper. But initially he said he was “confused” by our request for comment on the decision to publish the paper. Marschalek “did not recommend rejection of the paper,” Casali said. 

According to the associate editor who handled the manuscript, Casali said, Marschalek recommended “major revision,” which the authors performed. The revised manuscript and authors’ letter “were deemed by the AE to have properly addressed the issues” raised by the original reviews, Casali said. 

A representative of Taylor & Francis later got in touch with us and offered to provide a statement about “the current situation.” The statement provided on November 24 did not address our question about the review process. Because a “thorough investigation” including “additional independent expert assessment and review of associated editorial processes” is ongoing, “we cannot comment further about the article at this stage,” it said.

Rose, one of the authors of the paper, declined to discuss with us the methodological critiques in Marschalek’s reviews or letter to the editor. But she did question how we obtained the peer reviews, which she called “confidential documents.” 

She later posted on Substack that our obtaining the reviews would be “a serious ethical breach.” 

Many journals now publish peer reviews online with articles, a practice which falls under the umbrella of “open peer review.” 

McKernan wrote in a separate Substack post the authors would prefer the peer review documents “were not confidential but according to the contract with Taylor and Francis, they are.” He also disputed Marschalek’s statement that the RNase A treatment wasn’t enough to get rid of all the RNA in the vaccine samples. 

McKernan acknowledged some of the vaccine lots with the most DNA did not have the most adverse events reported, but wrote, “nothing can be inferred from this as we don’t know the lot sizes,” which he said could vary by orders of magnitude.  

As we reported in September, McKernan was also an author on a preprint about “synthetic mRNA vaccines and transcriptomic dysregulation” that was withdrawn following critiques from sleuths Elisabeth Bik and Reese Richardson. The manuscript now appears as an “article in press” at the World Journal of Experimental Medicine. According to a PDF of the paper, the peer reviewer’s report gave it a grade of C for quality and a grade of D for novelty, creativity and scientific significance.

Update, Nov. 24, 2025, 8:15 p.m. UTC: This story has been updated to include a statement from Taylor & Francis.

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 2025-11-21 22:43:21 UTC.

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

Attention Authors: Temporary changes to announcement schedule due to end-of-year holidays

Planning a submission to arXiv in the next few weeks? Make sure to check arXiv’s holiday schedule to understand upcoming changes and delays to announcements.

The 2025 end-of-the-year holiday stretch will be temporarily impacting arXiv’s mailings, help desk, and announcement schedule. This temporary change only affects the announcement of new submissions; arXiv servers will otherwise remain in operation, existing papers will still be available to browse, and arXiv will be accepting new submissions during this time.

While the arXiv team logs in from around the globe, our staff primarily takes time off according to the holiday schedule of the United States, which at the end of the year includes many holidays in quick succession, leading to several announcement delays.

Submissions to arXiv are typically made public on arXiv.org and announced by email on a regular schedule. As our team rests, celebrates, and takes time to be with family, there will be some disruption to arXiv’s regular announcements, mailings, and user support.

Please be aware of the delays around the following U.S. holidays and dates. Mailings and public availability of new submission will be deferred accordingly:

• U.S. Thanksgiving Holiday

Thursday, November 27th: No announcement or help desk support. Articles received and accepted at or after 14:00 ET Wednesday, 26 November 2025 and before 14:00 ET Friday, 28 November 2025 will be announced at 20:00 ET Sunday, 30 November 2025.

• Christmas and Winter Break Holiday

Thursday, December 25th: No announcement or help desk support. Articles received and accepted at or after 14:00 ET Wednesday, 24 December 2025 and before 14:00 ET Friday, 26 December 2025 will be announced at 20:00 ET Sunday, 28 December 2025.

Tuesday, December 30th: No announcement or help desk support. Articles received and accepted at or after 14:00 ET Monday, 29 December 2025 and before 14:00 ET Wednesday, 31 December 2025 will be announced at 20:00 ET Wednesday, 31 December 2025.

• New Year’s Holiday

Thursday, January 1st (2026): No announcement or help desk support. Articles received and accepted at or after 14:00 ET Wednesday, 31 December 2025 and before 14:00 ET Friday, 2 January 2026 will be announced at 20:00 ET Sunday, 4 January 2026.

Reminders about these temporary changes to the announcement schedule will be posted to arXiv’s social channels closer to each respective holiday and the affected dates. Follow arXiv on LinkedIn, Twitter/X, Mastodon, or Bluesky for future reminders and updates.

in arXiv.org blog on 2025-11-21 21:27:58 UTC.

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

What Blind Cave Fish and Venomous Snails Can Teach Us about Diabetes

Studies of insulin, blood sugar and diabetes in other animals such as fish and dogs have already saved millions of lives and could lead to new treatments for type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

in Scientific American on 2025-11-21 20:45:00 UTC.

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

Iran's Capital Has Run Out of Water, Forcing It to Move

The decision to move Iran’s capital is partly driven by climate change, but experts say decades of human error and action are also to blame

in Scientific American on 2025-11-21 19:50:00 UTC.

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

COVID-19 paper by scientists at Harvard, Duke gets expression of concern for ‘unreliable’ data

A Science journal has issued an expression of concern over questions about the data in a paper reporting the discovery of an antibody that neutralized all COVID-19 variants in mice.

The article appeared in Science Immunology in August 2022 and has been cited 36 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. The study lists 30 coauthors from Boston Children’s Hospital and Duke University. An article by Boston Children’s published at the time said the findings could “contribute to new vaccine strategies.” 

According to the expression of concern, published November 21, the authors informed the journal of “potential data reliability concerns” with two of the figures. The journal is in the process of determining an “appropriate course of action,” the notice continues. 

The authors did not respond to our questions about the nature of the data concerns. 

Matthew Wright, deputy press director at AAAS, which publishes the journal, told Retraction Watch one of the authors contacted Science Immunology on behalf of the team of five corresponding authors. The authors used the word “unreliable” to describe the data, Wright said.

“While we await the results of an ongoing institutional investigation, we are issuing an [editorial expression of concern] to alert readers of these issues,” Wright said. 

Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School sent us a joint statement: 

Any concerns brought to our attention are reviewed thoroughly in accordance with institutional policies and all applicable regulations. Because this matter is under active scientific review by the authors and editorial review by the journal, we are not able to comment on specific data questions or the nature of any concerns beyond what is reflected in the journal’s notice.

Wright confirmed the expression of concern was a first for the journal, which has published about 1,300 articles since it began in 2016. 

The research was conducted in the lab of geneticist Frederick Alt of Boston Children’s and Harvard. Other corresponding authors are Tom Kirchhausen and Bing Chen, who share Alt’s affiliations, and Barton Haynes of Duke, whose lab helped vet the antibodies, according to the press release. 

First author Sai Luo was a Ph.D. student in Alt’s lab at the time the research was conducted, according to Alt’s laboratory page, which also indicates Luo is currently an assistant professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing.

Alt has one retraction, for a 2012 study in Nature whose results could not be reproduced. Alt was one of 18 authors on that work. Sixteen papers coauthored by Alt have been flagged on PubPeer, many for image issues. 

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 2025-11-21 19:12:59 UTC.

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

Hurricane Melissa’s 252-mph Gust Sets New Wind Record

Hurricane Melissa raged as a Category 5 storm in the Caribbean last month—and now scientists have confirmed that its strongest gusts neared record speeds

in Scientific American on 2025-11-21 18:25:00 UTC.

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

Meet 5 scientists reshaping the way we understand the world

in Science News: Science & Society on 2025-11-21 18:00:00 UTC.

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

Autism scientists push back on CDC’s inaccurate vaccine claims

in The Transmitter on 2025-11-21 17:35:38 UTC.

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

CDC to End Monkey Research Program

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s decision to end its monkey research program will affect studies involving some 200 macaques, and the fate of the animals is unclear

in Scientific American on 2025-11-21 17:30:00 UTC.

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

Science has made America great. Is that era over?

in Science News: Science & Society on 2025-11-21 17:00:00 UTC.

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

Attention authors: Upcoming policy change to non-English language paper submissions

Beginning February 1, 2026, arXiv will require that all submissions have a full English-language version, either as the original language or as an included translation. Currently, arXiv accepts non-English paper submissions, as long as they include an abstract in English. arXiv is a global community resource, and we will continue to accept non-English submissions — the new policy  expands the translation requirements to both the abstract and the full paper for non-English submissions.

We are updating this policy to help with transparency and fairness in moderation and to expand the reach of papers written in languages other than English. The new policy expands the reach of arXiv papers to more readers by providing the paper in the original language while also providing the full content of the paper in English, rather than only including an English-language abstract. Having a full English translation will also aid the moderators in their screening of papers, as arXiv does not have moderators fluent in every language that is submitted to arXiv. 

Our goal with this policy change is not to discourage authors, but to encourage a bilingual or multilingual model for papers that will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of arXiv moderation, as well as broaden the availability of papers to a global readership. We realize that many arXiv submitters may not have access to professional translation services; non-English paper versions that use automated translation are acceptable, as long as their content is faithful to the original paper. 

This policy change will not go into effect until February 1, 2026. Until then, non-English papers will still be assessed under the current policy which requires only an English abstract.

arXiv will provide detailed guidelines around this policy change by January 1, 2026, to give authors the tools and the time they need to prepare their papers in advance of the implementation of this policy change. This guidance will include instructions on how to format your non-English language paper under the updated policy, what is expected from the author with respect to this new policy and the arXiv code of conduct, as well as updated help and FAQ pages.

in arXiv.org blog on 2025-11-21 16:32:47 UTC.

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

Springer Nature flags paper with fabricated reference to article (not) written by our cofounder

Update, Nov. 24, 2025, 5:48 p.m. UTC: This story was updated to add comment from Mohammad Abdollahi, the editor-in-chief of the journal and last author of the paper.

Tips we get about papers and books citing fake references have skyrocketed this year, tracking closely with the rise of ChatGPT and other generative large language models. One in particular hit close to home: A paper containing a reference to an article by our cofounder Ivan Oransky that he did not write.

The paper with the nonexistent reference, published November 13 in DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, criticizes platforms for post-publication peer review — and PubPeer specifically — as being vulnerable to “misuse” and “hyper-skepticism.” Five of the paper’s 17 references do not appear to exist, three others have incorrect DOIs or links, and one has been retracted. 

One of the fabricated references credits our cofounder Ivan Oransky with a nonexistent article, “A new kind of watchdog is shaking up research,” purportedly published in Nature in 2019. 

Other references include nonexistent articles credited to sleuth Elisabeth Bik, molecular biologist and sleuth David Vaux – a member of the board of directors of The Center for Scientific Integrity, our parent nonprofit – and Stanford’s John Ioannidis. The DOI provided for Vaux’s supposed article on scientific misconduct is actually an interview with biochemist Peter Macheroux. The DOI attributed to Ioannidis leads to a study of steroid-induced bone death in rabbit hips.

Maria Hodges, the publishing director at Springer Nature, which hosts the journal, told us the matter was “a complex case and set of circumstances involving a journal that is owned by an external party.” The publisher was “working to clarify a number of issues relating both to the references and the editorial handling of the case,” Hodges added.

The article quickly drew attention as well as dozens of comments on, perhaps unsurprisingly, PubPeer. (Disclosure: Oransky is a volunteer member of the board of directors of the PubPeer Foundation.) Many comments note issues with the references, while others pointed out repetitive language and “essentially identical” paragraph structure.

On November 19, the journal, published by Springer on behalf of the Tehran University of Medical Sciences in Iran, put the following editor’s note on the article: “The Editor-in-Chief has become of aware [sic] of concerns with this article. Action will be taken as appropriate following further investigation and discussion with the relevant stakeholders.” 

The editor-in-chief of the journal is Mohammad Abdollahi, who is also the last author on the paper. Abdollahi has previously served as a council member for the Committee on Publication Ethics, according to COPE’s alumni website, and has 11 retractions. Abdollahi has not responded to our request for comment on the fake references. 

Abdollahi responded to our request for comment after we published our article. He told us as the editor-in-chief, he has “been really blind to the submission process” and said the journal is in the process of investigating what happened. “Some mistakes have been made during the usual article processing. So we are trying to find out how it happened and why,” he told us.

Abdollahi also said the journal uses two different software programs to detect plagiarism and AI-generated content, and that both “have been negative for this article.” Two authors who were last to edit the paper “have just checked CHATGPT to make sure there are no problems or mistakes in the references, but, as we see, it has not been constructive and has caused issues,” he said.

One of the references links to a paper that was retracted this February from Life Sciences for including an incorrect primer sequence and data overlap with other papers. Seyed Mojtaba Daghighi and Abdollahi are common authors on the retracted study and the DARU paper. 

The authors write in the acknowledgements section they used an AI tool to “assist in partial language editing,” but say they reviewed the content before it was published.

This is not the first time the Retraction Watch team has been cited in a fake reference. In a research integrity report commissioned by the Australian government last year, Oransky and cofounder Adam Marcus were credited with cowriting a chapter in a book with which they had no involvement. 

The authors write in their article that post-publication peer review platforms like PubPeer can “blur the line between constructive feedback and destructive attack.”

Abdollahi has 86 papers flagged on PubPeer. First author Aristidis Tsatsakis has 18 articles with comments on the platform. Coauthor Michael Aschner, a professor of molecular pharmacology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, New York, also has many flagged papers on PubPeer, as does coauthor Anca Oana Docea, an associate professor of toxicology at the University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova in Romania. 

Tsatsakis responded to our request for comment with one word: “Unsubscribe.” 

Tsatsakis, who lists affiliations in Greece, Ecuador and Russia, has one retraction, of the paper “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?” published in Toxicology Reports. Tsatsakis was the editor-in-chief of the journal when the article was published. Andrey A. Svistunov, vice rector at I. M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, was a coauthor on the retracted article as well as the new article critiquing PubPeer.

Study coauthor José L. Domingo, professor of toxicology and environmental health at the Universitat Rovira i Virgili in Spain, previously made headlines after he resigned as editor-in-chief of Food and Chemical Toxicology following an editorial he wrote calling for papers “on the potential toxic effects of COVID-19 vaccines.” 

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 2025-11-21 15:43:49 UTC.

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

Building a better skin barrier

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-11-21 14:30:00 UTC.

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

The ingenuity of white oval squid camouflage brought to light

in OIST Japan on 2025-11-21 12:00:00 UTC.

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

Illegal Wildlife Trade Tied to Drugs, Arms, and Human Trafficking

Criminals around the world are increasingly mixing trade in illegal animal parts with trafficking of arms, humans, and more—even exchanging wildlife for drugs

in Scientific American on 2025-11-21 12:00:00 UTC.

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

Alien Comets Swarm around Other Stars

Comets don’t just orbit our sun. “Exocomets” are common around other stars in the galaxy, too

in Scientific American on 2025-11-21 11:45:00 UTC.

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

Michael Benson’s Nanocosmos Explores Natural Design through Scanning Electron Microscopy

Artist Michael Benson reveals the hidden beauty of snowflakes, radiolarians and lunar rocks through stunning electron microscope images in his new book, Nanocosmos.

in Scientific American on 2025-11-21 11:00:00 UTC.

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

Partisanship Is Poisoning Public Health

States and universities must step up to preserve data, and Congress must act to preserve our nation’s health

in Scientific American on 2025-11-21 08:00:00 UTC.

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

Schneider Shorts 21.11.2025 – New metal-organic framework for the delivery of curcumin

in For Better Science on 2025-11-21 06:00:00 UTC.

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

Episode 320 - Cristian Lasagna-Reeves, PhD

On November 20, 2025 we met with Dr. Cristian Lasagna-Reeves to talk about tau protein, its normal function, and what is known about how it aggregates to form the tangles seen in a variety of neurodegenerative brain conditions. We discussed the problem of determining whether the aggregates were causes or effects of the disease process, and whether reducing expression of tau might be an effective treatment.

Guest:

Cristian Lasagna-Reeves, Associate Professor, Dept. of Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine

Participating:

George Perry, Department of Neuroscience, Developmental and Regenerative Biology, UT San Antonio

Hyoung-gon Lee, Department of Neuroscience, Developmental and Regenerative Biology, UT San Antonio

Host:

Charles Wilson, Department of Neuroscience, Developmental and Regenerative Biology, UT San Antonio

Thanks to Jim Tepper for original music

in Neuroscientists talk shop on 2025-11-20 23:00:00 UTC.