Planet Neuroscientists

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

There’s a New Way to Count Prime Numbers

in WIRED Science on 2025-01-19 12:00:00 UTC.

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

Why Dumping Seawater on Blazes Isn’t the Answer to California’s Wildfire Problem

in WIRED Science on 2025-01-18 13:00:00 UTC.

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

Influencers Are Hawking Wellness Products in Response to the LA Fires

in WIRED Science on 2025-01-18 12:00:00 UTC.

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

Weekend reads: Retraction counts by country; ‘zombie facts;’ false allegations fell president

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• ‘Still angry’: Chemist finds his name on a study he didn’t write
• Sage slaps more than 100 papers from one journal with expressions of concern
• Pair of management papers retracted for similarities to earlier work
• Who you calling ‘bignose’? Shark paper corrected after species mix-up

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 450. There are more than 50,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 300 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List — or our list of nearly 100 papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?

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

• Which countries have the highest rates of retractions? Two different answers from two different studies.
• When a “lie is allowed to fester and. . . inform public thinking”: ‘Zombie facts’ with our Ivan Oransky.
• How the president of a German university “Fell Due to False Plagiarism Allegations.”
• “Unaffiliated researcher” sections in journals: “How would we feel about a world where everyone can participate in the formal enterprise of research?”
• “Researchers have a responsibility to publish,” says an engineering academic. 
• “Data sleuths’ work is thankless,” argue our Ivan Oransky and Indiana’s David Allison. “They must get credit for retractions.”
• Springer Nature offers to sell authors “AI Summaries of Their Own Work.”
• South Korean first lady “plagiarised master’s thesis, university concludes.”
• A study looks at “[r]eproducibility and replicability of qualitative research.”
• “Publishers need more help to combat malicious academic networks.”
• Researchers say “it may be beneficial to consider using non-monetary incentives, such as gamification, to promote OA [open access] publishing.”
• Springer Nature develops in-house AI tool to “automate some editorial quality checks.’”
• “Harsh penalties await scientific research fraudsters,” says the Supreme People’s Court of China.
• Defining “safe zones” for China-US research collaboration amid worsening relations. 
• Sociologist who explained the rise of right-wing populism in Germany loses professorship for plagiarism. 
• “Can Academic Fraud Be Stopped?” An updated episode of Freakonomics featuring our Ivan Oransky. 
• Researchers look at “[p]eer reviewers’ conflicts of interest in biomedical research.”
• Journal issues several expressions of concern for Colombia center’s animal rights violations. Our 2023 story on the center.
• Researchers propose methods to analyze “the scientific integrity of the collected work” of authors, featuring the RW Database. 
• “Retractions caused by honest mistakes are extremely stressful, say researchers.”
• Researchers “examine India’s status in retraction trends.”
• “Dying woman and ethical doubts spark probe into cannabis cancer ‘cure.’”
• “Fake scientific papers made with AI used names of 3 Japan researchers.”
• “Teens Are Doing AI Research Now. Is That a Good Thing?”
• “There’s a fine line between trusting scientific literature and relying too much on it.”

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, 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 2025-01-18 11:00:00 UTC.

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

Cigarettes with less nicotine may help some smokers quit

in Science News on 2025-01-17 22:25:11 UTC.

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

Survivors of the LA fires will face a complex blend of mental health challenges

in Science News on 2025-01-17 21:24:10 UTC.

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

Who you calling ‘bignose’? Shark paper corrected after species mix-up

A case of mistaken identity among sharks has led to a correction that changed, among other content, an article’s title, its abstract and the discussion section. 

The paper, published in February 2024 in Environmental Biology of Fishes, was originally titled “Expanded vertical niche for two species of pelagic sharks: depth range extension for the dusky shark Carcharhinus obscurus and novel twilight zone occurrence by the silky shark Carcharhinus falciformi.” 

But after re-examining the data, the authors concluded: “the dusky shark from the published paper was misidentified, and instead, it is most likely a bignose shark,” according to an October 2024 correction to the article.

The title is now “Novel deep-sea observations reveal twilight zone occurrence for two species of pelagic sharks: the bignose shark Carcharhinus altimus and the silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis.” 

The changes to the title amend the name of the shark and revoke the range extension for the dusky shark. The updated species ID also required changes in the abstract, paragraphs in the introduction, results, and discussion, a figure caption, and references. The original text, including its original title, is no longer available online. 

The article has been cited twice, once under each version of the title. The journal is indexed in Clarivate’s Web of Science. 

Olivia Dixon, the research coordinator at Beneath the Waves and corresponding author of the study, did not respond to our request for comment. 

Margaret Docker, a professor at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada, was editor-in-chief at the time of the correction. In an email to Retraction Watch, she justified the issuing of a correction rather than a retraction. 

“[E]ven though the original identification of a dusky shark led to an erroneous depth range extension for this species,” Docker said, “in consultation with the authors and Advisory Editor, we felt that enough of the original study was still valid that correcting the misidentification was more appropriate than retracting the whole paper.”

Springer Nature’s policy on retractions and corrections addresses cases of scientific misconduct, but not cases of mistaken species identification. 

In most of the corrections, “the bulk of these sections were unchanged,” Docker said, and the second species, the silky shark, “was not affected at all.” 

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, 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 2025-01-17 18:25:01 UTC.

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

What nuclear weapons experts will watch for under Trump 

in Science News on 2025-01-17 17:39:17 UTC.

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

WiNUK Wrapped 2024: A Year in Review

Contents:

1 - We grew our volunteer team!

2 - Our global impact increased

3 - 2024 - The year of WiNUK in-person events

4 - We hosted and won awards!

5 - We began exciting collaborations

6 - We hosted seven virtual events

7 - Our community rapidly grew on social media

8 - Our blog took off!

9 - What’s next?

Hello, readers! 

2024 has been a monumental year for Women in Neuroscience UK (WiNUK), marked by huge growth, many firsts and some fantastic new partnerships. If you’re new to who we are and what we do, in a nutshell WiNUK tackles gender inequalities in neuroscience through a multi-platform approach, developing events, blogs, social media, and newsletters, to inspire, connect and advocate for a world of inclusive neuroscience. Let's take some time to reflect on our highlights from 2024:

1. We grew our volunteer team!

Over the past 12 months, we have more than doubled our volunteer team size, welcoming over 40 new volunteers to WiNUK across our sub-teams (alongside many more guest writers for the blog too!). Check out our impressive team on Our Team page here.

We created four brand new sub-teams to continue our organisation's sustainable growth: In-Person Events, Human Resources, Partnerships and Finance. We even established ourselves as a company limited by guarantee - exciting!

1. Our Global Impact Increased

WiNUK was founded in the UK, but that doesn't stop us engaging with neuroscientists all over the world - you’re following us on social media from six continents! We've loved seeing you signing up to our events, following our social media posts and reading our blog articles from 33 countries!

Across platforms, we estimate a total of 5000-6000 followers, doubling our community compared to the previous year. WiNUK saw significant growth on social media, surpassing 1,000 followers on each major social media platform (excluding TikTok), demonstrating increased community interest and engagement. Thanks to our amazing expanding community, WiNUK has the pleasure of ending 2024 celebrating significant community growth. 

Each month we brought our subscribers our WiNUK newsletter, updating you with exclusive content, updates and sneak peeks! 323 more of you joined our mailing list this year (there are now nearly 700 of you!), to hear about our monthly highlights across WiNUK platforms. If you’re not yet signed up, register for our mailing list at the bottom of our website. 

We also welcomed 70% more WiNUK website members in 2024! You can register to join our website at the top right of our website, to interact with our blogs and receive email updates when new articles are released.

1. 2024 - The Year of WiNUK In-Person Events!

We were very busy with in-person events this year! With 4 conference stalls and 6 in-person workshops, from an LGBTQ+ research showcase to the inaugural WiNUK awards ceremony, there was plenty to attend!

For our first ever in-person event, our founder, Lizzie English, held an informative and engaging session at the ‘Alzheimer’s Research UK (ARUK) Annual Conference’ in Liverpool, with 200 attendees learning more about statistics, panelists’ experiences and strategies to tackle the gender gaps in dementia research. Read more about our experience at ARUK 2024 here. It was a well-attended session and 100% of our WiNUK survey respondents found the session very interesting, enjoyable and useful! Attendees thought it was “great that ARUK [was] providing space for these important topics”, that for someone starting out in their career it was especially “valuable to hear panel experiences” and that the “statistics shown…provide[d] concrete evidence of the issue” which made them want to be “more outspoken about gender equity and be[come] an ally”. The only request was to make the session longer! We also featured an exhibition stall to engage with attendees and advertise our organisation.

In our mission to reach neuroscientists across the UK, we attended ‘ARUK ECR Days’ in Cambridge and in Plymouth. At the South West ECR Day, we found that 35% of attendees were unaware of the gender bias in dementia research workplaces, with the event prompting reflection for attendees about how subtle biases can persist. Attendees liked Lizzie’s suggestions of “simple actions towards inclusive workplaces” which were “inclusive of all genders while addressing women’s issues – it foster[ed] solidarity”.

At our conference stalls, in Cambridge, Liverpool and Harrogate, we distributed our brand new flyers and merchandise, including stickers and badges! We have loved seeing your reactions and social media posts about these. Across the year, we conducted trial research surveys at our conference stalls and talks to investigate your experiences of sexism and gender bias. Thanks for helping us to understand your experiences and allowing us to take inspiration from these to tailor WiNUK’s strategies. 

In London we supported the UCL Faculty of Brain Sciences ‘LGBTQ+ Research Showcase’, recommending Dr Lara Montefiori and Monique Joy Raranga for the valuable interactive panel, exploring gender and queer identity as neuroscientists. It was a pleasure to establish a collaboration with Dr Fábio Ribeiro Rodrigues and the UCL Faculty of Brain Sciences LGBTQ+ Committee, to provide more tailored support for LGBTQ+ members of our community and beyond, to celebrate intersectional diversity, and facilitate greater changes towards inclusion.

Tracy Chong and Riya Verma, two of our incredible volunteers, spoke at ‘Healthcare Heroes’ at King’s College London with The Elephant Group, a social mobility charity with a mission to ensure academically capable young people from non-selective state schools understand their potential to attend the UK’s leading universities. Student feedback was overwhelmingly positive, with over 92% of survey respondents finding the session interesting and enjoyable, and 100% of respondents finding the session useful: “I am very grateful they got involved because the information was very useful to me and it gave me more motivation to work towards my goals”.

1. We Hosted and Won Awards!

It was an absolute pleasure to host our own awards ceremony this year too - the inaugural ‘Women in Neuroscience UK Awards’ at the University of Cambridge in November. We wanted to honour the unsung heroes in neuroscience across various categories, including mentoring, neuroscience communication and inclusive workplaces! It was fantastic to celebrate our incredible volunteers too, and a special mention to our keynote speaker, Dr Flaminia Ronca! The event was well-attended in-person and virtually, with more than 100 of you joining in. Feedback included that it was a “great opportunity to celebrate many amazing women in neuroscience” with a “great sense of community” and a “positive and supportive atmosphere”. Keep your eyes peeled for blog pieces on our award winners and maybe even WiNUK Awards 2025?!

Our founder, Lizzie English, was recently awarded the Diana Award for her social activism work as a young person, creating Women in Neuroscience UK. Congratulations, Lizzie!

Lizzie and Women in Neuroscience UK were also nominated for the second year running for the UK DRI Engagement Prize.

1. We Began Exciting Collaborations

This year we have established some important partnerships and sponsorships, helping us to support our organisation’s developments to broaden and deepen our inclusive impacts in the field of neuroscience. 

Without our new sponsors, we could never have hosted our incredibly successful (and first ever!) Awards Event - a huge thank you to Wellcome Trust, ARUK, UKDRI, BNA, IBRO, Scientifica and the University of Cambridge for supporting this event.

We collaborate with all types of organisations, big and small, across a number of sectors - if you have a commitment to empowering women in neuroscience to reach new heights, then you’re in the right place.

What do WiNUK look for in their partners?

• You or your organisation value diversity and inclusion.

• You or your organisation would like to value diversity and inclusion more.

• You want women to be more fairly treated and represented, in neuroscience workplaces and neuroscience research.

• You want to become part of a movement for positive change.

• You want to make a real impact in tackling gender inequalities in neuroscience.

• You see the value collaboration can have in catalysing impact.

• You want your support to be felt and to be showcased.

• You would like to take advantage of tailored benefits to suit your organisation’s goals.

  
  

How might you benefit?

• Increase your brand visibility to diverse clients and talented potential candidates.

• Showcase your commitment to diversity, equality and inclusion.

• Progress towards your companies' mission statements, values and objectives to champion diversity, address inequalities, and support an inclusive workforce.

  
  

How can you become a partner?

1. Awards sponsorship

   1. Get involved in WiNUK Awards 2025 to uplift female neuroscientists and the broader neuroscience community. Feature your logo on our award materials, attend the event and present the award for your sponsored category!

2. Event sponsorship

   1. Collaborate with WiNUK on a new or existing event: improving workplace understanding on sexism and gender bias for cultural change, or connecting diverse neuroscientists through careers/networking events. You can offer to provide a talk, attend our events, or provide a venue for us. 

3. Advertising

   1. Bring your ideas and opportunities to our audience via paid partnerships highlighting your products/services/jobs in the WiNUK newsletter, blog, social media, or events.

4. Founding Partnership

   1. Incorporating all of the above and more, becoming a Founding Partner will enable you to collaborate with WiNUK on multiple fronts, allowing you to make the most impact, whilst supporting the long-term sustainability of WiNUK.

We understand that each organisation has unique goals and aims when it comes to supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion in neuroscience. Therefore, our annual WiNUK Founding Partner package is flexible, meaning you can choose the level of collaboration and commitment that is right for you. Choose to Support, Inspire, Elevate or Transform WiNUK and the work we do!

Our Partnerships Team can consult on the benefits of each partnership tier, and help you to choose the most effective collaboration based on your goals and needs. For more information, please email partner.womeninneuroscience.uk@gmail.com to enquire.

Let’s see what else WiNUK got up to across our different platforms…

1. We Hosted Seven Virtual Events

We continued our 2023 virtual event momentum into 2024, hosting 7 events, with a total of 331 sign-ups! We aimed to provide networking opportunities and share careers advice, as well as neuroscience knowledge.

With free-to-access virtual events, we attracted a global and diverse audience, from countries including the UK, USA, India and across Europe. Our inclusivity ensured that participants of all career stages could access our events, from undergraduates to industry scientists and lecturers!

In February, April and June, we hosted our ‘Neural Networking’ event series, exploring inspirational career journeys! With over 30 members of our community, we discussed our motivations to enter the field of neuroscience and shared visions for the future of our scientific communities. Check out what you thought of these sessions in our testimonials!

In May, we held a ‘Synaptic Synergy Study Session’ to create a supportive space to keep each other accountable and motivated whilst studying for exams or working towards deadlines. We made some meaningful connections with our community and shared study strategies and challenges and strategies during the study breaks!

A session on NeuroAI ‘Future Neuro: Women in AI, tech and computation’ was held in July, where we heard from Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit’s Clementine Domine and Computational Psychiatrist PhD Researcher, Ludmila Kucikova. They were fascinating, delving into their groundbreaking work on deep learning theory, artificial neural networks and machine learning in neuroscience research.

In August, we hosted the insightful session, ‘Female Leadership: Being Successful While Being Yourself’, featuring a talk by Stephanie Grönke. The discussion delved into tackling imposter syndrome, harnessing personal strengths, and building confidence in professional spaces.. Attendees found the event to be “thought-provoking, empowering, inspiring [and] reflective”, with the most memorable part being the emphasis on “the importance of setting yourself up in an environment that values you”.

Your favourite event was October's ‘Psychedelics and the Brain’, with 87 of you signing up! You heard from Dr Danielle Kurtin, who investigates the neural underpinnings of substance (mis)use/dependence; Ms. Susan Guner, a holistic psychotherapist and host of the Psychedelics Conversations podcast, who shared insights into how psychedelics are helping those suffering from illnesses; and Professor Emma Robinson, Professor of Psychopharmacology who explored her research on affective biases and emotional behavior in rodents using psychedelic drugs. You actively participated in the chat and shared resources with each other (which was great to see). You shared feedback relating to the “thought-provoking” and “empowering” nature of the event. 

We have lots more exciting events coming up this year! 

1. Our Community Rapidly Grew on Social Media

From volunteer recruitment posts, to a ‘day in the life’, to gender gaps in research, we shared a lot with you on social media in 2024! You particularly enjoyed trending themes, such as artificial intelligence in neuroscience, and sex differences in pain, which captured over 50% of non-follower engagement. Together, we celebrated 13 awareness days throughout the year, including International Women’s Day and the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, amplifying WiNUK’s visibility by aligning with our core community values. Brain Awareness Week was particularly busy for us this year, with daily videos, graphics and blog posts sharing neuroscience knowledge.

Most of our social media community can be found on LinkedIn, with more than 2.4k followers in 2024, growing from 1.6k the previous year. With 64% of our LinkedIn views coming from mobile devices, we made sure to keep our content accessible and scroll-friendly for professionals on-the-go, making over 140,000 impressions! 

In 2024, we uploaded 158 posts and 20 reels to Instagram and turned engagement into growth, nearly doubling our 2023 follower count! Our “We are recruiting” posts stole the spotlight, gaining over 6,000 views. You also enjoyed our ongoing “Present Your Lab Technique series”, which showcased 3 projects this year. Your favourite three posts were 'Tackling gender gaps in dementia research with WiNUK', 'Day in the life of a 2nd year PhD student', and 'Pain Sex Differences'! 

In 2024 we went TikTok viral! We increased our followers by 1827%, posting 31 times and gaining lots of new viewers. You particularly liked our 'Work-life balance?', 'Day in the life of an early career researcher' and ‘Meet the WiNUK team’ posts, with combined views of over 9000. Around 80% of our views were from new viewers - welcome to the WiNUK community! Our “Day in the Life” ongoing series offers viewers insights into neuroscience research and careers which we hope encourages and inspires our younger viewers.

Posts celebrating events like International Day of Women and Girls in Science and ARUK24 drove the highest engagement on X this year, with the power of conversation reflected by the engagement from audiences across over 15 countries. It is amazing for everyone at WiNUK to see how our social media platforms continue to foster global networking and enable us to connect and inspire a diverse and growing community. 

1. Our Blog Took Off!

Our blogs have expanded in quantity and engagement again this year, bringing you 40 fascinating new articles with 3.8k reads (a 63% increase on last year!). 180 more of you subscribed at the top right of our website, to be the first to hear about brand new blog articles.

We welcomed lots of new guest writers to our blog channel - we now number over 70 people! We took on lots of important topics, including impostor syndrome, sex and gender disparities in neuroscience and the ethics surrounding the use of HeLa cells.

2024 saw the launch of another successful blog series, ‘Bridging the Gap’, in which we interview women in neuroscience to discuss the gaps and the health inequalities in different areas of the field, as well as the exciting new research that is attempting to ‘bridge’ these gaps! So far, we have covered multiple sclerosis, pain in neurodiverse and gender diverse young people and ADHD. If you would like to feature your research/work, please get in touch.

We also continued our ‘Spotlight On’ series, interviewing a range of neuroscientists. We chatted to a neurobiologist in industry, a researcher who brings physics to neuroscience, a lecturer who researches ADHD in women and girls and a postdoctoral research fellow who studies brain tumours.

Of our three blog sections, you loved ‘Reality’ the most, viewing our articles 2,311 times! You heard from lots of fascinating neuroscientists in our interview series and received tips and tricks from our writers. Our most read ‘Reality’ article was Naomi Thorne’s ‘Finding Funding: How to fund a conference trip’.

Our most popular ‘Research’ article, and our most read blog of 2024 overall, was Neave Smith’s ‘Does it hurt more being a woman? Understanding Sex Differences in Pain Perception’, with 444 reads.

Finally, our most read ‘Review’ article was last year’s WiNUK Wrapped, where we summarised all of our highlights from 2023.

In the last 6 months of 2024, some different articles came out on top: for ‘Reality’ Rachel McKeown’s ‘Spotlight On’ with Eva Kreysing and for ‘Review’ a book review of ‘Time Shelter’ by Rebecca Pope (hey, that’s me!).

It has been fantastic to lead and work with such an amazing group of writers and editors, and to see our incredible growth over the past year! Special thanks goes to you all for working so hard, and to our illustrator Lilly Green, who creates all of our beautiful blog graphics.

If you’re keen to develop your science writing skills this year, whether you have your own idea for a blog or would prefer to be inspired by our editors’ prompts, head to our Writer’s Guide, or get in touch with us via email at blog.womeninneuroscience.uk@gmail.com, to find out more.

1. What’s next?

Beyond these metrics, we are so proud of the meaningful connections and important conversations we’ve sparked throughout the year. None of this would be possible without you and our fantastic volunteers. As we look to 2025, we are excited to continue growing our community to inspire and engage current and/or aspiring female neuroscientists worldwide. Here’s to an even more successful 2025 and continuing to build a brighter and more equitable scientific field!

Join us in 2025 for more inspiring neuroscience and careers advice, networking connections, and advocacy for inclusive science communities for all. 

We’ve got lots more for you in the coming year, so stay tuned to our social media and mailing list! But if you can’t wait for that, here’s a sneak peek…

To all our WiNUK supporters, I wish you a happy and healthy 2025, filled with many successes!

From Rebecca Pope

Blog Coordinator & Editor

This post was written by Rebecca Pope and edited by Lizzie English, with graphics produced by Lizzie English and Rebecca Pope. If you enjoyed this article, be the first to be notified about new posts by signing up to become a WiNUK member (top right of this page)! Interested in writing for WiNUK yourself? Contact us through the blog page and the editors will be in touch.

in Women in Neuroscience UK on 2025-01-17 14:00:16 UTC.

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

Hula-hooping robots reveal the physics behind keeping rings aloft

in Science News on 2025-01-17 14:00:00 UTC.

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

Can You Get Rich Using a Raspberry Pi to Mine Cryptocurrency?

in WIRED Science on 2025-01-17 14:00:00 UTC.

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

See 6 Planets Align on January 21

in WIRED Science on 2025-01-17 12:00:00 UTC.

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

Schneider Shorts 17.01.2025 – The source of these allegations has a dubious reputation

in For Better Science on 2025-01-17 06:00:00 UTC.

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

An Entire Book Was Written in DNA—and You Can Buy It for $60

in WIRED Science on 2025-01-16 22:51:48 UTC.

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

Early human ancestors didn’t regularly eat meat

in Science News on 2025-01-16 19:00:00 UTC.

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

Megadroughts are on the rise worldwide

in Science News on 2025-01-16 18:57:02 UTC.

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

Check Out These Extraordinary New Images of Mercury

in WIRED Science on 2025-01-16 16:27:26 UTC.

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

Attention Authors: Temporary change to announcement schedule due to MLK Jr. Holiday

Attention Authors: Temporary change to announcement schedule due to MLK Jr. Holiday

This coming Monday, January 20, 2025, arXiv staff will be observing Martin Luther King Jr. Day. This holiday will temporarily affect arXiv’s mailings, help desk, and announcement schedule.

Submissions to arXiv are typically made public on arXiv.org and announced by email on a regular schedule.

As our team celebrates MLK Day 2025, announcements will be slightly deferred. The announcement of new submissions is the only change related to this holiday. arXiv servers will otherwise remain in operation, existing papers will be available to browse, and arXiv will continue to accept submissions.

As you plan your submissions to arXiv this week, please be aware of the following changes:

Monday, January 20, 2025. No announcement or help desk support. Articles received and accepted at or after 14:00ET Friday, January 17, 2025, and before 14:00 ET Tuesday, January 21, 2025, will be announced on Tuesday, January 21, 2025.

To stay up to date on arXiv news and changes to the announcement schedule, subscribe to the arXiv blog or follow us on social (Mastodon, Bluesky, Twitter/X and LinkedIn) for timely updates.

in arXiv.org blog on 2025-01-16 16:17:43 UTC.

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

Pair of management papers retracted for similarities to earlier work

Two management journals from the same publisher have retracted a pair of articles for taking “models, samples, and results” from each other and earlier work. 

A tip from an anonymous account sent in November to Retraction Watch, sleuth Elisabeth Bik, and others called out duplications in the papers. Bik then posted the two articles on PubPeer in November 2024, noting several identical sets of tables between the papers, despite the works investigating survey data on different topics from different populations — intention to leave among employees from the hospitality sector, and resistance to change among managers at private organizations.

“Workplace bullying and intention to leave: a moderated mediation model of emotional exhaustion and supervisory support” was published online July 8, 2020, in Employee Relations and has been cited 35 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. The other article, “Resistance to change and turnover intention: a moderated mediation model of burnout and perceived organizational support,” appeared online July 29, 2020, in the Journal of Organizational Change Management (JOCM) and has been cited 59 times.

The journals are both titles of Emerald Publishing and are listed in Clarivate’s Web of Science. 

The first author on the articles is Shalini Srivastava, a professor at the Jaipuria Institute of Management in India, according to her faculty profile page. Employee Relations lists her as an associate editor of the journal. Links to Google Scholar and LinkedIn on Srivastava’s faculty profile page appear to have been deleted, although an archived version of the Google Scholar profile exists on the Internet Archive.

The retraction notice for the JOCM article, posted December 23, acknowledged the similarities: “It has come to our attention that a large portion of this article’s models, samples, and results are taken, without full and proper attribution, from an earlier original work” — referring to the other retracted article. The notice continues: 

On investigation of this matter, further concerns were raised with regard to the data used as the same analysis employed in the earlier work was also applied here despite the two articles looking at fundamentally different contexts. As such, the findings of this article cannot be relied upon. The authors of this paper would like to note that they agree with the content of this notice.

The notice for the Employee Relations article, published December 24, cites overlap with yet another paper coauthored by Srivastava — a 2019 article on organizational citizenship behavior that appeared in Vision, a journal of the Management Development Institute in Gurgaon, India, published by Sage Publications.

Queries to the editors in chief of JOCM and Employee Relations were answered by a spokesperson from Emerald’s research integrity department. “Emerald’s research integrity team and the Editors-in-Chief of both journals investigated the system evidence and the content of both articles in accordance with COPE’s principles on duplicate publications,” the spokesperson told Retraction Watch. “The authors were contacted for an explanation. The investigation concluded that the responses were insufficient and that the results in the articles could not be relied upon.”

Bik and others have called out several of Srivastava’s articles on PubPeer for various reasons, including for similarities in data and methodology between articles, and for omitting mention of institutional review board approval, participant consent, or recruitment strategy. 

Neither Srivastava nor Swati Agrawal, the coauthor on the two retracted articles, responded to requests for comment. 

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, 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 2025-01-16 15:37:51 UTC.

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

A crumbling exoplanet spills its guts

in Science News on 2025-01-16 15:00:00 UTC.

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

What bird flu experts are watching for in 2025

in Science News on 2025-01-16 13:00:00 UTC.

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

Why It’s So Confusing to Determine Air Quality in Los Angeles Right Now

in WIRED Science on 2025-01-16 12:00:00 UTC.

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

Ancient, engraved stones may have been buried to summon the sun

in Science News on 2025-01-16 00:01:00 UTC.

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

Why the FDA banned the common food dye Red No. 3

in Science News on 2025-01-15 21:50:01 UTC.

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

Sage slaps more than 100 papers from one journal with expressions of concern

The Sage journal American Surgeon has issued a mass expression of concern for 116 articles. 

The expression of concern states the journal “was made aware” of “concerning author activity” on the articles.

Sage is no stranger to mass editorial actions. In 2023, the publisher pulled large tranches of papers at least three times, and last year it retracted over 450 papers from a journal the company had acquired from IOS Press. The publisher was one of the first to begin retracting papers in bulk, primarily to combat manipulated peer review. 

Don Nakayama, the editor-in-chief of the journal and a pediatric surgeon in Columbus, Georgia, forwarded our request for comment to Sage.

In an email to Retraction Watch, Laura West, a Sage spokesperson, said “SCOPUS” — presumably Elsevier’s Scopus database — reached out with concerns “about the quality of content in this journal.” Sage won’t provide any additional information while the investigation is ongoing, West said. 

Elsevier did not respond directly to questions regarding the tip from Scopus. 

All of the concerning papers had one common author: Adel Elkbuli. Elkbuli’s affiliation is listed on the most recent articles as the Department of Surgery at Orlando Regional Medical Center, in Florida, although he does not appear to have a directory listing or profile page at the center. He is also affiliated with the University of Miami. 

Elkbuli did not respond to our request for comment. He has 378 publications listed in Clarivate’s Web of Science that have been cited a total of over 3,000 times.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, 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 2025-01-15 20:24:05 UTC.

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

Los Angeles Needs to Fireproof Communities, Not Just Houses

in WIRED Science on 2025-01-15 18:15:18 UTC.

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

Iron Age Celtic women’s social and political power just got a boost

in Science News on 2025-01-15 16:00:00 UTC.

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

Lethal snake venom may be countered by new AI-designed proteins 

in Science News on 2025-01-15 16:00:00 UTC.

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

Neurons and learning: activity-driven neuroplasticity

When we start learning a new skill, every little aspect requires deliberate, conscious effort. With practice and repetition, our actions become smoother and easier to recall, eventually transforming initially demanding skills into second nature. Underlying this process of skill acquisition are intricate firing patterns in brain networks, a phenomenon known as long-term potentiation (LTP), or "activity-driven neuroplasticity." LTP strengthens specific synaptic connections without affecting others, maintaining input specificity. Its counterpart, long-term depression (LTD), works in the opposite direction. Together, LTP and LTD play crucial roles in fine-tuning neural circuits, which are essential for learning and memory, and rely on similar neurological processes at the molecular level.

Molecular mechanisms

The concept of LTP was introduced over 30 years ago, but its underlying molecular mechanisms remained elusive until the 1980s, when key insights identified NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartate) receptors as central players. These Ca²⁺ channels in the brain are unique because they are blocked by Mg²⁺ ions at resting membrane potentials. During low-frequency stimulation, smaller action potentials activate AMPA receptors by facilitating glutamate binding, but NMDA receptors remain blocked by Mg²⁺. Only when the neuronal membrane depolarizes sufficiently to expel the Mg²⁺ ion do NMDA receptors open, allowing Ca²⁺ to enter the postsynaptic neuron.

Importantly, the unique properties of NMDA receptors explain LTP's specificity and associativity. When one group of synaptic inputs is strongly activated, LTP occurs only at those specific synapses, as NMDA receptors at other synapses fail to meet the activation threshold. For associativity, weakly stimulated synapses alone cannot depolarize the neuron enough to remove the Mg²⁺ block. However, if neighboring synapses are strongly activated, they can provide sufficient depolarization, enhancing Ca²⁺ influx through NMDA receptors at the weakly stimulated synapse and inducing LTP.

"LTP is closely linked to learning processes in the hippocampus, the brain region critical for memory formation."

Ca²⁺ influx is critical for LTP, as it activates key protein kinases like CaMKII (calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II) and Protein Kinase C (PKC). CaMKII, in particular, is abundant in LTP-associated synapses and is thought to increase postsynaptic sensitivity to glutamate by either adding more receptors to the synapse or enhancing the sensitivity of existing ones. Some theories also suggest that LTP involves increased neurotransmitter release from presynaptic neurons through retrograde signaling, where the postsynaptic neuron regulates presynaptic activity using molecules like nitric oxide to strengthen communication.

LTP & learning

LTP is closely linked to learning processes in the hippocampus, the brain region critical for memory formation. Dendritic spines, small protrusions on neurons housing excitatory synapses, are indicators of synaptic growth and restructuring driven by LTP and LTD. These processes are initiated by cascades of Ca²⁺ signaling influenced by pre- and postsynaptic activity. Moreover, LTP occurs in two distinct phases: early-phase LTP, which is transient and prone to decay, and late-phase LTP, which is longer-lasting. Late-phase LTP involves a mechanism called synaptic-tagging-and-capture (STC), where synapses marked during the early phase "capture" proteins necessary for long-term changes. This process helps consolidate and stabilize memories. Interestingly, recent research highlights that LTP decay, an active process occurring within 1-6 hours after induction, is mediated by the endocytosis of AMPA receptors.

"(...) if neighboring synapses are strongly activated, they can provide sufficient depolarization, (...) inducing LTP"

LTP & neurodegenerative conditions

LTP's role also extends to understanding neurodegenerative conditions like Alzheimer’s disease, where impaired synaptic plasticity contributes to cognitive decline. Protein kinase M zeta (PKMζ), essential for maintaining non-decaying LTP, is often mislocalized or degraded due to neurofibrillary tangles. This disruption weakens synaptic strength and memory retention. However, recent advances show promise: the synthetic peptide GluA23Y inhibits AMPA receptor endocytosis, converting decaying LTP into non-decaying LTP and slowing memory loss. Furthermore, GluA23Y has demonstrated the potential to reduce toxic plaques in Alzheimer’s mouse models, making it a promising therapeutic avenue.

In conclusion, long-term potentiation lies at the core of our understanding of how the brain learns and remembers. Through the contributions of NMDA receptors, Ca²⁺ influx, and protein kinases, LTP and LTD shape synaptic plasticity. Its links to neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s underscore its importance, while innovative interventions like GluA23Y highlight the potential to restore cognitive functions. Exploring the mechanisms of LTP continues to unlock profound insights into brain function and paves the way for transformative therapies in neurodegenerative and cognitive disorders.

This article was written by Shriya Singh and edited by Julia Dabrowska, with graphics produced by Lilly Green. If you enjoyed this article, be the first to be notified about new posts by signing up to become a WiNUK member (top right of this page)! Interested in writing for WiNUK yourself? Contact us through the blog page and the editors will be in touch.

in Women in Neuroscience UK on 2025-01-15 15:22:51 UTC.

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

Toxin-gobbling bacteria may live on poison dart frog skin

in Science News on 2025-01-15 14:15:53 UTC.

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

Hand-feeding squirrels accidentally changed their skulls

in Science News on 2025-01-15 00:01:00 UTC.

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

Obesity needs a new definition beyond BMI, health experts argue

in Science News on 2025-01-14 23:30:00 UTC.

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

You Have NASA to Thank for Wireless Headphones and Vacuum Cleaners

in WIRED Science on 2025-01-14 16:41:25 UTC.

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

A podcast challenges us to reassess our relationship with wildfires

in Science News on 2025-01-14 15:00:00 UTC.

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

Got a cold? A placebo might help

in Science News on 2025-01-14 13:00:00 UTC.

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

GPS Is Vulnerable to Attack. Magnetic Navigation Can Help

in WIRED Science on 2025-01-14 11:30:00 UTC.

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

Fake-O-Meat by Ali Khademhosseini

in For Better Science on 2025-01-14 06:00:00 UTC.

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

‘Still angry’: Chemist finds his name on a study he didn’t write

Last October, Martin McPhillie, a lecturer in organic chemistry at the UK’s University of Leeds, received an email alert from his institution about a new article bearing his name. 

The article, “Docking Study of Licensed Non-Viral Drugs to Obtain Ebola Virus Inhibitors,” appeared in the Journal of Biochemical Technology, a title of Istanbul, Turkey-based Deniz Publication. The journal is not indexed in Clarivate’s Web of Science database. 

The study was within McPhillie’s area of expertise, and aligned with work he and the other listed coauthors had previously published. But he knew the new study wasn’t his. 

“I felt very professionally violated at the time and still angry about the whole episode,” McPhillie told Retraction Watch. “I am acutely aware of how academic malpractice can ruin an academic career so did not want to be associated with this paper.”

McPhillie emailed the journal’s editor in chief, Marcello Iriti, an associate professor of biomedical, surgical, and dental sciences at the Università degli Studi di Milano in Italy, and explained the situation. Iriti “was apologetic but did not offer an explanation,” McPhillie said. According to emails seen by Retraction Watch, the editor called the publication of the article a “mystery.”

Iriti also told us he didn’t know how the paper came to be published with the names of authors who had no involvement in the work. He referred our question to an unnamed managing editor copied on his reply. The managing editor did not respond to our request for comment. 

McPhillie was initially “relieved” Iriti responded, but then the journal removed the article from its website with an undated notice that stated only “This article has been retracted.” 

“To my mind, ‘retracted’ usually means that the authors have committed malpractice,” McPhillie said, but in his case, “the authors are innocent” and the problem likely lies with the journal. “There is stigma associated with retracted papers.”

When McPhillie contacted Iriti again, the editor was “rather dismissive” and said “there was nothing more they could do,” McPhillie said. 

“I would have thought the journal would have other options to remove papers like this,” McPhillie said, which he thinks would also benefit the journal. “They don’t seem to care.” 

In cases we’ve covered previously, researchers who find their names attached to papers they didn’t write have had mixed results in getting the papers removed. 

In addition to alerting the other listed authors, McPhillie Googled the paper title and found an identical article with different authors published in 2024 in the International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research and Allied Sciences. The journal appears to belong to another Istanbul-based entity, Meral Publisher, and also is not listed in Web of Science. Ozgur Karcioglu, the editor in chief, has not responded to our request for comment. 

Muhammad Rafiq of the Balochistan University of IT, Engineering and Management Sciences in Quetta, Pakistan, the listed corresponding author of the International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research and Allied Sciences article, told Retraction Watch he had “nothing to do” with the paper. “I don’t know why this appeared with my name.” 

Rafiq and the same group of coauthors had published a similar study, “Identification of Prospective Ebola Virus VP35 and VP40 Protein Inhibitors from Myxobacterial Natural Products,” in Biomolecules, an MDPI title, in June 2024. 

Meanwhile, in December, an anonymous PubPeer user posted about the retraction statement in the Journal of Biochemical Technology and asked the authors or publisher to clarify the reason for their decision. The user also pointed out several issues in the paper, most notably the stated use of “AutoCAD,” a design software used in engineering. “I have never seen AutoCAD used in computational chemistry,” the commenter wrote. 

Although the journal had removed the paper from its website, the PubPeer commenter had found a version of record on White Rose, the University of Leeds institutional repository, which has since been removed as well. McPhillie learned of the copy of the paper in the repository from PubPeer, he said. 

“I have asked our research library team for information about how this paper could be deposited internally, as someone had to ‘claim’ it,” he told us. “I haven’t received a response to that, although they were sympathetic to our situation.” 

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, 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 2025-01-13 18:44:23 UTC.

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

How we might finally find black holes from the cosmic dawn

in Science News on 2025-01-13 18:00:00 UTC.

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

U.S. dementia cases may rise to 1 million per year by 2060 

in Science News on 2025-01-13 16:00:00 UTC.

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

Flying cars could soon become a reality

in Science News on 2025-01-13 14:30:00 UTC.

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

The Los Angeles Wildfires Have Created Another Problem—Unsafe Drinking Water

in WIRED Science on 2025-01-13 12:28:49 UTC.

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

The King of Ozempic Is Scared as Hell

in WIRED Science on 2025-01-13 11:00:00 UTC.

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

New Superconductive Materials Have Just Been Discovered

in WIRED Science on 2025-01-12 07:00:00 UTC.

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

A Glowing Metal Ring Crashed to Earth. No One Knows Where It Came From

in WIRED Science on 2025-01-11 16:30:00 UTC.

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

These Maps Show Just How Dry Southern California Is Right Now

in WIRED Science on 2025-01-11 13:00:00 UTC.

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

Los Angeles Will Remain at High Risk of Fire Into Next Week

in WIRED Science on 2025-01-11 11:30:00 UTC.

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

Weekend reads: ‘Lack of informed consent’ in DNA data; protecting the ‘prey’ of predatory journals; another ivermectin-COVID-19 retraction

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Meet Retraction Watch’s two new journalists
• Elsevier denies AI use in response to evolution journal board resignations
• Biotech company agrees to pay $4 million to settle data falsification allegations
• Science paper by Toronto lab retracted
• The 14 universities with publication metrics researchers say are too good to be true

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 450. There are more than 50,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 300 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List — or our list of nearly 100 papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?

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

• “Journal retracts Thermo Fisher Scientific study after ethical concerns.”
• “Please don’t cite this editorial,” an experiment from our Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus.
• “‘As of my last knowledge update’: How is content generated by ChatGPT infiltrating scientific papers published in premier journals?”
• Another ivermectin-COVID-19 retraction – the drug’s 12th — joins the 467 retractions of COVID-19 papers on our list.
• “90% of scientific research is crap.”
• “‘WithdrarXiv’ database of 14,000 retracted preprints launches.”
• Researchers look at strategies to “detect integrity issues” in a journal “significantly impacted by fraudulent submissions.”
• The Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections issues “its own set of recommendations on what it calls “foreseeably uninformative” research.”
• “Scientists don’t want to get scooped—and It’s hurting science.”
• “Using mixed methods research to study research integrity.”
• “Open science is a spectrum and we must push for greater inclusivity.”
• “‘Precocious’ early-career scientists with high citation counts proliferate.”
• “How one foundation changed its approach to diversify grant recipient institutions.”
• “‘Potential’ to share more research on ‘underused’ YouTube.”
• “Plagiarism allegations cloud” college chief selection process.
• “Flawed assumptions could be spoiling cancer immunotherapy research.”
• “Predatory journals: what can we do to protect their prey?”: Advice from editors.
• Citations to retracted papers often don’t acknowledge that they’re retracted, researchers find.
• “Identifying and analyzing extremely productive authors in intensive care medicine.”
• “Scientific publications face credibility crisis.”
• “Publisher and journal reciprocity for peer review: Not so much.”
• “Navigating the complexities of Alzheimer’s clinical trials: The perils of small molecule studies and the risk of fraudulent practices.”
• “Preprints often make news. Many people don’t know what they are.”

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, 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 2025-01-11 11:00:00 UTC.

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

The Brightest Comet of 2025 Is Coming. Here’s How You Can See It Shine

in WIRED Science on 2025-01-11 10:00:00 UTC.

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

The 14 universities with publication metrics researchers say are too good to be true

More than a dozen universities have used “questionable authorship practices” to inflate their publication metrics, authors of a new study say. One university even saw an increase in published articles of nearly 1,500% in the last four years. 

The study, published January 5 in Quantitative Science Studies, “intends to serve as a starting point for broader discussions on balancing the pressures of global competition with maintaining ethical standards in research productivity and authorship practice,” study authors Lokman Meho and Elie Akl, researchers at the American University of Beirut in Lebanon, told Retraction Watch. 

Universities manipulating publication metrics have made headlines recently. Highly cited researchers started cutting ties with schools in Saudi Arabia after an investigation revealed that institutions were offering cash in exchange for affiliation — all to boost rankings. In 2023, we covered a case in which a prominent researcher was offered money by a university senior administrator to add his name to publications, outing the scam after not getting paid. And our 2023 investigation with Science uncovered a self-citation scheme at Saveetha Dental College — affiliated with Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, a name you will see again below — used to boost rankings. 

“There has been speculation about universities gaming the metrics system for a while,” sleuth Dorothy Bishop said in an email, “but I’m not aware of any previous attempt to study this formally using bibliometric indicators.” Bishop said “motivations of the universities who take part in this are hard to understand, but it’s clearly done to improve performance on international rankings.”

Meho and Akl used data from Elsevier’s SciVal, Scopus, and Clarivate’s Web of Science to identify 80 universities that experienced growth in research output, as measured by number of published journal articles, of over 100% from 2019 to 2023 — far outpacing the global average of 20%. 

Of these, 14 institutions also had declines in rates of first authorship of more than 15 percentage points over four years.This rate, over five times the average decrease of 3%, could be a sign of questionable authorship practices like sold or honorary authorship, the researchers said. “Such a dramatic decline often indicates a fundamental shift in how research contributions are distributed within an institution.”

Those 14 universities are: 

An earlier preprint of the study results used different thresholds, resulting in the addition of Saveetha University and the removal of three others from the list. None of the 14 universities responded to our request for comment. 

Together, the universities saw a 234% rise in total publications over four years and a 23% drop in rates of first authorship. Eight of the 14 schools ranked at the top of the list of most significant declines in first authorship rates out of the 1,000 most-published universities. By 2023, 11 ranked among the 15 universities with lowest first authorship rates. 

Researchers also looked at hyperprolific authorship, defining it as publishing 40 or more articles annually. Combined, the 14 universities had an increase in hyperprolific authors from 23 in 2019 to 177 in 2023, an increase of 670% and a growth rate 10 times the average. However, this rate wasn’t consistent over all schools: King Saud University, for example, went from four hyperprolific authors in 2019 to 63 in 2023, a 1,500% increase. 

Researchers defined many of the hyperprolific authors among the 14 universities as “noncore,” meaning they published articles with universities they are not directly affiliated with. An increase in authors with multiple affiliations can mean a rise in ethical collaborations. But a sharp increase — as seen in some of the listed universities — can indicate “strategic efforts to amplify research output,” the researchers wrote. 

From 2019 to 2023, the percentage of articles with authors with multiple affiliations remained stable at 18%. The control group, consisting of four universities known for conventional authorship practices — California Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton University, and the University of California, Berkeley — had a much lower proportion of papers with authors with multiple affiliations, at 6%. 

Inflating academic output “directly biases the outcomes of ranking systems, compromising their reliability and usefulness,” Meho and Akl write in the study. They conclude with a call to action for universities, funding agencies, and policymakers, among other bodies, to create and enforce more stringent guidelines and review processes around authorship practices. 

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, 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 2025-01-10 17:51:08 UTC.