Planet Neuroscientists

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

Attention arXiv users: arXiv Labs is pausing new proposals

arXiv Labs, arXiv’s framework for assessing and integrating community-built tools into the arXiv platform, is temporarily pausing new arXiv Labs proposals. This “hiatus” will not affect any current arXiv Labs, or arXiv Labs that have already been submitted through the arXiv Labs support portal and are awaiting approval.

arXiv is a community resource, and arXiv Labs has been our way of collaborating with researchers and developers working on the cutting edge of science who want to add free, useful tools to arXiv. arXiv Labs gives them the opportunity to experiment with new ideas and create features for arXiv that add value to arXiv content and benefit the scientific community. These tools, once approved, are integrated into the arXiv platform and appear on the bottom of each arXiv abstract page.

While arXiv Labs are tools built by the community, the arXiv development team dedicates significant time to assessing, amending, and deploying each project. We are temporarily pausing new proposals to arXiv Labs because, at the moment, our development team has limited resources to dedicate to arXiv Labs. The arXiv dev team is focusing on our current top priority – modernizing arXiv’s tech and moving arXiv totally into the cloud for secure and sustainable growth.

While the arXiv Labs portal is now closed to all new proposals, all current arXiv Labs will remain active during this temporary “hiatus” and arXiv Lab creators will be able to push updates to their active Labs projects. You can see a list of all our current and past community tools on our arXiv Labs Showcase page.

Any proposal that was submitted through the arXiv Lab support portal and is currently in the submission pipeline will receive due consideration and will be added to the arXiv Labs tab if accepted. There will be an announcement shortly on these new Labs and updates that have been accepted and will appear on arXiv.

This is not a “goodbye” from arXiv Labs, just a “see you later”! arXiv Labs will reopen our proposal portal to new projects when we are able to dedicate the time and support arXiv Labs needs to be an efficient incubator for useful community tools.

in arXiv.org blog on 2025-11-12 22:01:44 UTC.

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

CIA Kryptos Puzzle Creator Releases Final Clues

“Kryptos has not been solved,” said artist Jim Sanborn after releasing his parting clues to the “K4” section of his sculpture puzzle

in Scientific American on 2025-11-12 21:30:00 UTC.

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

BMJ places expression of concern on heavily criticized stem cell paper

The BMJ has issued an expression of concern for a paper claiming stem cell therapy can reduce the risk of heart failure. The move comes after sleuths and scientists critiqued the “complete mismatch” between the study data and the article itself. 

As we reported last week, the October 29 paper included results of a phase III clinical trial in Shiraz, Iran. Critics quickly began pointing out discrepancies in the data on PubPeer, including psychologist Nick Brown, who pointed out a “curious repeating pattern of records in the dataset” every 101 records. 

According to the expression of concern published today, The BMJ acknowledged issues “apparent from the data that support the paper” including data irregularities, discrepancies in the age criteria and the ages of participants included in the study, and undeclared conflicts of interest. 

Dorothy Bishop, professor of developmental neuropsychology at Oxford University, was the first to point out issues with the paper, specifically that the study claimed to have enrolled only patients under 65 years of age. However, in the accompanying data, 127 of the patients were older than 65 — a “complete mismatch,” she told us. She also noted the authors made the data available to the journal and reviewers only after the paper had undergone two rounds of peer review. 

On PubPeer, Bishop pointed out potential conflicts of interest, noting author Anthony Mathur, a researcher at Queen Mary University of London, is a shareholder and trustee of the Heart Cells Foundation, a charity that funds a unit for administering stem cell therapies to cardiac patients.  

“The editors judge that the trial may have breached accepted practices and that the results may not be reliable,” the notice states. The BMJ plans to investigate fully, the notice continues, and will consider an “auditable replacement dataset” the authors provided to the journal. Most of the authors, including corresponding author Armin Attar, are researchers at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences.

After our article was published, sleuths continued to point out issues with the paper. Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, a research fellow at the University of Wollongong in Australia, noted “oddities” in the data, including that nearly half of recorded heart rates were divisible by five. He also pointed out an “unexpected” pattern in patient’s temperatures — of 311 recorded temperatures, 42 were exactly 36.2 degrees Celsius. 

Retractions in The BMJ are rare. The journal issued its first retraction in 1989 and has retracted a total of just 12 articles, according to the Retraction Watch Database.

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 2025-11-12 21:28:35 UTC.

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

Heat Waves Will Be Less Extreme because of Paris Climate Agreement

Ten years after the Paris climate agreement, the limited progress we’ve made in reducing global warming means that there will be less extreme heat in the future than there would be without the accord

in Scientific American on 2025-11-12 19:28:00 UTC.

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

The Epstein-Barr Virus May Cause Lupus

Early findings indicate that Epstein-Barr Virus may also cause the autoimmune disease lupus

in Scientific American on 2025-11-12 19:05:00 UTC.

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

IEA Now Predicts Oil and Gas Demand Will Rise beyond 2030, Departing from Previous Forecasts

The International Energy Agency says weak climate action and energy security fears are effectively delaying peak fossil fuel consumption

in Scientific American on 2025-11-12 16:19:00 UTC.

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

AI eavesdropped on whale chatter. It may have helped find something new

in Science News: AI on 2025-11-12 16:00:00 UTC.

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

Northern Lights Dazzle U.S. Skies after Powerful Solar Storm

A severe geomagnetic storm brought spectacular auroras to much of the U.S. on Tuesday night

in Scientific American on 2025-11-12 15:28:00 UTC.

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

This fly’s flesh-eating maggot is making a comeback. Here’s what to know 

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-11-12 15:00:00 UTC.

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

To decode future anxiety and depression, begin with a child’s brain

in Science News: Psychology on 2025-11-12 13:00:00 UTC.

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

How to Identify a Prime Number without a Computer

For years, a French mathematician searched for a proof that a gigantic number is prime. His method is still used 150 years later

in Scientific American on 2025-11-12 13:00:00 UTC.

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

Can Talking to an AI Version of a Loved One Help You Grieve?

Science writer David Berreby shares his personal journey with griefbots and discusses how they can offer unexpected comfort, insight and connection in the wake of loss.

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

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

Math is back as Clarivate boosts integrity markers in Highly Cited Researchers list

The analysis behind this year’s Highly Cited Researchers list, released today by indexing giant Clarivate, includes several tweaks aimed at reducing attempts to game the metric and excluding researchers who engage in questionable publication practices.

Those changes include removing highly cited papers from the calculations authored by researchers excluded from last year’s list for integrity issues. The company also applied specific removal criteria — including excessive self-citation rates, papers retracted for integrity concerns, and prolific publication rates — more comprehensively this year. In past years, the company had done so manually for particular geographic areas or disciplines.

“We’re trying to make sure that the indicators are valid and reliable, which means we have to include these kinds of filters or screens and quantitative tests that indicate some kind of quality, qualitative character,” David Pendlebury, head of research analysis at the Institute for Scientific Information at Clarivate, told Retraction Watch.

The changes have also made it possible for mathematics to return as a category in the 2025 list. Clarivate stopped including the discipline in 2023 after the field’s relatively small number of papers, as well as evidence of citation manipulation, led to the company to drop the discipline as a category. 

“What we saw over time was the dominance of a particular topic taking over all of mathematics, and that had all the markings of people gaming as well,” Pendlebury said. “That is why we decided to suppress the field of mathematics for two years and find a solution which allowed the truly influential people to resurface, so that they could be selected and highlighted. And that’s fortunately what we have this year.” 

Clarivate excludes retracted papers from its initial pool of data used to calculate the Highly Cited Researchers list. In 2022, the company started using the Retraction Watch Database for some of the qualitative components of its analysis, including checking the names on its preliminary list against the database for evidence of misconduct. 

“The innovation of this year is that all these criteria are now more comprehensively and consistently applied across all researchers,” said Dmytro Filchenko, Clarivate’s senior director of research and analysis. 

Those criteria include anomalous levels of self citation or group citation; authorship of papers retracted for integrity issues; community reports of breaches in research integrity; and prolific authorship, according to documentation for the Highly Cited Researchers list. The company also excludes authors with an anomalous ratio of reviews to articles. 

The changes led to 2,400 researchers being excluded this year because of integrity concerns, 432 of which were for hyper-prolific authorship. The total number excluded has increased over the years, from 500 in 2022 to 1,000 in 2023 and over 2,000 last year.

“These improvements led to the fact that more space for new researchers whose work may have been overshadowed previously is now available,” Filchenko said. “Usually our retention rate — so, meaning the highly cited researchers from the previous year who appear again in the new year — is around 70 percent. This year, it’s 60 percent.”

This year’s list includes 7,131 Highly Cited Researcher designations to 6,868 people, with some being recognized in more than one field. The United States is home to the largest share of the researchers, 2,670 or 37 percent. That marks a 1 percentage point increase from 2024 and follows several years of declines.

China has the second highest number of researchers, with 1,406 or nearly 20 percent of the total highly cited list. 

The list for mathematics includes 65 researchers. As part of reintroducing math to the list, Clarivate consulted with mathematician Domingo Docampo of the University of Vigo in Spain. Docampo and colleagues developed an algorithm independent of Clarivate’s methods to evaluate citations based on the quality of the citing reference. “We asked him to run his algorithm on the people who we nominated this year in mathematics,” Filchenko said. “Both algorithms were in agreement.”

As in years past, the list starts from the top 1 percent of papers in each field and publication year, and includes articles and reviews published in the last 11 years. In addition to removing retracted papers, Clarivate also excludes those with more than 30 authors or with group authorship. The company develops a preliminary list from the authors of those papers, applying the filters for research integrity concerns, publication practices, and so on, to arrive at the final list.

Just as authorship can be abused, so can citation practices.

“It’s amazing for me to see over the years, over these decades, how important these measures have become,” Pendlebury said. He reflected how Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information, warned against overreliance on metrics. “He actually asked in one article, ‘Is the tail now wagging the dog?’ So he was always concerned and always cognizant of how these data can be misused.” 

“We have had to deal with what is a rising tide of pollution in the literature, generally gaming of the publication citation metrics,” Pendlebury continued. “We have to deal and guard against gaming of these indicators, because we want them to be robust and reliable. That’s why we’ve had to include all these screens and filters.”

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 2025-11-12 08:00:00 UTC.

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

Perimenopause: An important—and understudied—transition for the brain

in The Transmitter on 2025-11-12 05:00:15 UTC.

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

A community-designed experiment tests open questions in predictive processing

in The Transmitter on 2025-11-12 05:00:07 UTC.

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

Powerful Solar Storm Could Trigger Far-Reaching Auroras across U.S.

The sun just spat out several coronal mass ejections that could trigger a serious solar storm on Wednesday

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

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

Learning Another Language May Slow Brain Aging, Huge New Study Finds

A large international study suggests that being multilingual can slow down cognitive aging

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

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

China’s Stranded Astronauts Are Safe—For Now. But How Will They Get Home?

There are six people living on the Chinese space station Tiangong at the moment, and the plan to bring three of them back is in progress

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

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

Bug in Springer Nature metadata may be causing ‘significant, systemic’ citation inflation

Millions of researchers could be affected by a “dramatic distortion of citation counts” likely caused by flaws in how the academic publishing giant Springer Nature handles article metadata, according to a new preprint.

The bug means a large number of citations are automatically attributed to the first paper in a given journal volume, instead of to whichever paper in that volume they were intended for. The issue appears to affect many of the publisher’s online-only titles, such as Nature Communications, Scientific Reports and several BMC journals.

“It seems that millions of scientists lost a few citations, while tens of thousands, the authors of Article 1s, gained all these, leading to insane citation counts,” Tamás Kriváchy of the Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, in Spain, told us. His findings appeared earlier this month on arXiv.org. And those citation losses and gains are through no fault (or intention) of the authors themselves. In fact, one author we spoke with has tried, without success, to get mistaken citations removed from her paper. 

A spokesperson for Springer Nature questioned the new data and said the preprint’s conclusions “could be misleading.”

According to the analysis, the distorted statistics appear on the journals’ own websites and in free citation databases such as Crossref, OpenCitations and Google Scholar. The problem could make it harder for scientists to find out which studies cite which and could give some authors unfair advantages in winning grants, promotions and jobs, Kriváchy said.

Whether the effects carry over to the two major commercial citation databases, which the researcher could not access, is unclear. But one expert told us they might.

”My analyses confirm that the study’s main concern is valid: citation-linking errors appear to be significant, systemic, and spill over even into curated databases such as Scopus and Web of Science,” said Lokman Meho, a bibliometrician at the American University of Beirut in Lebanon.

“If such mistakes are high, the implications could be profound,” Meho added. “Inflated citation counts distort measures of scholarly influence, misrank universities, mislead funding decisions, and compromise evidence-based science policy. They also challenge one of the field’s core assumptions: that curated citation databases are insulated from the problems encountered in open systems such as Crossref or OpenCitations.”

The preprint highlights a paper designated as “Article number 1” in the 2018 volume of Nature Communications, “Structural absorption by barbule microstructures of super black bird of paradise feathers.” The work has garnered more than 7,000 citations, according to the journal’s website, and Crossref, OpenCitations and Semantic Scholar provide comparable numbers. Meanwhile, Google Scholar lists 584 citing papers as of this writing, Clarivate’s Web of Science 582, and Scopus 1,323. 

According to emails we have seen, the corresponding author of that paper, Dakota McCoy of the University of Chicago, contacted Nature Communications in April of this year, stating her paper was “frequently cited spuriously.” An editorial assistant supervisor for the journal replied:  “I am afraid that we are unable to determine any steps we are able to take to resolve the issue on our side as it looks as if no errors occurred on the original publication of the paper.” They speculated the issue may have come from the citing journal, was a citation error that kept getting propagated, or was somehow being influenced by AI.  

“This is a bizarre and annoying problem that we first noticed back in 2023 and haven’t been able to solve, despite emailing editors and Googling for hours. Even worse, the articles that are meant to receive those >400 citations aren’t receiving them!” McCoy told us by email. “It is unfortunate because it makes it difficult to track the true impact of our paper.”

“I’m so happy to see that this preprint may have identified the source issue,” she added.

McCoy’s coauthor Richard Prum, an ornithologist at Yale University, told us: “Many of the articles in Google Scholar that are counted as citations of us actually make no mention whatsoever of any research related to us or our paper! So, the problem is compounding!!”

Meho said he had confirmed the problems in an analysis of Scopus data for Prum and McCoy’s article, as well as three other papers in Nature Communications that also have more than 1,000 citations each, according to the database.

“When I extracted and examined the actual cited references in those citing papers, I found that fewer than 250 references in each case actually cited the target article. In other words, roughly three out of four citation links were erroneous, a discrepancy far too large to attribute to chance or isolated database glitches,” he told us. In at least one case, the errors did not seem to be explained by the bugs the preprint described, he said.

“The study also raises a larger question: Is this problem confined to Springer Nature, or is it an early warning of hidden structural vulnerabilities in how citation data are exchanged and standardized across all major publishers?” Meho said. “If millions of citation links can silently go astray in a system as central as Springer Nature’s, then research evaluation itself needs urgent scrutiny. The credibility of metrics, rankings, and even funding depends on the reliability of these invisible networks of data.”

According to Kriváchy, the problems appear to have originated with the advent of online-only journals several years ago. These publications typically reference articles using an article number instead of the page numbers traditional print journals use.

“Based on our analysis, the mis-citations happen primarily due to the above adaptation from a page-based numbering to an article number-based one; more specifically, from the improper technical handling of the change,” the preprint states. “The problem seems to stem from the absence of the Article Number in most formats of the article metadata obtained through the SpringerLink Application Programming Interface (API), or possibly from the handling of the fields in RIS file format provided by the publisher on Springer Nature Link websites.”

Springer Nature emphasized that, as a preprint, the new work “has not yet undergone peer review or independent validation.”

“Looking at the conclusions we suspect they could be misleading due to incomplete data,” a spokesperson said. “In the meantime, we are looking at all of the data ourselves as we are always open to feedback and to ensure that we continue to do the best for our authors.”

Kriváchy told us in addition to fixing the technical issues, the publisher “should put together a thorough report” addressing the cause of the problem as well as which journals have been affected and for how long.

Some of the damage won’t be fixable, however, said Alberto Baccini of the University of Siena, who studies publication metrics.

“The well-known Matthew Effect in bibliometrics indicates that highly cited papers become even more cited simply because they are perceived as important. Therefore, the initial metadata error has probably influenced researchers’ citation behavior, leading them to cite these ‘false’ highly cited papers precisely because of their high citation count,” Baccini told us. “After the data is corrected, how many of the remaining citations were received solely thanks to this mechanism? This is an unfixable problem.”

“We are all aware of the pollution infecting contemporary science and the mechanisms that have corrupted citation counts such as citation mills,” he added. “I hope that this ‘genuine’ error, originating from one of the major players in scientific publishing, will serve as a turning point. It should compel us to abandon our blind faith in quantitative metrics – a faith that has contributed so significantly to the corruption of contemporary science.”

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

in Retraction watch on 2025-11-11 17:33:59 UTC.

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

Peering inside 3D chaotic microcavities with X-ray vision

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

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

The World’s Largest Wind Turbine Will Smash Previous Records

A planned supersized floating wind turbine with two spinning heads will generate nearly double the amount of energy as the current record-holder

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

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

Luck in Sight

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

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

‘Neuroethics: The Implications of Mapping and Changing the Brain,’ an excerpt

in The Transmitter on 2025-11-11 05:00:36 UTC.

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

Teasing out mosaicism cell by cell; and more

in The Transmitter on 2025-11-11 05:00:07 UTC.

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

Canada Just Lost Its Measles-Free Status. The U.S. Could Soon Follow

Canada lost its official measles elimination status after a year of continuous transmission

in Scientific American on 2025-11-10 23:00:00 UTC.

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

FDA Strips Breast Cancer Warning from Menopause Hormone Therapy

In a reversal, the Food and Drug Administration has removed black box warnings on hormone replacement therapies for menopause

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

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

Author changes name, publishes 10 papers in journals that banned him

How to render a publishing ban moot? Change your surname and just keep submitting.

That’s what happened in the case of Hashem Babaei, aka Hashem Gharababaei. In 2010, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE), a professional society based in the U.K., banned the mechanical engineering researcher from the University of Guilan from submitting his work to its journals. 

But over the next 10 years, (Ghara)Babaei managed to publish at least 10 articles in the society’s journals, simply using the abbreviated version of his name while continuing to use the same email address from his institution in Rasht, Iran. 

“This is a serious issue of academic misconduct,” said Gerald Nurick, an emeritus professor and senior research scholar of engineering and the built environment at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. 

Gharababaei has not responded to our request for comment. 

Nurick, who recently brought the case to our attention, said he had hosted Gharababaei as a visiting student for a few months in 2008, but for health reasons could not supervise the work directly. 

In December of that year, Genevieve Langdon, a lab member who did work closely with Gharababaei, emailed the student a draft manuscript based on their work together. In her cover note, she stated the manuscript was not publishable in its current form because the data “does not fit with the past 20 years[’] worth of test data on steel.” 

“I trust you understand this and will not publish this without my consent,” she wrote in the communication, recently shared with us. 

Langdon, who no longer works in the field, heard little from Gharababaei until June 2010, when she and Nurick became aware of two manuscripts their former visiting student had submitted to IMechE journals. 

One of them, submitted to Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, contained text and a table “word for word identical to what I wrote in December 2008,” Langdon told Gharababaei in a letter dated June 15, 2010. “That alone is direct plagiarism,” she wrote. She was also “troubled to find that I am barely acknowledged for my important contributions to your experimental work” in his other published papers when she believed she should have been listed as a coauthor. 

The second manuscript in question had been accepted for publication in Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science. Trevor Cloete, another lab member who worked with Gharababaei, wrote to the journal’s editor on June 17, 2010, detailing his own unacknowledged contributions to the work and stating Gharababaei had published “an essentially similar paper” in another journal. 

The published paper, which had appeared in the May 2010 issue of Mechanics Based Design of Structures and Machines, a Taylor & Francis title, also included text from Langdon’s draft. Yet it only acknowledged her, Nurick and Cloete “for their help with the experiments and for machining the modified ballistic pendulum.” (The journal’s editor-in-chief has not responded to our request for comment.) 

A month after that paper appeared, Nurick emailed Kruna Vukmirovic, managing editor of the two IMechE journals, with more details on the duplications between Gharababaei’s published paper and the manuscript accepted for publication. He also stated he had not given Gharababaei permission to publish photographs and data included in the other submission, which also included reproduction of Langdon’s written text without attribution. 

After investigating the matter, the journal editors found both manuscripts contained duplicated material and decided to pull them. Vukmirovic informed Nurick, Langdon and Cloete of the decision within a few weeks of the complaint. 

Vukmirovic also notified Gharababaei and his coauthors of the rejections. 

“This level of duplication represents redundant publication,” Vukmirovic wrote. Gharababaei and his co-authors were put on notice that they “are now banned from submitting your future work to the IMechE Journals.”

Gharababaei offered to add Nurick, Langdon and Cloete as coauthors to his papers in 2010, but the group remained “incredibly angry,” Nurick told us. They ignored the emails because they “wanted nothing more to do with him.” 

Nurick’s group didn’t hear anything further about Gharababaei until 2016, when the editor of Thin Walled Structures, an Elsevier title, asked Nurick to review a manuscript submitted by “Hashem Babaei” and two other co-authors. Upon examining the manuscript, Nurick realized Babaei was the same person as his former visiting student. The manuscript included references to the author’s previous work, published using the name “Gharababaei” until the ban and with the name “Babaei” after. 

In July 2016, Nurick informed the editor of the name change and Babaei’s history with his group. Nevertheless, the manuscript was published in the journal in November 2016. 

Digging deeper into the matter, Nurick also found Babaei had published papers in several IMechE journals, despite the ban. We have identified 10 such papers in three different journals and notified their top editors. John Chew, the editor-in-chief of IMechE’s Journal of Engineering Science, told us he referred the matter to the publisher’s integrity team for further investigation. The editors-in-chief of the other journals have not responded to our requests for comment. 

The Retraction Watch Database lists one retraction for “Hashem Gharababaei,” from a 2010 IEEE conference proceeding – one of 53 articles retracted from the conference with identical notices stating the contributions had “been found to be in violation of IEEE’s Publication Principles.” 

Although Gharababaei lists a different university in Iran as an affiliation on the IEEE article, Nurick concluded it is “definitely” the same person. The topic of the paper had “no place” in the conference, which dealt with mechanical and electronics engineering, he told us. 

Nurick told us he would like to see all of Gharababaei’s work after 2010 with the name “Babaei” retracted. “He’s publishing in two names, and I think that’s wrong.” 

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 2025-11-10 18:25:22 UTC.

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

Thank you to all our Members, Champions, and All Stars!

Thank you to all our arXiv members! The arXiv membership pages have been updated to reflect our new membership tiers and to thank all of our current members. We are so thankful to all our member institutions – universities, libraries, and research labs – that generously give their support to arXiv through our annual membership program.

arXiv has a variety of funding streams to maintain our sustainability, and members are one of our most important – over 50% of arXiv’s operating budget comes from our members. arXiv provides a free service, but it’s not free to operate. We appreciate our members who give to arXiv year after year, despite the budget constraints that many in academia are facing.

arXiv is dedicated to making sure arXiv membership is flexible and affordable for all institutions who would like to support arXiv. arXiv has maintained its membership rates since 2024 and there are no new or higher fees for members this year. For institutions who are able to give more, arXiv introduced the “All Star” membership tier to a select group of members in 2025. arXiv All Star membership is a flexible membership tier – an opportunity for members to give a little more to arXiv when they are able. Because the All Star option was so popular in its initial launch, we’ve decided to officially keep it as a membership tier, available to any and all members. Thank you to all our new All Star members – we appreciate your support!

In addition to our new All Star members, Champion members have been supporting arXiv above and beyond for many years. Champion members with arXiv are  institutions who lead the global research community in innovation, education, and promoting open science. Thank you to all our new and old Champion members for their support and advocacy of equitable and open science!

Is your university interested in becoming an arXiv member? Check out our membership page to learn more or email us at membership@arxiv.org. No matter your budget, if you would like to support arXiv, we want to recognize you as a member – your support is so important to us. 

To all our members, whether Champion, All Star, Standard or Community – thank you for making open science and arXiv possible!

in arXiv.org blog on 2025-11-10 18:23:40 UTC.

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

If another country tested nuclear weapons, here’s how we’d know

in Science News: Science & Society on 2025-11-10 15:30:00 UTC.

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

Is Space the Place for Earth’s Next Evolutionary Leap?

In a new book, NASA astrobiologist Caleb Scharf says the fate of life on Earth may hinge on leaving our planet behind

in Scientific American on 2025-11-10 15:15:00 UTC.

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

A Breath of Concern: Air Pollution, Pregnancy, and the Developing Brain

in Women in Neuroscience UK on 2025-11-10 12:00:28 UTC.

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

Understanding sustainable textiles through climate-adapted traditional crafts

in OIST Japan on 2025-11-10 12:00:00 UTC.

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

The Bank of the Ryukyus donates to OIST

in OIST Japan on 2025-11-10 12:00:00 UTC.

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

Hidden catalysis: Abrasion transforms common chemistry equipment into reagents

in OIST Japan on 2025-11-10 12:00:00 UTC.

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

MBSJ 2025

in OIST Japan on 2025-11-10 12:00:00 UTC.

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

Not Everyone with Schizophrenia Hears Voices. Here’s Why

New research aims to tease out what exactly is happening in the brains of people with schizophrenia who have auditory hallucinations

in Scientific American on 2025-11-10 12:00:00 UTC.

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

Mathematicians’ Chalkboard Writing Shows When Inspiration Strikes

Researchers spot the “tipping point” before mathematicians’ moments of discovery

in Scientific American on 2025-11-10 11:45:00 UTC.

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

Exploring Food Texture and Taste Perception with Kendra Pierre-Louis

Kendra Pierre-Louis steps in as interim host and dives into the science behind why some foods—especially mayonnaise—can gross us out.

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

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

Without monkeys, neuroscience has no future

in The Transmitter on 2025-11-10 05:00:10 UTC.

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

AI Slop—How Every Media Revolution Breeds Rubbish and Art

The popularization of the term “slop” for AI output follows a centuries-long pattern where new tools flood the zone, audiences adapt and some of tomorrow’s art emerges from today’s excess

in Scientific American on 2025-11-09 12:00:00 UTC.

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

Review of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory’s Obituary for Dr. James Watson

James Watson, who described himself as “not a racist in a conventional way”, has died at the age of 97. Below is a review of an obituary for Dr. James Watson published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on November 7, 2025. The obituary is in black and the review comments are in red.

Jim Watson made many contributions to science, education, public service, and especially Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL).

In the realm of science, several of the contributions James Watson took credit for were not his (see below). In terms of education, his focus was on bringing a single Eton boy every year to Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory for a research experience during the boy’s gap year after high school (the boys would frequently stay at his house). Eton, an all-boy boarding school, is Britain’s most elite school (CSHL oral history, 1997). Insofar as public service, Watson’s public record was not one of civic engagement or humanitarian contribution. His tenure as the first head of the Human Genome Project ended quickly in conflict (see below) and his public statements regarding genetics and race, gender, and intelligence was widely condemned (source: Amy Harmon, 2019)

As a scientist, his and Francis Crick’s determination of the structure of DNA, based on data from Rosalind Franklin, Maurice Wilkins and their colleagues at King’s College London, was a pivotal moment in the life sciences.

Franklin did not just provide data that enabled Crick and Watson to determine the structure of DNA. Yes, with her student Raymond Gosling she generated high-quality X-ray images of DNA, most famously Photo 51, which provided clear evidence that DNA forms a helical structure. But Franklin did much more and was an equal scientific contributor to the elucidation of DNA’s structure, whose experimental rigor and insights were central to solving the double helix. Franklin’s X-ray diffraction work distinguished the A and B forms of DNA, resolving confusion. Her measurements revealed that DNA’s unit cell was huge and had a C2 symmetry, implying two antiparallel sugar-phosphate strands. She confirmed the 34 Å helical repeat in the B form and identified the phosphate backbone’s exterior location. Though she did not derive complementary base pairing, her late-stage notes show that she recognized DNA could encode biological specificity through any sequence of bases, anticipating the idea of informational coding (Cobb and Comfort, Nature, 2023).

Watson, along with Crick and Wilkins were awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Watson also received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Gerald Ford and the National Medal of Science from President Bill Clinton, among many other awards and prizes.

It is true that Watson received these awards. Coincidentally, William Shockley was also awarded the Nobel Prize around the same time as Watson (physics, 1956) and he promoted racist eugenics, arguing that people of African Ancestry posed a “dysgenic risk”, as well as advocating for sterilization. He used his Nobel prestige to advance his malicious and scientifically bankrupt ideas (source: Scott Rosenberg, 2017)

While at Cambridge, Watson also carried out pioneering research on the structure of small viruses. At Harvard, Watson’s laboratory demonstrated the existence of mRNA, in parallel with a group at Cambridge, UK, led by Sydney Brenner.

One of his colleagues at Harvard, E. O. Wilson, once called James Watson “the most unpleasant human being I have ever met” (source: Amanda Gefter, 2009).

His laboratory also discovered important bacterial proteins that control gene expression and contributed to understanding how mRNA is translated into proteins.

The discovery of important proteins that control gene expression in bacteria, notably the lac repressor, was made by Francois Jacob and Jaques Monod.

As an author, Watson wrote two books at Harvard that were and remain best sellers. The textbook Molecular Biology of the Gene, published in 1965 (7th edition, 2020), changed the nature of science textbooks, and its style was widely emulated.

In this textbook Watson got the central dogma wrong, presenting it in a profoundly misleading way. (source: Matthew Cobb, 2024).

The Double Helix (1968) was a sensation at the time of publication. Watson’s account of the events that resulted in the elucidation of the structure of DNA remains controversial, but still widely read.

Prior to the publication of The Double Helix, Francis Crick wrote that “If you publish your book now, in the teeth of my opposition, history will condemn you”. Watson published the book anyway (source: letter by Francis Crick, 1967) .

As a public servant, Watson successfully guided the first years of the Human Genome Project, persuading scientists to take part and politicians to provide funding.

Watson resigned from the Human Genome Project due to conflicts of interest related to holdings of his in biotechnology companies and due to his insistence that cDNA should not be sequenced leading to conflicts with NIH director Bernadine Healy, with whom he also clashed on patenting of expressed sequence tags (source: Christopher Anderson, 1992). Fortunately, thanks to the vision of Bernadine Healy, who was the first female director of the NIH, cDNA technology was pursued and led to RNA-seq which, along with DNA-seq, is today the most widely used genomics assay. 

He created the Ethical, Legal and Social Issues (ELSI) program because of his concerns about misuse of the fruits of the project.

Watson reportedly configured ELSI so as to undermine its ability to interfere with the human genome project: “I wanted a group that would talk and talk and never get anything done and if they did do something, I wanted them to get it wrong. I wanted as its head Shirley Temple Black” (source: Lori Andrews, 1999, Dolan et al., 2022). 

Watson’s association with Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory began in 1947 when he came as a graduate student with his supervisor, Salvador Luria. Luria, with Max Delbruck, was teaching the legendary Phage Course. Watson returned repeatedly to CSHL, most notably in 1953 when he gave the first public presentation of the DNA double helix at that year’s annual Symposium. He became a CSHL trustee in 1965.

James Watson did not credit Rosalind Franklin in his presentation of the DNA double helix; he did not even mention Rosalind Franklin in his Nobel, although he did admit that people found him unbearable (source: Nobel Banquet speech, 1962).

CSHL was created in 1964 by the merger of two institutes that existed in Cold Spring Harbor since 1890 and 1904, respectively. In 1968, Watson became the second director when he was 40 years old. John Cairns, the first director, had begun to revive the institute but it was still not far short of being destitute when Watson took charge. He immediately showed his great skills in choosing important topics for research, selecting scientists and raising funds.

On the matter of selecting scientists, Watson once remarked “Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them” (source: Tom Abate, 2000). On the matter of raising funds, it seems that James Watson’s network included Jeffrey Epstein, with whom he reportedly met within two years before Epstein’s arrest in 2019 (source: Business Insider).

Also in 1968, Watson married Elizabeth (Liz) Lewis, and they have lived on the CSHL campus their entire lives together. Jim and Liz have two sons, Rufus and Duncan. As with the former Directors, they fostered close relationships with the local Cold Spring Harbor community.

In 1969, Watson focused research at CSHL on cancer, specifically on DNA viruses that cause cancer. The study of these viruses resulted in many fundamental discoveries of important biological processes, including the Nobel prize-winning discovery of RNA splicing. Watson was the first Director of CSHL’s National Cancer Institute-designated Cancer Center, which remains today.

On the matter of cancer, James Watson delivered a lecture at UC Berkeley in 2000 where he talked about an experiment to protect against skin cancer. He claimed that in an experiment by scientists at the University of Arizona, who injected male patients with an extract of melanin to test whether they could chemically darken the men’s skin as a skin cancer protection, they observed an unusual side effect, namely that the men developed sustained and unprovoked erections (source: Tom Abate, 2000).

Watson was passionate about science education and promoting research through meetings and courses. Meetings began at CSHL in 1933 with the Symposium series, and the modern advanced courses started with the Phage course in 1945. Watson greatly expanded both programs, making CSHL the leading venue for learning the latest research in the life sciences. Publishing also increased, notably of laboratory manuals, epitomized by Molecular Cloning, and several journals began, led by Genes & Development and later Genome Research. He encouraged the creation of the DNA Learning Center, unique in providing hands-on genetic education for high-school students. There are now DNA Learning Centers throughout the world.

The DNA learning center page on Rosalind Franklin states “The X-ray crystallographic expert, hired for her skills, and known to be methodical. Don’t call her Rosy!” (source: DNA learning center)`

Through a substantial gift to CSHL in 1973 by Charles Robertson, Watson started the Banbury Center on the Robertsons’ 54-acre estate in nearby Lloyd Harbor. Today, this center functions as an important “think tank” for advancing research and policies on many issues related to life and medical sciences.

The Banbury Center was founded as an old boys club. Meetings are invitation only, with invites by the old boys for other old boys. I attended a meeting in 2004 on functional genomics which consisted of 33 invitees of which 33 were men, despite the fact that many of the leading genomics scientists at the time were women. At the meeting I had dinner with James Watson, during which he took the opportunity to denigrate Rosalind Franklin and the Irish (source: Banbury Center, 2004). 

Watson remained in leadership roles at CSHL until 2000, and then continued as a member of the faculty. However, his remarks on race and IQ in 2008 led the CSHL Board of Trustees to remove him from all administrative roles and his appointment as a CSHL Trustee. When he made similar statements in 2020, the board revoked his Emeritus status and severed all connections with him.

Watson made racist and sexist remarks not only in 2008 and 2020 but throughout his life (source: James Watson in his own words).

Watson’s extraordinary contributions to Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory during his long tenure transformed a small, but important laboratory on the North Shore of Long Island into one of the world’s leading research institutes.

Watson was the director of CSHL from 1968 – 1994 but there have been many other individuals who were key in establishing CSHL as a leading research institute: Barbara McClintock (discovered transposons) was at Cold Spring Harbor from 1941 until her death in 1992 (source: Wikipedia). She was recruited by Milislav Demerec (director 1941 – 1960). Bruce Stillman (director since 1994) has been instrumental in establishing the CSHL graduate program, the Genome Research Center, and under his watch it became a top-10 biomedical research center (source: Wikipedia).

in Bits of DNA on 2025-11-08 21:57:05 UTC.

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

Rubin Observatory Discovers Surprise ‘Tail’ on Iconic Galaxy

The first image from the Vera C. Rubin telescope reveals a previously unnoticed feature of the galaxy M61 that may explain its mysterious properties

in Scientific American on 2025-11-08 13:00:00 UTC.

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

Weekend reads: Journal retracts ADHD intervention papers; ‘Science and the crisis of trust’; letters to editors surge

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Former Australian science agency ecology researcher loses two papers
• Dozens of board members resign from big-data journal after mass staff firings
• Review mill in Italy targeting ob-gyn journals, researchers allege
• Exclusive: A misconduct ruling, a flawed investigation, and an attempted payoff
• Sleuths flag ‘complete mismatch’ in data of BMJ stem cell study
• Journal retracts ‘bizarre’ placebo effect paper

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):

• “Journal retracts two papers evaluating ADHD interventions.”
• “When science is perceived as aligned with political agendas, or when episodes of scientific misconduct receive high-profile media coverage, the legitimacy of science can be damaged, even if such cases are rare.”
• “Letters to scientific journals surge as ‘prolific debutante’ authors likely use AI.” Meet one author who published over 500 letters to editors in a year. 
• arXiv will “no longer accept computer science review articles and position papers” after getting “spammed” with AI papers.
• “The relentless rise of China’s medical science.”
• “What Research Scandals? Welcome to the Bioethics Memory Hole.”
• University president “files defamation suit over plagiarism allegations.”
• Ex-university “soccer coach’s doctorate revoked for research misconduct.”
• Researcher “repulsed by the prevalence of scientific misconduct” says “science itself could be a form of dissent.”
• “Temporal shifts in retraction reasons”: study finds a “shift is observed from classical misconduct, e.g. ‘Falsification’ … to procedural concerns like ‘Fake Peer Review.'”
• Researchers find “only a small proportion (5.7%) of submitting authors disclosed AI use” in biomedical journals.
• “Professor Loses Appeal Over Firing for Racial IQ Gap Article.”
• “Oxford University Press announces agreement to acquire Karger.”
• “Large language models in peer review: challenges and opportunities.”
• “Concerns Escalate With the Fundamental Integrity of Scientific Peer-Reviewed Literature.”
• “How politicians soured on Europe’s biggest primate research center.”
• “Post-publication peer review: remedy or risk for publishing?”
• Ghost writing “threatens the integrity of scientific research: When a paper is ghostwritten by a corporation with a clear interest in promoting or exonerating a profitable product, the paper may have been inappropriately influenced by that interest.”
• Indian council clears former director of the Animal Resources Development Department of misconduct charges.
• Researchers look at strategies to limit endogamy in editorial boards of university journals. 
• Meta and TikTok are obstructing researchers’ access to data, European Commission rules.
• “Could research security measures reshape open science?”
• “UK university halted human rights research after pressure from China.”
• An author of a study on “Fake publications in biomedical science” is among those proposing a “call to action for all stakeholders…to unite in reforming the structure of the current science publishing culture.”
• Data science platform’s “Scientific Image Forgery Detection” competition: “Who can develop the best model to detect copy/move forgeries in biomedical images?” asks Elisabeth Bik.
• “Facing claims of animal abuse, a major breeder of research dogs will close its pipeline.”
• “The Administration Dismantled CDC’s Peer Review System. Staff Scrambled to Save It.” 
• “Manuscript Submissions Are Up! That’s Good, Right?”
• “Citation proximus: The role of social and semantic ties on citations.”

Upcoming talks

• “What to do next?” with our Ivan Oransky (November 18, International Research Integrity Conference, Sydney)
• “Retractions: On the Rise, But Not Enough” with our Ivan Oransky (November 19, Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-research and Open Science 2025 Conference, University of Sydney)

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 2025-11-08 11:00:00 UTC.

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

James Watson, Co-Discoverer of DNA’s Structure, Dead at Age 97

James Watson’s work on the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA led to a revolution in biology and genetics

in Scientific American on 2025-11-07 22:00:00 UTC.

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

Journal retracts ‘bizarre’ placebo effect paper

An Elsevier journal has retracted a study on the placebo effect coauthored by a researcher known for extreme claims that have failed to withstand scrutiny. The move comes after critics said the researchers misunderstood “what a ‘treatment effect’ is.” 

The study, published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology in December 2024, analyzed 30 clinical trials examining treatments for a total of five conditions. The authors concluded “the placebo-effect is the major driver of treatment effects in clinical trials that alone explains 69% of the variance.” It has been cited once, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

The last author of the study is Harald Walach, who may be familiar to readers of Retraction Watch. In one now-retracted paper, Walach and his coauthors claimed the COVID-19 vaccines killed two people for every three deaths they prevented. In a different, also retracted paper, Walach and colleagues claimed children’s masks trap carbon dioxide. (They later republished the article in a different journal.) 

Walach lost two papers and a university post in 2021 and now holds affiliations with the Change Health Science Institute in Basel, Switzerland, and the Next Society Institute in Vilnius, Lithuania. This retraction brings his total to four. 

As we wrote in May, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, a research fellow at the University of Wollongong in Australia known for sleuthing, told us the results of the placebo effect paper seemed to indicate “simply being in a clinical trial is the main component of healing.”

According to the undated retraction notice, the journal “did not find any evidence of deliberate attempts to mislead or any scientific misconduct on the part of the authors.” The “authors agreed that the title is misleading and the manuscript should have been more nuanced or measured,” the notice continues, indicating the researchers misrepresented a formula and included a retracted study in their analysis. Nevertheless, the authors “judge that none of these mistakes change the overall findings and conclusions.”

Stephen Rhodes, a researcher at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, had criticized the study in a letter to the editor in February, citing a “number of errors that lead to some sweeping conclusions.” In the letter, Rhodes wrote those leaps “reflect a misunderstanding of what a ‘treatment effect’ is.” In a placebo-controlled trial, Rhodes observed, the measure can’t be “due to placebo.”

The editors of the JCE “do not agree with all the criticisms” critics conveyed, according to the notice.

Neither Walach nor the study’s first author, Stefan Schmidt, a professor at the University of Freiburg in Germany, responded to our requests for comment. 

The notice also states the retraction “has raised important questions in respect of the editorial and peer review process for this manuscript, for which the Journal bears responsibility.” David Tovey, co-editor-in-chief of the JCE, told us “as a journal editor, I have to reflect on whether this situation could have been avoided.”

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 2025-11-07 18:46:22 UTC.

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

Early Arctic Cold Snap Could Break Decades-Old Temperature Records

An early cold snap will chill much of the U.S., potentially breaking records in the Southeast

in Scientific American on 2025-11-07 18:40:00 UTC.

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

China's Stranded Astronauts Show the Dangers of Space Junk

Three Chinese astronauts will likely return safely to Earth after a reported space-junk strike. But the incident highlights the growing risk of orbital debris

in Scientific American on 2025-11-07 18:35:00 UTC.

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

What FAA’s Flight Reduction Plan Means for Safety and Cancellations

“I have no problems flying,” says one expert about the FAA’s plan to reduce flights by 10 percent at 40 airports nationwide. “I would get on an airplane tomorrow”

in Scientific American on 2025-11-07 17:15:00 UTC.

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

World’s Largest Spider Web Discovered in Bizarre Sulfur Cave

This finding is the first documented case of colonial behavior between two solitary species of spider

in Scientific American on 2025-11-07 16:00:00 UTC.

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

Why Is the Milky Way Warped?

Observations show the disk of our galaxy is not flat but warped and waving. Astronomers are still working out the reasons why

in Scientific American on 2025-11-07 11:45:00 UTC.