Planet Neuroscientists

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

Schneider Shorts 21.02.2025 – I reviewed the facts and could not find any scientific misconduct

in For Better Science on 2025-02-21 06:00:00 UTC.

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

USDA Layoffs Derail Projects Benefiting American Farmers

in WIRED Science on 2025-02-20 18:30:44 UTC.

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

Buried Treasure Crossword

in Science News on 2025-02-20 16:30:00 UTC.

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

The Odds of a City-Killing Asteroid Hitting Earth Keep Rising

in WIRED Science on 2025-02-20 15:00:00 UTC.

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

Biological sex is not as simple as male or female

in Science News on 2025-02-20 14:00:00 UTC.

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

Even desert cities could pull drinking water from the air 

in Science News on 2025-02-20 05:00:00 UTC.

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

Wiley journal retracts 26 papers for ‘compromised peer review’

A Wiley journal has retracted more than two dozen articles in the last few months for peer review issues. 

The articles, which appeared in Environmental Toxicology, have been retracted in batches, the latest on February 16-17, with previous sets in January and November.

The retraction notices of all 26 papers read in part:

Following an investigation by the publisher, the parties have concluded that this article was accepted solely on the basis of a compromised peer review process. Therefore, the article must be retracted.

All authors of the retracted papers are affiliated with universities in China. Most of the corresponding authors had email domains not associated with a university or research organization, containing random sequences of letters and numbers, a potential sign of paper mill activity. 

A representative from the Wiley press office told us in an email the journal had “identified concerning peer review patterns associated with manuscripts in progress as well as some previously published papers.” The batches in November and January were retracted as part of the same investigation, the representative confirmed. They did not immediately respond to our request for additional information regarding the February retractions or inform us whether they plan to continue retracting papers.

This isn’t the first time Wiley has had mass retractions for peer review anomalies. In June 2024, International Wound Journal retracted dozens of articles for “compromised” peer review. And since late 2022, the publisher has retracted more than 11,000 papers from Hindawi journals, which Wiley acquired in 2021.

Nine of the retraction notices stated that one or more of the authors disagreed with the retractions. Zheng Lufeng, associate professor at China Pharmaceutical University in Nanjing, was co-corresponding author of the retracted article “MiR-375 impairs breast cancer cell stemness by targeting the KLF5/G6PD signaling axis.” He told us in an email the authors were not involved in the peer review process. “This is the editor’s responsibility,” he said. Lufeng also wrote he hoped the editors would amend the retraction notices to indicate the retractions had “nothing to do” with the authors.

Aside from Lufeng, none of the corresponding authors responded to our requests for comment. 

Of the papers retracted so far, all but two were published in 2024 issues or online under Wiley’s “EarlyView” service. 

The notices stated all articles were “retracted by agreement between the journal Editor-in-Chief” and Wiley Periodicals LLC. Paul B. Tchounwou, associate dean at Morgan State University, was the editor-in-chief of the journal until November. The current editor-in-chief is Christyn Bailey, a full-time editor at Wiley. Neither Tchounwou nor Bailey responded to our request 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 2025-02-19 21:34:05 UTC.

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

Your Next Pet Could Be a Glowing Rabbit

in WIRED Science on 2025-02-19 18:10:16 UTC.

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

Squishy materials reveal new physics of static electricity 

in Science News on 2025-02-19 16:00:00 UTC.

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

Earth had new, temporary radiation rings last year

in Science News on 2025-02-19 14:00:00 UTC.

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

National Science Foundation Fires 168 Workers as Federal Purge Continues

in WIRED Science on 2025-02-18 18:28:40 UTC.

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

How to use Google Scholar as a neuroscientist

Google Scholar is a search engine for scientific publications. There are alternatives like PubMed (not a search engine but a database, often used in the medical field), Semantic Scholar (also a database, but with richer annotations), Citation Gecko (to discover networks of forward- and backward-citations, which is handy to check for missed papers), all of which I’m using from time to time. Or new tools based on large language models like perplexity.ai or litmaps, which still have to show their value in the long run. Personally, I prefer Google Scholar. It casts the widest net among all these tools, covering not only journal publications but also conference preceedings, thesis publications, patents. This strategy also indexes crap from predatory journals, which is usually easy to spot for a scientist, but also some hidden gems that you would otherwise miss.

Google Scholar can be used not only as a search engine but is at the same time a tool to assemble the publications associated with a single researcher in a Google Scholar profile. Here are my pieces of advice on how to make the best use of your Google Scholar profile as a researcher in neuroscience (and related disciplines). Let me know if I missed something important!

1. Create a public Google Scholar profile

Once you have a Google account, it is pretty straightforward to create a Google Scholar profile. As soon as you have own publications associated with this profile, it also makes sense to make the profile public – this renders you searchable via Google scholar as a person with an ID. Since most people in the neurosciences are using Google Scholar (with a larger minority of medically-oriented or traditional researchers still preferring PubMed), this small step makes you more visible as a identifiable researcher, without having to go back to OrcID or other identifiers.

2. Curate your publications

From time to time, you will be informed by Google Scholar about new publications that are associated with your name. You can tell the algorithm to automatically update new publications (I’d choose this option only if you are very busy) or to decide by yourself each time (recommended). In the latter case, don’t forget to forward updates from Google Scholar in case you are not using the associated gmail account for your daily business.

Such a manual curation is a good use of your time to make your Google Scholar page useful to others and more readable. To do so, delete publications that are erroneously associated with your account. If publications that are listed separately are versions of the same study, merge them as shown below:

Sometimes, Google Scholar decides to include non-peer-reviewed scientific work in its search results, for example your thesis. I noticed that Google Scholar also includes posts of this blog post if they are structured like a scientific article and include a list of references. For example, the following email showed up when I posted a blog post reviewing papers on astrocytic physiology:

I believe it is nice that Google Scholar also picks up these instances of scientific output in its results, but I don’t include them on my Scholar profile in order not to confuse the profile’s typical human viewer.

In theory, it is possible to add your own items to Google Scholar, based on Github repositories or other scientific output that is not found by Google Scholar. However, I would not recommend it since it may appear as if you were trying to artifically inflate the number of publications in your profile.

3. Annotate shared first authorships

As most tools for literature search, Google Scholar normally does not display “equally contributing” first authors. For many projects in experimental neuroscience, however, two or more authors are “equally contributing”, without being reflected by Google Scholar’s author list. To fix this issue and to make your Google Scholar profile a more accurate reflection of your contributions to publications, you can click on an article, hit the “Edit” button and add asterisks (*) to the equally contributing first authors. Note that this procedure will update the author list in your Google Scholar profile but not in the Google Scholar search results. For example, an item may then appear like this:

4. Set up personalized alerts to stay up to date

Apart from being a useful web display of your publications, Google Scholar can also be used to keep you updated about current research related to your own publications. To do so, go to your Google Scholar profile page and click on the “Follow” button in the top right corner. This window will pop up:

Hit the checkbox “New articles related to my research”, and you will be informed via email about publications related to your own (published) research. From my experience, >90% of these “related publications” are irrelevant and can be ignored, while the remaining <10% are useful. It’s certainly better than relying on bluesky or other social media or going through table of contents of journals. The updates are quite independent of journal names and not biased by the usage of social media by a specific researcher. Therefore, it is also possible to spot relevant and well-done research published in smaller journals or by less prominent researchers, without losing track of “high profile” studies.

Of course, if you don’t have yet any publications, it does not make so much sense to receive alerts about publications related to your work. In this case, go to the Google Scholar profile page of your supervisor, scientific hero, postdoc colleague or anybody who in your opinion does great research. Then, hit the “Follow” button on his/her Google Scholar profile page and select “New articles related to this author’s research”, and you will be updated about research close to your interests.

Of course, getting updates about new research can be quite stressing sometimes, and it is impossible to fully stay up to date with the literature. If you have the feeling that you cannot keep up with the “related” literature anymore, that’s okay. Just cancel your Google Scholar alerts, do some real science and come back to literature search at a later timepoint. Of course, you may miss some of the hottest developments. But following all the newest trends and hot topics can also be stressful, and we all should do our very best to purge any sources of unnecessary stress and distraction from our work life as researchers.

5. Conclusion

I’m a big fan of Google Scholar. But it is always imporant not to get sidetracked by pure citation counts. Don’t judge a person based on their profile with its citation counts per year and numbers of publications. Always pick one or two first-author publications that you can judge scientifically, and check out what is behind the title, in the abstract, the figures, the methods sections, or the acknowledgements. Citation metrics can be manipulated and gamed, and nothing replaces the deep dive into real science.

Google Scholar also comes with quite a good documentation. Check it out! For further information about the background of Google Scholar, check out this article on Wikipedia.

in Peter Rupprecht on 2025-02-18 17:41:09 UTC.

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

When a sleuth gets hired by a publisher: A Q&A with Nick Wise

Nick Wise had a prolific start to his sleuthing journey. In July 2021, the fluid dynamics researcher started looking for tortured phrases in published papers, and has since had a hand in at least 1,000 retractions. He also helped identify unique phrases for the Tortured Phrases Detector, a function of the Problematic Paper Screener that identifies signs of misconduct. Last month, Wise teamed up with other research fraud hunters in a Nature article that outlined “five essential steps to combat industrialized scientific misconduct.”

His success in calling out research misconduct helped him land a full-time job.  In January, Wise started a new position as research integrity manager at publisher Taylor & Francis. We spoke with him about how his new position will impact his career trajectory and how he plans to use his sleuthing past in his new position. 

Retraction Watch: As research integrity manager, what will you be doing?

Wise: I will be primarily investigating research integrity concerns, whether raised internally or externally, for both published and unpublished works. The cases could be relatively simple plagiarism or image manipulation concerns for a single paper, or larger cases involving tens or even hundreds of papers across multiple journals, including where we may suspect paper mill involvement.

Retraction Watch: What from sleuthing will you take into your research integrity job?

Wise: I wouldn’t have this job without my sleuthing work, and I think almost every aspect of it transfers to my new job. I think that my knowledge of paper mills and selling authorships will be particularly useful, and there have already been cases where I have recognized names from investigations I conducted before starting the job.

Retraction Watch: Will you be able to continue sleuthing outside of your job?

Wise: I feel that, in effect, I am sleuthing from 9 to 5 every day, so I don’t have a great desire to keep going into the evening, and that’s before getting into potential conflicts of interest. I’m very interested in what other sleuths find and I’m still in contact with them. It’s important to my work to keep track of new investigations and developing trends in research misconduct.

Retraction Watch: Any interesting lessons from your first few weeks on the job?

Wise: I thought I was fairly cynical about the kinds of misconduct that goes on, but it turns out I am not cynical enough. Being able to look behind the curtain and see reviewer’s reports, communications between authors and editors etc. really opens your eyes to what some people are trying to get away with.

Retraction Watch: What are your thoughts on sleuths being compensated for their work? Would having a paid opportunity to continue your sleuthing have altered your career trajectory?

Wise: I would have loved to be able to be employed full time by an organization to investigate research integrity issues, with the ability to look at any publisher. However, as far as I know, no such positions exist. The Retraction Watch sleuth in residence scheme is excellent, but it is just for a single year. There are other initiatives to pay sleuths for investigations, however that would be as and when required, so the sleuth would still need other employment. There are no stable options.

As I said, I feel that I am a paid sleuth at Taylor & Francis. I am restricted to one publisher, but there’s more than enough to keep me busy.

Retraction Watch: What are your thoughts on the integration of AI in publishing practices? (T&F supports “responsible use” of genAI.)

Wise: My personal opinions on generative AI are that it is a tool that can be used competently or incompetently, for good or bad. It can do things that other tools have been able to do for years that we have no problem with: search, translation, grammar and spell checking, etc. It can also generate entire papers, along with hallucinating references to texts that do not exist and creating anatomically implausible diagrams.

There is no point banning the use of generative AI as there is no way to tell for sure that something is AI-generated. Even if we could say for certain that some content was the output of a generative AI, an author could say that they had used the AI for spell checking, or some other acceptable task. I think that all publishers can do is ask people to use AI responsibly. Pandora’s box is already open.

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 2025-02-18 16:52:22 UTC.

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

A weird ice that may form on alien planets has finally been observed

in Science News on 2025-02-18 14:00:00 UTC.

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

Mobulas, an Aquatic Wonder of the Gulf of California, Are Disappearing

in WIRED Science on 2025-02-18 12:30:00 UTC.

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

Slipshod Self-service Ethnopharmacology

in For Better Science on 2025-02-18 06:00:00 UTC.

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

‘It felt like dread.’ Hear what severe depression can do to people

in Science News on 2025-02-17 15:00:00 UTC.

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

A ‘Teleportation’ Breakthrough for Quantum Computing Is Here

in WIRED Science on 2025-02-17 13:53:12 UTC.

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

Giant camel-like creatures lived thousands of years longer than once thought

in Science News on 2025-02-17 13:00:00 UTC.

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

Springer Nature retracted 2,923 papers last year

The 3,000+ journals in the Springer Nature portfolio published over 482,000 articles in 2024, according to data published this week on a new research integrity page on the company’s website. The page also shares a data point you don’t typically get from publishers: 2,923 articles were retracted.

The numbers are a small part of the page, which outlines the tools the publisher uses for quality control, what prompts a research integrity investigation, and what happens during such investigations. 

The publisher breaks down the retraction numbers a little more:

• 61.5% (1797 articles) of the retractions were of papers published before January 2023.
• 38.5% (1126) of retractions were for articles published after January 2023. 
• 41% of the retractions for content published after January 2023 were for open access articles. 

We asked Springer Nature why they chose to share these numbers, and who the intended audience of the page is. Alice Henchley, director of communications, integrity, ethics and editorial policy for the Springer Nature Group, replied: 

We created the page to help provide more information on how the accuracy and integrity of research is maintained, particularly in light of the growing interest in how new technologies are impacting the research system. We hope that this transparency will be helpful to the community and further demonstrate our commitment to scientific integrity, both in terms of the rigour we apply prior to acceptance, and the responsibility we take for updating the publication record when concerns are identified after publication.

Among the Springer Nature retractions in the Retraction Watch Database, Environmental Science and Pollution Research tops our list. We reported in August that the journal, which lost its impact factor in June, was cleaning up hundreds of papers for “suspicious citations, tortured phrases and undisclosed use of AI in the journal’s articles.”

Also high on the list: Scientific Reports, which has made headlines here for a retraction on an article full of tortured phrases and others for concerns over paid authorship; and Applied Nanoscience, which retracted 34 papers in special guest-edited issues riddled with problems.

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 2025-02-17 13:00:00 UTC.

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

This New Algorithm for Sorting Books or Files Is Close to Perfection

in WIRED Science on 2025-02-16 12:00:00 UTC.

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

‘Uncertain, anxious, fearful.’ That’s the mood at 2025’s first big U.S. science meeting

in Science News on 2025-02-15 23:39:08 UTC.

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

For-Profit Companies Can’t Easily Replace NOAA’s Weather-Forecasting Prowess

in WIRED Science on 2025-02-15 13:00:00 UTC.

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

Metals Crucial to Clean Energy Are Getting Caught Up in the US–China Trade War

in WIRED Science on 2025-02-15 12:00:00 UTC.

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

Weekend reads: ‘Why I retracted part of my PhD dissertation’; second NIH official departs; Bik fund

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• As Springer Nature journal clears AI papers, one university’s retractions rise drastically
• Science is considering retracting ‘arsenic life’ paper
• Two papers coauthored by a dean retracted, with a third in question
• Science editor encourages addressing integrity questions publicly
• Announcing the Elisabeth Bik Science Integrity Fund
• Editors resign from sedimentology society journal amid ‘extraordinary and troubling times’
• Second paper by Nobel laureate Thomas Südhof retracted

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 55,000 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):

• “Why I retracted part of my PhD dissertation.” A link to our coverage of the supervisor’s misconduct ruling.
• “Second top NIH official, who oversaw awarding of research grants, departs abruptly.”
• “Renowned scientific integrity investigator endows fund to support fellow sleuths.” Read our announcement of the Elisabeth Bik Science Integrity Fund here. 
• “The Scientific Literature Can’t Save You Now”: Our Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky reflect on RFK Jr.’s use of scientific papers at his hearings.
• “Blurry Authorship: Originality in Science Before and After Large Language Models.”
• “Professor renowned for expunging fake research receives David Vaux Fellowship.”
• “Academic publishing could be facing a watershed moment.”
• “Exploring the Impact of Generative AI on Peer Review: Insights from Journal Reviewers.”
• “How much scholarly publishing is affected by US Presidential Executive Orders?”
• “Amid shakeup in U.S. science, researchers express alarm over integrity of key genetic databases.”
• “Ranking and citation rat race is hurting India’s academic reputation.”
• “Researchers face impossible decisions as U.S. aid freeze halts clinical trials.”
• Harvard inquiry clears political economist of research misconduct.
• “Alzheimer’s scientist resigns after university finds ‘data integrity concerns’ in papers.”
• “If one group weaponizes retractions…why shouldn’t another?” A Q&A with our Ivan Oransky.
• “University of Johannesburg PhD candidate found guilty of plagiarism.”
• “Journal editors, please read your own author guides,” researcher requests.
• “Scientists globally are racing to save vital health databases taken down amid Trump chaos.”
• “New journal co-founded by NIH nominee raises eyebrows, misinformation fears.”
• “Axing of standard publications list sparks quality fears” in India.
• “Oversight Still Fails—NSF Director’s Alleged Plagiarism Still Not Investigated,” says “independent analyst.”
• “Scholarly Publishing Based On a Zero Trust Architecture” from the executive director of NISO. 
• “Not All ‘Predators’ Are the Same: Exploring the Spectrum of Questionable Journals.”
• “Scientific misconduct during the pandemic: Retractions in the field of COVID-19.” Featuring the RW Database.
• “The Trump Administration Is Targeting Science. The Scientific Integrity Act Could Help Protect It.”
• “Top NIH official suddenly steps down.”
• Trump administration pulls wildlife report and deletes a paper on suicide risk.
• “University imposes penalties to curb irregularities in research.”
• Researchers look at “Retracted Citations and Self-citations in Retracted Publications.”
• “Misconceptions about research quality assessment and research performance evaluation” in Indonesia. 
• “Figure plagiarism and manipulation” are “an under-recognised problem in academia,” researchers say.
• “Brazilian ‘predatory journal’ targets Algerian professors: Ministry reacts.”
• “Judges suspend NIH plan to slash payments and order health agencies to restore web pages.”
• “Leyton Orient Head Coach Richie Wellens wishes to retract a comment made in a post-match interview.”

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 2025-02-15 11:00:00 UTC.

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

NIH research grant cuts could deal a biting blow to crucial support staff

in Science News on 2025-02-14 19:44:54 UTC.

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

Editors resign from sedimentology society journal amid ‘extraordinary and troubling times’

The chief editors of the journal Sedimentology have resigned, along with nearly a third of its associate editors, as the society running the title amended its publishing contract. 

The International Association of Sedimentologists (IAS), a scientific society based in Belgium, owns the journal and contracts with Wiley to publish it. 

The IAS had run an operating deficit since its 2021-22 fiscal year, and began discussing “legal, financial, and strategic considerations” in October 2023, according to a letter from IAS acting president Daniel Ariztegui to its members. These moves included changes to the handling of manuscripts and copy-editing at Sedimentology and an amendment to the society’s contract with Wiley. 

The journal’s chief editors and many associate editors opposed the changes, and resigned their positions, according to a February 10 letter Adam McArthur of the University of Leeds posted on LinkedIn. 

“These are quite extraordinary and troubling times in the IAS,” McArthur, one of the resigning editors, wrote in his post. 

“We, like the [contributing editors] who resigned, believe that the move to a Wiley-led model, and the loss of all internal editorial assistance is extremely detrimental to the future of Sedimentology,” the resignation letter stated, citing changes to the role of the journal’s longtime editorial office manager. 

The letter also faulted the IAS leadership for its decision-making process: 

More consultation was appropriate, and a wider base of consent should have been built before actions were taken. Had it been so, the situation where all the Chief Editors for Sedimentology have resigned because they felt that their positions had become untenable would not have arisen.  

McArthur has not responded to our queries, nor have the four former chief editors of the journal.

Sedimentology joins our Mass Resignations List, which documents walkouts and resignations at nearly two dozen journals since 2023.

Ariztegui responded to the resignations in a February 8 letter to members also posted on LinkedIn. He referred to “a misunderstanding or misstatement of the facts” in the resignation letter from the associate editors, which he said had been sent by 12 of the journal’s editors. Twenty-six associate editors remain on the journal’s editorial board page, down from 39 on an archived version of the page from 2023. 

“Sedimentology is not and will not be in the future a ‘Wiley-led’ journal,” Ariztegui wrote. According to his letter, the society’s leadership had voted to amend its contract with Wiley to have the publisher provide “secretarial support” to the journal’s editorial board and run the ScholarOne website. 

The IAS owns Sedimentology and appoints all its editors, who are unpaid and operate “without influence from Wiley,” Ariztegui told Retraction Watch in an email. 

“This fundamental structure remains unchanged,” he wrote to us. “The only modifications involve Wiley handling the transfer of manuscripts to the Chief Editors and managing copy editing post-acceptance—a process aimed at streamlining operations.” 

Ariztegui noted another journal the IAS owns, The Depositional Record, operates with a similar model. “The adjustments being made to Sedimentology align with this model while ensuring that IAS remains in full control of editorial decisions,” he told us. 

The contract between IAS and Wiley comes up for renewal in 2028, and the IAS can give 12 months notice if it decides not to renew, he said. “All changes proposed and approved by the Council of Management, in accordance with the association statutes, have been implemented to address the IAS budget deficit and ensure alignment in the operations of all journals owned by the association,” he said. 

As for the editorial office manager, Elaine Richardson, Ariztegui told us she “is not being dismissed,” although McArthur’s LinkedIn post said her position “has been terminated.” She has not responded to our request for comment. 

“We are in the process of negotiating a new service agreement, and hopefully she will continue to provide copy-editing services for the IAS,” Ariztegui told us. “This has been clearly communicated in our previous statements.” 

Ariztegui’s letter to IAS members went into more detail on the reasons for changing the role, namely to comply with Belgian and European law on self-employment. 

He also defended the IAS decision-making process as in line with “good governance,” but noted most of Sedimentology’s chief editors stopped engaging in discussions in October 2024, “as they disagreed with the proposed changes.” 

“We recognize that communication between the Council of Management and the Associate Editors of Sedimentology could have been more frequent and effective,” Ariztegui told us. “Additionally, adjustments to the management structure may have contributed to communication challenges.” 

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 2025-02-14 18:52:01 UTC.

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

ICYMI: Second paper by Nobel laureate Thomas Südhof retracted

A 2017 paper coauthored by Nobel laureate Thomas Südhof has been retracted. 

The article, “Conditional Deletion of All Neurexins Defines Diversity of Essential Synaptic Organizer Functions for Neurexins,” was published in Neuron in May 2017 and has been cited 145 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. 

The retraction notice, issued February 11, states:

We, the authors of this publication, have decided to retract the paper because we found that the images in Figure 1D and Figure S4B contain aberrations that cannot be explained, and the original data for these figures are missing. Raw data for the other components of the paper are available, and their reanalysis confirmed the conclusions of the paper. We would like to thank M. Schrag for bringing these image aberrations to our attention.

The article was the subject of a lengthy PubPeer thread initiated in April 2024 by Lulu Y. Chen, the paper’s lead author and, at the time, a postdoc in Südhof’s lab at Stanford University. Chen wrote that she “discovered I inadvertently duplicated a panel” in one of the paper’s figures, and she was “posting this finding preemptively.” In the months following, several sleuths, including Elisabeth Bik and Matthew Shrag, noted issues with other figures in the paper. 

The Transmitter reported in August that an update on Südhof’s website stated the authors had requested a retraction of the article. (Note: Retraction Watch cofounder Ivan Oransky is the editor-in-chief of The Transmitter.) The article has been cited seven times since August.

When Neuron issued the retraction notice this week, Bik posted the text of it, adding:

Of note, the authors’ wording of “we found” and “can not be explained” seem not reflect what was discussed above on this thread. It is also remarkable that only Dr. Schrag is thanked for bringing this to the authors’ attention.

The retraction is the second for Südhof. Several corrections on his papers have also been issued recently, Science reported in May, with many other papers flagged on PubPeer. A regularly updated page on Südhof’s website details the concerns and actions taken to investigate.

He is one of 22 Nobel Prize winners who have had papers retracted. 

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 2025-02-14 18:33:07 UTC.

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

How a mushroom coral goes for a walk without legs

in Science News on 2025-02-14 14:00:00 UTC.

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

Schneider Shorts 14.02.2025 – Aberrations that cannot be explained

in For Better Science on 2025-02-14 06:00:00 UTC.

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

Episode 303 - Yin Shen, PhD

On February 13, 2025 we met with Yin Shen to discuss the contribution of cis-regulatory non-coding DNA sequences in controlling gene expression, and how variation of these regions in microglia may be risk factors in idiopathic brain diseases.

Guest:

Yin Shen, Professor in the Department of Neurology and the Institute for Human Genetics in the Weill Institute for Neurosciences at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine

Participating:

Melanie Carless, Department of Neuroscience, Developmental and Regenerative Biology, UTSA

Host:

Charles Wilson, Department of Neuroscience, Developmental and Regenerative Biology, UTSA

Thanks to Jim Tepper for original music

in Neuroscientists talk shop on 2025-02-13 23:00:00 UTC.

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

ICYMI: Science editor encourages addressing integrity questions publicly

When scientists face critique of their published work, they should be proactive in responding to the issues and to questions about it from the public and the media, says Science editor-in-chief Holden Thorp in an editorial in the Feb. 14 Science.

“In an age of growing, intense attacks on science, silence can be detrimental to both public trust and the careers of scientists who are under scrutiny,” writes Thorp and coauthor Meagan Phelan, communications director for Science. “For better or worse, journalists, social media professionals, and the public may take a response of ‘no comment’ as a concession that the critics are correct, so forthright communication about research questions is more urgent than ever.”

The editorial goes on to advise researchers to discuss any integrity inquiries with their institution, but to make their own decisions when it comes to discussing the issues openly with the media. In an accompanying blog post, Thorp and Phelan give tips on steps to take when questions arise about the integrity of a published paper, including pointers on how to prepare for a conversation with reporters. (In the interest of transparency: Retraction Watch cofounder Ivan Oransky provided Phelan feedback on the tips at her request.)

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 2025-02-13 19:49:07 UTC.

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

Even epic rainfall may not be enough to refill SoCal’s aquifers

in Science News on 2025-02-13 19:00:00 UTC.

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

A Nose-Computer Interface Could Turn Dogs Into Super Detectors

in WIRED Science on 2025-02-13 18:45:37 UTC.

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

In a first, zebra cams reveal herds on the move with giraffes

in Science News on 2025-02-13 16:30:00 UTC.

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

Announcing the Elisabeth Bik Science Integrity Fund

We’re thrilled to be partnering with foremost scientific sleuth Elisabeth Bik on a new way to support scientific integrity: The Elisabeth Bik Science Integrity Fund.

Bik is a renowned science integrity advocate and microbiologist who investigates and exposes research misconduct, including image duplication and data manipulation, to uphold transparency and ethical standards in scientific publishing.

The Fund, launched with the proceeds of Bik’s Einstein Award, will provide financial resources to Bik and other sleuths and collaborators, as well as provide funding for training programs, grants, or awards for science integrity advocates. Plans also include funding educational or outreach initiatives promoting transparency and accountability in scientific research. Based on a fiscal sponsorship model, and leveraging our experience in nonprofit development and administration, Bik will have full direction over the Fund’s resources.

“This Fund is a great chance to help science integrity advocates work better together to ensure research misconduct is exposed and addressed,” said Bik. “Keeping science honest takes a team effort, and with this support, I want to bring together even more sharp-eyed sleuths to keep research on the right track.” 

“We are delighted to partner with Bik, whose work has been so crucial to efforts to clean up the scientific record, to provide administrative support as well as a way donors can support her efforts and earn a tax deduction,” said Ivan Oransky, cofounder of Retraction Watch and executive director of The Center For Scientific Integrity, Retraction Watch’s parent nonprofit organization. “We see the Fund fitting extremely well with our efforts at Retraction Watch and the Retraction Watch Database, as well as the Retraction Watch Sleuth In Residence program. We are grateful that Bik has chosen us as a partner and can’t wait to see how much more impact the Fund will allow her to have.”

Read a news story about the fund published today on Science’s website.

We hope to grow the Fund to increase its impact. Contributions are tax-deductible to the full extent of the law, and can be made here or by check, made out to The Center For Scientific Integrity and sent to 121 W. 36th St., Suite 209, New York, NY 10018, with a note in the memo field saying “Bik Fund.” Should you be in a position to contribute securities, please contact ivan@retractionwatch.com for instructions.

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 2025-02-13 15:03:52 UTC.

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

Why a norovirus vaccine isn’t available — yet

in Science News on 2025-02-13 14:00:00 UTC.

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

This Is Where Asteroid 2024 YR4 Could Strike

in WIRED Science on 2025-02-13 10:00:00 UTC.

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

Revenge of the Covid Conspiracy Theorists

in WIRED Science on 2025-02-12 21:16:09 UTC.

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

Two papers coauthored by a dean retracted, with a third in question

Two papers on a novel approach for flood prediction have been retracted for “substantial overlap” between the works. The authors, including Debopam Acharya, dean of the School of Computing at DIT University in Uttarakhand, India, are contesting both retractions.

The articles, published in 2023, are “FLOODALERT: an internet of things based real-time flash flood tracking and prediction system,” which appeared in  Multimedia Tools and Applications, and “An IoT-based system for monitoring and forecasting flash floods in real-time,” from Journal of Earth System Science. They have been cited seven and five times, respectively.

The articles were retracted after a concerned researcher, who also reached out to Retraction Watch, emailed each journal about problems with the papers. 

Similarities between the publications include the authors’ proposal of a “novel technique” to “estimate river discharge based on sectional area and flow of the river,” the proposed architecture for data collection and prediction, and proposed mobile application for “real-time monitoring.” A comparison of the two documents shows much of the content, including the figures and most of the text in the introduction, results, discussion and conclusion, is shared. 

Springer Nature, the publisher of both journals, replied to our request for comment by reiterating the retraction notices, which were nearly identical for the two papers. 

“The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article because it contains substantial overlap in text and figures with two previous publications,” the December 2024 notice in JESS reads. The MTA notice references overlap with “another published article” but not the figures.  

Acharya told us in an email the authors are “challenging” the retractions.

Anurag Barthwal, a researcher at Apeejay Stya University in Haryana, India, and the corresponding author on the articles, said the papers were retracted because “they have some overlapping text, images and a table, in the literature review and hardware architecture sections. It happened because of the mistake of research scholar [sic].”

The MTA manuscript was received Oct.13, 2022, three months after authors submitted the JESS manuscript, on July 18, 2022. Both papers were revised and accepted after a different article on the topic was published in IEEE Sensors Journal (IEESJ) by the same authors. 

That paper, “FLOODWALL: A Real-Time Flash Flood Monitoring and Forecasting System Using IoT,” was submitted Oct. 8, 2022, and published November 29. It has been cited 14 times. 

Both Springer papers bear similarities with this one, including the authors’ “novel approach” for estimating river discharge. Although the IEESJ paper shares fewer similarities with the Springer papers than they do with each other, our analysis concluded it has the same proposed architecture. Tables 2, 3, and 4 as well as figures 2, 4, 5 ,6, and 8 of the paper are the same as at least one of the Springer papers.

“As the submissions deal with different problems related to flash floods, there was no intention to commit misconduct,” Barthwal said. “The [JESS] paper proposed only an architecture, no analysis or prediction. Other papers have different proposed models for analysis and solution approaches.”

In an email seen by Retraction Watch dated March 15, 2024, Marco Jose Da Silva, associate editor-in-chief of IEESJ, told the sleuth who emailed him the “parallel submission to different journals is obviously unethical. However, we at IEEE Sensors Journal were the first to publish the content and could not know about the parallel submissions. Therefore, the authors’ misconduct occurred with their submissions elsewhere, and IEEE is not in a position to address their misconduct.”

However, Carlos Ruiz Zamarreño, the journal’s associate editor-in-chief for publication integrity, had a different take. 

From “my point of view there is a clear misconduct of the authors with multiple submissions of the same work to different journals,” Zamarreño wrote in an email to editor-in-chief Zeynep Celik and seen by Retraction Watch. He noted that although the IEESJ article was published first, the manuscript was actually accepted after the authors submitted their manuscript to JESS. He stated IEEE publication principles dictate authors should disclose if the article was under consideration by any other journals. Zamarreño suggested the authors at least be notified of the policy. 

Celik, Zamarreño, and Silva forwarded our request for comment to Francine Tardo, an IEEE spokesperson. Tardo told us in an email the journal “previously reviewed this paper and we have nothing more to add at this time.”

Acharya said IEEE has “already written to us agreeing to our comments, that the work is original. We strongly believe that the others [sic] works will also be treated that way.” He also urged us not to write about the case: “If you or anybody write about this issue that is pending a decision between the author and the journal authorities, we will be forced to take appropriate actions against such writeups.” 

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 2025-02-12 19:25:11 UTC.

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

A pancreatic cancer blood test called PAC-MANN could spot the disease early 

in Science News on 2025-02-12 19:00:00 UTC.

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

A bacteria-based Band-Aid helps plants heal their wounds

in Science News on 2025-02-12 19:00:00 UTC.

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

California’s Problem Now Isn’t Fire—It’s Rain

in WIRED Science on 2025-02-12 18:55:58 UTC.

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

A cosmic neutrino of unknown origins smashes energy records

in Science News on 2025-02-12 16:00:00 UTC.

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

Ozempic’s key ingredient may reduce the desire to drink alcohol

in Science News on 2025-02-12 16:00:00 UTC.

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

ICYMI: Science is considering retracting ‘arsenic life’ paper

Science is finally considering retracting a 2010 paper claiming the discovery of a bacterium that could substitute arsenic for phosphorus in its chemical makeup. “We feel the best thing to do would be to retract the paper,” the journal’s editor-in-chief Holden Thorp told the New York Times in an article published Tuesday. 

The article follows up with Felisa Wolfe-Simon, the lead author of the work who withdrew from science and public life after the intense spotlight from the work’s initial splash led to damaging criticism. She has recently gone back to the lab and in 2024 received a NASA exobiology grant.  

Retraction Watch readers may recall that Science published numerous technical comments and two studies refuting the original work. In 2012, David Sanders — who would later become well-known as a sleuth — said in our pages that the “only responsible action on the part of Science would be to retract the original article.”  He called again for the retraction in 2021.

Also in 2012, we asked Science whether the journal had asked the authors if they wanted to retract the article. They told us at the time: “Except in rare cases, corrections, clarifications, or retractions should ideally be initiated by the original research authors.” 

The New York Times article indicates the journal has had a change of heart. And yesterday Thorp linked to the article on his LinkedIn page, writing:

Science initially published a large set of technical comments and the two failed replications but did not retract the paper. That was consistent with the norms at the time. As this paper continues to be discussed prominently, Science is of the view that the paper should be retracted. We have not done so yet, because we are working with the authors to ensure that they have every opportunity to understand our position and to make any additional arguments.

Stay tuned.

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 2025-02-12 15:11:42 UTC.

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

Migrating whale sharks make pit stops at oil and gas rigs

in Science News on 2025-02-12 14:00:00 UTC.

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

How to Get PFAS Out of Drinking Water—and Keep It Out

in WIRED Science on 2025-02-12 11:30:00 UTC.

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

Your Love Life on Ozempic

in WIRED Science on 2025-02-12 11:00:00 UTC.

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

The Extortionists, by M. Angeles Oviedo-Garcia

in For Better Science on 2025-02-12 06:00:00 UTC.