Planet Neuroscientists

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

Master of chaos wins $3M math prize for ‘blowing up’ equations

For decades, the mathematician Frank Merle has been embracing the messy math behind lasers and fluids

in Scientific American on 2026-04-18 23:00:00 UTC.

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

The science behind the peptide craze

The world of peptides has exploded in wellness circles, but the benefits of injecting these gray-market molecules rest on little clinical evidence

in Scientific American on 2026-04-18 12:00:00 UTC.

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

NSF awards record number of coveted PhD fellowships in surprise move

Quantum science and AI research are big winners just a year after the U.S. funding giant slashed its Graduate Research Fellowship Program awards in half

in Scientific American on 2026-04-18 11:30:00 UTC.

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

Weekend reads: An alternative to the impact factor in China; the clinical trials of six ‘superretractors’; Retraction Watch goes to Capitol Hill

If your week flew by — we know ours did — catch up here with what you might have missed.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Scientist who alleged COVID cover-up circulated a faked NIH email, agency says
• BMJ retracts most of a special issue for ‘compromised’ peer review and ‘improbable device use’
• ‘Game-changer’ breast cancer study retracted as Indiana researcher out of his post
• Retraction Watch testifies in Congressional hearing on scientific publishing. Coverage of the hearing in Nature and Inside Higher Ed. 
• 45 editors resign from math journal, former EIC calls Elsevier publisher a ‘mini-dictator’

In case you missed the news, the Hijacked Journal Checker now has more than 400 entries. The Retraction Watch Database has over 64,000 retractions. Our list of COVID-19 retractions is up to 650, and our mass resignations list has more than 50 entries. We keep tabs on all this and more. If you value this work, please consider showing your support with a tax-deductible donation. Every dollar counts.

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

• “China proposes a new way to measure academic influence in a departure from impact factor.”
• “Six ‘Superretractors’ Responsible for Large Number of Retracted Clinical Trials,” study finds.
• A cancer research pioneer with five retractions a decade ago earns an expression of concern for a Nature paper.
• “Can journals that pay peer reviewers succeed?”
• “China shifts research funding focus away from journal fees.”
• Study of PLOS journals finds articles with open peer review “much less likely” to be retracted.
• Researchers look at retractions in the orthodontic literature.”Where Does Publishing’s A.I. Problem Leave Authors and Readers?”
• “When Authorship Goes Wrong: Why SIGCHI Conferences Freeze Author Lists and What That Means.”
• “Citations of Retracted Ophthalmology Papers Persist, Study Warns.”
• “Academic fraud may be the symptom of a much more systemic problem.”
• Korean education ministry audits Kookmin University over governance and former first lady.
• “Frontiers issues AI guidance spanning full publishing lifecycle.”
• “I’m much less sure about where to submit my papers than I used to be,” writes ecologist.
• “Discoverability matters: Open access models and the translation of science into patents.”
• “Dozens of AI disease-prediction models were trained on dubious data,” finds preprint. 
• The U.K. Research Excellence Framework’s “experiment with research culture was always doomed.”
• Researcher points out a university awarded a thesis that cited a retracted study to attribute “anti-cancer properties to a plant.” 
• “Citation self-awareness for a fairer academic publishing landscape.”
• “China discontinues prominent journal ranking list.”
• “Authorship, Accountability, and the Erosion of Scientific Publishing.”
• “Adopting a united front against paper mills“: On international stakeholder group United2Act Against Paper Mills. 
• “Questionable Research Practices: A Principled Classification and Ranking Based on Survey Data.”
• “Flawed study on the antidepressant Paxil came with a cautionary note — if you knew how to find it.” A judge tossed the lawsuit on the study earlier this month. 
• “Mouse neurobehaviorist by day; research integrity watchdog by night.”

Upcoming talk

• National Academies “Workshop on Enhancing Scientific Integrity Progress and Opportunities in the Social and Behavioral Sciences” featuring our Ivan Oransky (April 24, virtual) 

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

in Retraction watch on 2026-04-18 10:00:00 UTC.

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

Did AI just solve the mystery of one of El Greco’s most enigmatic paintings?

For years, art historians believed The Baptism of Christ was likely painted by El Greco with assistance from other artists. But new research suggests otherwise

in Scientific American on 2026-04-17 18:00:00 UTC.

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

How to invent a realistic language for fictional speakers

in Science News: Science & Society on 2026-04-17 16:00:00 UTC.

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

Songbirds reveal the dark side of making new brain cells as adults

A new study in songbirds might help explain why humans don’t generate many new brain cells, called neurons, as adults

in Scientific American on 2026-04-17 15:00:00 UTC.

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

What’s the weirdest planet in the solar system?

All the sun’s planets are oddballs. But some are more so than others

in Scientific American on 2026-04-17 14:30:00 UTC.

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

What is Mythos and why are experts worried about Anthropic’s AI model

The company says Mythos is too dangerous to release publicly. Cybersecurity experts agree the model's capabilities matter, but not all of them are buying the most alarming claims

in Scientific American on 2026-04-17 14:30:00 UTC.

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

How your body and brain construct chronic pain

Author Rachel Zoffness breaks down why we have chronic pain and how science shows that it’s all in our head

in Scientific American on 2026-04-17 13:00:00 UTC.

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

Know the legal age to buy tobacco products in the U.S.? Many parents don’t

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2026-04-17 12:00:00 UTC.

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

AI music is reviving the same fights that shaped the player piano

As AI songs get harder to tell apart from human-made music, an older technology offers a revealing preview of the fight over artistry, labor and pay

in Scientific American on 2026-04-17 11:00:00 UTC.

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

Mars orbiter watches mysterious wave of darkness spread across red planet’s surface

Observations by the Mars Express orbiter reveal rapid changes on the Red Planet’s surface from windblown volcanic ash

in Scientific American on 2026-04-17 11:00:00 UTC.

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

Why birds were the only dinosaurs to survive Earth’s worst day

How a few unique traits helped modern-style birds—the last living dinosaurs—survive the asteroid apocalypse that took out T. rex and other mighty beasts

in Scientific American on 2026-04-17 10:00:00 UTC.

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

Schneider Shorts 17.04.2026 – Saving the planet never tasted this good

in For Better Science on 2026-04-17 05:00:00 UTC.

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

‘Overdue’ debate unfurls over neuroimaging method

in The Transmitter on 2026-04-17 04:00:16 UTC.

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

Former deputy surgeon general Erica Schwartz nominated as new CDC chief

The White House has nominated Erica Schwartz to replace NIH director Jay Bhattacharya as CDC chief. Bhattacharya has been leading the CDC on an acting basis since February, after the public health agency’s director was fired in 2025

in Scientific American on 2026-04-16 21:15:00 UTC.

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

NASA Artemis II astronauts say thank you to the world

Astronauts Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch and Jeremy Hansen reflected on the highs and lows of their moon mission—the first of its kind in more than 50 years

in Scientific American on 2026-04-16 20:00:00 UTC.

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

45 editors resign from math journal, former EIC calls Elsevier publisher a ‘mini-dictator’

Forty-five of 48 members of the editorial board of the Journal of Approximation Theory resigned earlier this month for what they called Elsevier’s “concerning and potentially detrimental” decisions regarding the publication. 

Paul Nevai, formerly a professor at The Ohio State University, was appointed editor-in-chief of JAT in 1990 and held the position for 35 years until December. That’s when he reached the end of his term and Elsevier informed him they’d be filling the position with someone else. 

The mass resignation came after what Nevai said were several years of bad blood between the editors of the journal (including him) and the publisher, Giampiero Accardo. A representative for Elsevier told us designated publishers like Accardo are Elsevier employees who “oversee a portfolio of academic journals within a subject area, working closely with editors, authors, and research communities to support their development and long-term success.”

An April 3 email signed by 45 editors and both former editors-in-chief states: “While the publisher may seek to continue the journal under its existing name, in our view, the journal as we have known it has effectively ceased to exist.”

The journal was founded in 1968 and published by Academic Press until it was acquired by Elsevier in 2001. 

Elsevier “made a series of decisions that a substantial majority of the editors found deeply concerning and potentially detrimental to the journal’s future,” the group resignation letter reads. “Despite efforts to address these concerns through discussions with the publisher, a mutually satisfactory resolution could not be reached.” 

The letter doesn’t explicitly detail which decisions Elsevier made that the editors found problematic. Nevai told us the publisher increased oversight, employed heavy-handed involvement in editorial decisions and attempted to speed up the article production process. 

Only three editors remain on the journal’s website. Retraction Watch reached out to them for comment but they did not respond.

“Editorial succession and rotation are important factors in ensuring the long-term health and sustainability of journals; by rotating editors, fresh approaches and perspectives can be brought to the journal and its community, helping to ensure it continues to serve its field effectively and sustainably,” Elsevier’s representative told us.

“We typically manage these transitions in close partnership with existing editors, often involving them in the nomination of their potential successors over a transition period,” they added.

The April 3 resignation wasn’t the first for the journal. Barry Simon, a prominent mathematical physicist, stepped away earlier this year in protest, Nevai said. Simon did not respond to our request for comment. 

Nevai told us that, before Accardo took on the role of publisher, “everything was perfect,” and likened the publisher to a “mini-dictator.” Before the change, Nevai said, he and co-editor-in-chief Amos Ron had authority to appoint editors. But Elsevier was focused on expanding the editorial board to include researchers from a wider range of countries, according to Nevai. 

Mathematics is a “completely merit based system,” he said, objecting to the move.

Nevai and Ron reached the end of their three-year terms in December. Nevai told us he expected his contract to be renewed and that he would decide when to retire. 

Elsevier told us they had proposed a “collaborative process that included a one-year extension to allow for the identification of suitable successors, with input from the Editorial Board and the wider community. We were unfortunately unable to reach agreement on these points.” 

Although Nevai told us he worked as an associate editor after the end of his term, the Elsevier spokesperson said there was “no formal agreement or appointment for him to take on an Associate Editor role. His position remained Editor-in-Chief during the discussions and following the conclusion of these discussions in late March, his access to the editorial system was removed.”

Nevai understands himself to have been effectively fired as associate editor at the end of March via an email from journal manager Priyadharsini Muthukumar “reassigning” four articles he had been given to review.

The journal joins our Mass Resignation List and is the second math journal in less than a month to do so. In March, we covered another instance of a mathematics journal’s editorial board who resigned en masse due to editorial changes enforced by Taylor & Francis.

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

in Retraction watch on 2026-04-16 19:24:16 UTC.

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

Congress grills RFK, Jr., about vaccines and cuts to health budget

The HHS secretary defended proposed budget cuts to science, his vaccine moves and health care costs on Capitol Hill on Thursday

in Scientific American on 2026-04-16 19:00:00 UTC.

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

How the Grand Canyon formed is a surprisingly messy story. Here's the latest clue

A new study suggests a proto–Colorado River filled a large basin before spilling westward to set the Grand Canyon’s modern path

in Scientific American on 2026-04-16 18:00:00 UTC.

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

Astronomers just finished the biggest, sharpest 3D map of the universe—and it’s beautiful

A new map of the cosmos, including more than 47 million galaxies and other cosmic objects, represents one of the most extensive surveys of our universe ever conducted

in Scientific American on 2026-04-16 17:00:00 UTC.

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

Elizabeth Roboz Einstein—the determined genius behind a multiple sclerosis breakthrough

A Hungarian refugee who came to the U.S. with nothing but a diploma made a breakthrough discovery in the burgeoning field of neurochemistry

in Scientific American on 2026-04-16 16:00:00 UTC.

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

10 dinosaur science books recommended by a paleontologist

Steve Brusatte, author of The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs and The Story of Birds, recommends 10 dinosaur books to dig into

in Scientific American on 2026-04-16 15:40:00 UTC.

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

Secrets of cosmic evolution may lurk in this black hole’s ‘dancing’ jets

A first-of-its-kind observation shows how jets from voracious black holes can shape the growth of galaxies

in Scientific American on 2026-04-16 15:40:00 UTC.

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

How far from humanity were the astronauts of Artemis II? The answer will surprise you

Artemis II’s crew went farther from humanity than anyone has been before. Here’s how one scientist determined whom, specifically, they were farthest from

in Scientific American on 2026-04-16 14:22:00 UTC.

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

Effect of antiamyloid Alzheimer’s drugs ‘absent or trivial,’ Cochrane review finds

These drugs were hailed by proponents as breakthroughs in the fight to treat Alzheimer’s disease, but a new independent review finds they make “no meaningful difference”

in Scientific American on 2026-04-16 14:00:00 UTC.

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

Nearly 400 compounds affect behaviors tied to autism-linked genes in zebrafish

in The Transmitter on 2026-04-16 04:00:19 UTC.

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

Beyond Diagnosis: What Pam Walker’s Positivity Teaches Us About Living with MS

in Women in Neuroscience UK on 2026-04-15 23:00:00 UTC.

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

Retraction Watch testifies in Congressional hearing on scientific publishing

A hearing on Capitol Hill today explored issues in scientific publishing — and Retraction Watch had a seat at the table. 

The Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee of the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology called the hearing to talk about open access, reproducibility, predatory journals, paper mills and the incentive structure in science. The wide remit meant the committee and witnesses touched on quite a few topics in 90 minutes.

Our testimony, delivered by managing editor Kate Travis, focused on the pitfalls of “publish or perish” and how an overreliance on metrics has incentivized shortcuts in research and publishing. “‘Publish or perish’ is what has allowed businesses like paper mills and predatory journals to flourish, and more recently is leading to an explosion of AI-generated papers flooding journals,” Travis told the subcommittee.

Those incentives have a global impact. “A number of news outlets have recently reported on data showing that China has overtaken the U.S. on many measures of scientific prestige and accomplishment,” we said in our written testimony submitted in advance of the hearing. “Some of this rise is due to investment by the Chinese government and real productivity gains. But some of it is also due to gaming the metrics by which science output is judged.”

Several subcommittee members focused on the issues in the context of the president’s 2027 proposed budget, which includes some deep cuts to scientific research. While we didn’t specifically weigh in on the proposed budget, we took the opportunity to talk in our written testimony about what retractions tell us about the research ecosystem:

“The growing retraction rate should be interpreted as a sign of progress,” our testimony states. “It is, in fact, an argument for more investment in scientific research that is performed carefully and rigorously, and corrected when necessary. But retractions still take too long, and do not happen as often as they should.”

Find our written testimony and other information about the hearing here, as well as a recording of the hearing.

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 2026-04-15 21:00:42 UTC.

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

What neuroscientists want from a new NINDS director

in The Transmitter on 2026-04-15 20:56:31 UTC.

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

The Trump administration is looking to experts to weigh in on peptides

Peptide-based substances are largely unproven and risky, experts say, but they’re gaining popularity among influencers and athletes—and the U.S. secretary of health

in Scientific American on 2026-04-15 18:45:00 UTC.

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

When a naked mole rat queen dies, that usually means war—but not for this colony

When their queen dies, naked mole rat females usually wage bloody battles of succession. But peace may be possible, a new study suggests

in Scientific American on 2026-04-15 18:00:00 UTC.

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

“Game-changer” breast cancer study retracted as Indiana researcher out of his post

A group of cancer researchers whose work has been questioned by sleuths has been hit with their third retraction in less than a year.  

Today, Science Translational Medicine (STM) withdrew a 2021 breast cancer study by former Indiana University researcher Yujing Li and 12 other authors for image falsification. The immunotherapy study had been described by senior author Xiongbin Lu as a “game-changer” for triple negative breast cancer in a 2021 IU press release. 

The paper’s April 15 retraction notice states that a joint research misconduct investigation involving Indiana University, The Ohio State University, and the University of Maryland, College Park determined “falsification occurred during creation of figure S9C.” The institutions alerted the American Association for the Advancement of Science of the misconduct late last year and requested the paper’s retraction, according to Meagan Phelan, a spokesperson for AAAS, which publishes STM.

IU spokesperson Mark Bode told us “research integrity is paramount” and that “any allegation of misconduct is investigated thoroughly.” He declined to answer further questions about the misconduct findings but noted that Lu is no longer employed by IU. Lu, a nationally-recognized cancer biologist and professor of medical and molecular genetics, was named to the role in 2017, according to the university’s Facebook page.

Representatives from The Ohio State University and the University of Maryland did not return messages.

The STM paper was supported in part by U.S. National Institutes of Health grants. 

The retraction is at least the third for Lu and three coauthors to result from the universities’ investigation. In January, The Journal of Clinical Investigation retracted two papers by Lu for data falsification. The JCI notices both state the universities informed the journal of figure manipulation in the papers. One of the notices specifies misconduct findings by the universities against Lu and coauthor Hanchen Xu, while the other notice cites misconduct by Lu and coauthor Yunhua Liu.

Three authors on the retracted STM paper are also authors on both retracted JCI papers, including Yujing Li, Kevin Van Der Jeught, and Xinna Zhang. Zhang is Lu’s wife. 

When reached by Retraction Watch, Lu said he was unaware of the retraction, despite the notice indicating he disagreed with the decision.

“To my knowledge, the journal has not reached or communicated a final decision,” he told us. “Reporting on this matter prior to an official determination would be inappropriate and premature.” Li sent a similarly worded response. Van Der Jeught and Zhang did not return messages seeking comment. 

Kevin Patrick is one of several sleuths who have called out problematic data in Lu’s research over the past five years. Patrick, who goes by the known pseudonyms Cheshire and Actinopolyspora biskrensis, started looking at papers from the research group in 2021 after a researcher asked him to examine several articles. During his analysis, Patrick found overlapping and repeated figures in the group’s work, including in both papers retracted by JCI in 2026. 

Patrick shared his concerns about the JCI articles on PubPeer in April 2021. He also posted on X and commented on PubPeer about overlapping images in a 2018 paper by Lu and colleagues in ACS Central Science. ACS retracted the article in 2023.  

Based on his past discoveries, Patrick told us he was “not surprised” by the figure issues found in the STM paper. He noted that another sleuth who goes by Dendrodoa grossularia on PubPeer pointed out problems with the STM paper in March 2021. 

In an exchange on PubPeer at the time, Lu apologized for the “unintended” error. 

The images in the associated treatment group in Figure S9C were “taken by mistake from one mouse in the control group, which resulted in duplicated figures,” he wrote.  

“While this mistake does not affect the conclusion of this mouse toxicity experiment, we deeply apologize for our sloppiness,” Lu wrote on PubPeer. “This has resulted in a change in our lab standard operation. In our future studies, we will name all the image files with detailed information instead of simple numbers.”

The STM paper has been cited 34 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

The retraction notice states that authors Kathy D. Miller and Bryan P. Schneider agreed with the retraction, while Lu and six other authors disagreed and four did not respond or could not be reached. 

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 2026-04-15 18:00:00 UTC.

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

Breath carries clues to gut health

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2026-04-15 17:00:00 UTC.

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

NASA needs nuclear power for its moon base. Here’s the White House plan to get it

If the U.S. is ever to set up a permanent outpost on the moon, it will need nuclear power. The White House just released a road map to get it as soon as 2028

in Scientific American on 2026-04-15 15:30:00 UTC.

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

Arousal neurons’ activity explains brain’s blood flow dynamics in mice

in The Transmitter on 2026-04-15 15:00:32 UTC.

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

Some GLP-1 drugs are more effective for those with specific gene variants

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2026-04-15 15:00:00 UTC.

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

Why do older people have fewer seasonal allergies?

Do declining immune systems explain the trend, or is something else going on? Experts explain

in Scientific American on 2026-04-15 15:00:00 UTC.

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

250-million-year-old fossil proves mammal ancestors laid eggs

Laying eggs may have helped mammal ancestors thrive after Earth’s worst mass extinction

in Scientific American on 2026-04-15 14:15:00 UTC.

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

We are pleased to welcome two CNRS colleagues to the IRL EARLY, whose visits are supported by CNRS Biologie

in OIST Japan on 2026-04-15 12:00:00 UTC.

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

ECSU updates (April 2026)

in OIST Japan on 2026-04-15 12:00:00 UTC.

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

A face-swapping illusion can unlock childhood memories

By making people feel as if they inhabit a younger version of their own face, researchers can bring childhood memories into sharper focus

in Scientific American on 2026-04-15 11:00:00 UTC.

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

30 years of Pokémon—how the Japanese franchise mirrors real-world science

As Pokémon turns 30, we take a look at how the beloved Japanese kids’ franchise was inspired by—and has shaped—real-world science

in Scientific American on 2026-04-15 10:00:00 UTC.

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

Sperm whales may make their own vowel sounds, similar to human language

Sperm whales, which make clicking sounds to communicate, use different “vowels” in ways similar to human speech

in Scientific American on 2026-04-14 23:05:00 UTC.

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

Colombia will euthanize Pablo Escobar’s invasive ‘cocaine hippos’

After attempts at relocation and sterilization have failed, invasive hippos introduced by the infamous drug lord will be culled, the country announced

in Scientific American on 2026-04-14 19:00:00 UTC.

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

BMJ retracts most of a special issue for ‘compromised’ peer review and ‘improbable device use’

BMJ’s Journal of Medical Genetics has retracted the bulk of a seven-year-old special issue for an “irreparably compromised” review process and “improbable device use.” 

Of the eight papers in the 2019 special issue, seven were retracted, including an editorial that “almost exclusively” referred to the other now-retracted papers, according to a statement from the journal. 

According to the retraction notice published today, the journal’s investigation found the guest editor for the issue selected the peer reviewers, the majority of whom were affiliated with Nanjing University in China. The guest editor is not named in the issue. The publisher’s investigation also found evidence of compromised peer review in almost all articles, the notice states.

The articles were submitted in response to a call for papers for “Genomic aspects of cancer immunotherapy: Challenges and clinical implications.” Two of the papers in the special issue were on methods in cancer immunotherapy, five on immunogenetics, and one on functional genomics. Collectively, the eight retracted articles have been cited nearly 350 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

The retraction notice also refers to “evidence of improbable device use in many articles” as a second motivator for the bulk retraction. Caroline White, media relations manager at the BMJ Group, told us this refers to the “type of issue that arises when the same device is used by two people who are supposed to be entirely independent of each other.” White declined to explain exactly what this means, citing legal concerns.

White also said the problems came to light via “tools that highlight potential problems in published articles,” noting the tools “only became available in the past 2-3 years.”

When asked for the name of the guest editor, she told us it was the publisher’s policy “not to go into specific details of retraction cases.”

The retractions were scheduled to be published at 6:30 p.m. ET today and were included in an embargoed notice for journalists. But they were published early in what White told us was a “mistake made by the technical team.” 

None of the corresponding authors immediately responded to our request for comment. All of the authors on the retracted papers listed affiliations with institutions in China, including Nanjing University, and several co-authored more than one article. 

The only article in the special issue that was not retracted was a breast cancer case report by researchers at Harvard Medical School in Boston.  

Huw Dorkins, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Genetics, said in a statement: “This topic collection was really out of scope for the journal, and accepted under a different editorial regime, when different processes applied. We have since reviewed our policies and improved our practice around topic collections.”

Guest-edited special issues appear to be particularly vulnerable to paper mills. Amid its retraction of more than 10,000 papers between late 2022 and early 2024, Hindawi temporarily suspended publishing special issues in 2023 because of “compromised articles.” In 2024, a Springer Nature journal retracted 34 papers from special issues for “compromised editorial handling and peer review process.” The same year, Annals of Operations Research retracted an entire special issue over concerns about “compromised” peer review.

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 2026-04-14 18:53:53 UTC.

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

NASA’s Artemis III will pit SpaceX against Blue Origin

In 2027’s Artemis III mission, the space agency aims to test two challengers, SpaceX and Blue Origin, for a lunar landing mission

in Scientific American on 2026-04-14 17:40:00 UTC.

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

The East Coast could see blazing hot temperatures this week. Here’s why

Summer is here—in April? Many East Coast states will see unusually hot days this week

in Scientific American on 2026-04-14 17:35:00 UTC.

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

New mutations help the H5N1 bird flu virus infect cows but not people

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2026-04-14 16:00:00 UTC.