Planet Neuroscientists

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

NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman Telescope launches to space

The Nancy Grace Roman Telescope will probe dark matter and dark energy, discover exoplanets and study stars

in Scientific American on 2026-08-30 11:26:00 UTC.

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

Why obsessing over self-improvement could be sabotaging your brain

Our obsession with ‘maxxing’ every aspect of our lives could actually be stressing us out

in Scientific American on 2026-08-30 10:00:00 UTC.

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

Weekend reads: Institute defends Nobel Prize winner; Stanford ex-president tries to refute fraud allegations; cardiologist’s ‘monstrous’ conflict of interest

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

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Editors of economics journal resign after Elsevier doesn’t renew EIC’s contract
• Guest post: The uncomfortable truth an explosion of papers reveals about authors’ access to data
• Elsevier to ‘soon investigate’ two Macchiarini papers more than a year after retraction request
• Japan institute defends Nobel Prize winner amid allegations of image duplication
• University press removes book about intelligent design for misquoting ID proponent

In case you missed the news, the Hijacked Journal Checker now has more than 450 entries. The Retraction Watch Database has over 66,000 retractions. Our list of COVID-19 retractions is approaching 700, 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):

• “Former Stanford president releases emails to rebut fraud and cover-up allegations in new book.”
• “A ‘monstrous’ conflict of interest”: Cardiologist involved in creating guidelines for drug profited from “lucrative contracts” with its maker.
• “His Research on Pregnant Opioid Users Was Widely Celebrated. Auditors and Experts Found Major Flaws.”
• “How the fraudulent Radboud researcher’s own journal uncovered his problematic publications.” A link to our coverage of the retractions.
• “Staggering 90% of biomedical papers now show signs of AI help,” preprint finds.
• After experiment, philosophy journal “Decides to Prohibit AI-Authored Content.”
• “Researchers presented 6000 papers at a major meeting. Could AI reproduce their findings?”
• “Peer-Unreviewed: When the Thread Replaces the Paper.”
• Seven medical experts “sanctioned for review misconduct” in China.
• “When misconduct disappears into university bureaucracy.”
• “New tools help detect fraudulent images in scientific papers.”
• “When Scholarship Goes Off Course”: A video Q&A with our cofounders.
• A “rocky path to publication” for two dueling papers on lymphatic tubes in bone tissue. 
• “Adjusted for inflation, annual spending [on APCs] quadrupled from $0.9 billion in 2019 to $3.7 billion in 2025, with >85% concentrated among a few large publishers.”
• “South Africa’s scientists must register with official body or risk prison, according to draft law.”
• “Why retractions alone do not protect India’s scientific record.”
• “After Nolan Interview Fame, Chinese Scholar Accused of Plagiarism.”
• “Paper mill or paper mine? A tentative answer to the sharp increase in research papers based on the Global Burden of Disease database.”
• Retractions of psychiatry and psychology papers indexed in Web of Science are due to scientific misconduct more than half the time, researchers say.
• “Sleuth identifies dozens of studies that used the wrong antibody.” And: “At least 15 companies are selling antibodies using faked validation data.”
• “Comments on OMB research rule mysteriously removed from federal website.”
• “Western Men Still Dominate Journal Editorial Boards.”
• “When misconduct moves on: Universities need a fair way to share serious misconduct findings across institutions.” Last year, our cofounders suggested universities make misconduct reports public.
• Court upholds $776,000 judgment for “negligence, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress against a professor who repeatedly and falsely accused a former student of scientific misconduct.”
• “Disclosure is not documentation: an open science framework for documenting generative AI use in scholarly research and publication workflows.”
• “What if publication bias isn’t that? At least not always?”
• Wiley’s director of research integrity operations has moved to the Association for Computing Machinery, where she will be the first director of research integrity.
• Researcher Rebecca Sear, who has long critiqued the ‘fundamentally flawed’ database linking IQ and nationality, says its most recent version is “not fit for purpose.”
• “Professors Were Singled Out for Using AI in Public Writing. Now They’re Defending Themselves.”
• “Can AI Judge Study Quality? Researchers Weigh In.”
• Researchers say “a cultural evolution is needed to move from ideals we celebrate” — reproducibility, transparency and open science — to implementing them. 
• “When AI writes the words, who is the author?”
• In scientific publishing, shutting down a paper mill would be considered good news. In the original paper mill industry, it’s the opposite.

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 2026-08-29 13:13:36 UTC.

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

NASA’s Roman Space Telescope could find alien Earths—but not like you think

The Roman Space Telescope will spend more than a quarter of its time staring at the Milky Way’s bulge, a star-packed central region of our galaxy that may swarm with small, rocky exoplanets

in Scientific American on 2026-08-29 13:00:00 UTC.

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

Why your ability to cope with stress changes with time

Seasonal changes have more effects on your biology and behavior than you might realize

in Scientific American on 2026-08-29 10:00:00 UTC.

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

University press removes book about intelligent design for misquoting ID proponent

New York University Press is pulling all copies of a book about intelligent design after the author falsely quoted another scholar in the work.  

Designer Science: A History of Intelligent Design in America, by C.W. Howell, was published by NYU Press in 2025. Earlier this month, the publisher said it was “pulling the current edition from the market” and “destroying all existing inventory” after learning Howell attributed an inaccurate quote to Michael Behe, a professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, according to an Aug. 3 email Retraction Watch has seen. 

The misquote stemmed from a passage in a court ruling Howell “mistakenly” read as a direct quote from Behe and attributed as such, he told us. Howell writes about the intersection of faith and science, and serves as an academic director for the C.S. Lewis Foundation. 

The publisher has removed the work from its website and plans to reissue the book after the misattributed quote is corrected, James Devitt, managing director of public affairs for New York University, told us Friday. While no longer available on the NYU Press site or on Amazon, the book is still visible on the Publishers Weekly site.  

“After reviewing his notes earlier this month, C.W. Howell, the author, realized the passage was written by Judge John E. Jones about Behe (an expert witness in the case)—and not said by Behe himself—as part of the judge’s opinion in Kitzmiller v Dover,” Devitt told us in an email. 

Kitzmiller v. Dover was a landmark federal case that tested whether intelligent design (ID) should be taught in public schools as an alternative to Darwinian evolution. In 2004, the parents of 11 students filed a lawsuit against the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district over its decision to include ID in its schools’ science curriculum. The court ultimately ruled teaching ID in public schools was unconstitutional. Behe, who has written several books on ID and has faced extensive criticism from the mainstream scientific community, was a witness for the defense. 

Casey Luskin, a research director at Discovery Institute, alerted the publisher to the error. Discovery Institute is a public policy think tank that promotes ID. Luskin discovered the quote as he prepared to write a review of Designer Science, which he told us “did not pass the smell test” because “the quote did not sound like Dr. Behe.” 

The passage by Howell, on page 132 of his book, states Behe made a “damning admission” during court testimony when he “confessed” on the stand that “plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.” 

After further research, Luskin determined the false quote resulted from “a game of bad-scholarship-telephone,” he told us. 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represented the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller, wrote a court brief that purported to summarize an article by Behe published in 2001 in Biology and Philosophy. The brief makes the “plausibility” assertion about Behe’s beliefs with a citation to his article. In his Dec. 20, 2005 ruling, Jones repeated the words from ACLU’s brief, italicized them, and added the phrase “emphasis added.” Howell then quoted the court passage in his book, attributing the words to Behe. 

“I believe correcting the mistake is the best course of action, and I welcome the opportunity to do so,” Howell told us. “I have worked closely with NYU Press to remove and replace the quote for the paperback reissue and the digital editions.” 

Behe told us that the quote is not only inaccurate but “the polar opposite of my views.” 

“Apparently, Dr. Howell thought the italics meant it was a direct quotation of my testimony on the stand, rather than a tendentious summary of my journal article,” said Behe, a senior fellow at Discovery Institute. “That translated into an entirely fictional courtroom drama in his book.” 

Behe said NYU Press did “the admirable thing” in retracting the book, and that he appreciated Howell’s “apparent willingness to accede.”

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 2026-08-28 21:24:07 UTC.

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

Where are all the aliens? A new book explores possible answers

Seven Rasmussen, an astrobiologist and author of the new book Cloudy with a Chance of Starships, gives readers a tour of the astonishing science behind modern searches for alien life

in Scientific American on 2026-08-28 19:00:00 UTC.

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

Top 10 Roman Space Telescope science breakthroughs

NASA’s Roman Space Telescope will open a whole new window on the cosmos. Here are 10 things it’s likely to show us

in Scientific American on 2026-08-28 17:00:00 UTC.

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

Alpha School’s AI teaching model is expanding. Does it work?

The fast-growing private-school network is handing much of instruction over to artificial intelligence. Researchers say the science is far from settled

in Scientific American on 2026-08-28 16:00:00 UTC.

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

Your skin chemistry may affect which mosquitoes most want to bite you 

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2026-08-28 15:00:00 UTC.

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

See last night’s ‘blood moon’ eclipse from around the world

In a near-total lunar eclipse, the moon turned red-orange for viewers in North America, Europe and Africa

in Scientific American on 2026-08-28 14:10:00 UTC.

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

Amid funding uncertainty, neuroscientists report a mix of cynicism, persistence

in The Transmitter on 2026-08-28 14:00:51 UTC.

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

Reimagining Mexico’s brain bank

in The Transmitter on 2026-08-28 13:01:57 UTC.

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

Revealing how crabs make their escape

in The Transmitter on 2026-08-28 13:01:56 UTC.

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

Discovering how butterflies choose their mate

in The Transmitter on 2026-08-28 13:01:55 UTC.

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

La biodiversidad de Latinoamérica impulsa avances en comportamiento social y cognición

in The Transmitter on 2026-08-28 13:01:54 UTC.

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

Descobrindo como as borboletas escolhem seus parceiros

in The Transmitter on 2026-08-28 13:01:52 UTC.

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

How FALAN is building a thriving neuroscience community in Latin America

in The Transmitter on 2026-08-28 13:01:47 UTC.

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

The State of Neuroscience in Latin America

in The Transmitter on 2026-08-28 13:01:46 UTC.

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

Identificando o que torna o canto de uma ave único

in The Transmitter on 2026-08-28 13:01:41 UTC.

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

Qué hace único al canto de un ave

in The Transmitter on 2026-08-28 13:01:39 UTC.

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

How the brain learns to read is an evolutionary mystery—a new study offers clues

Reading hasn't been around for long, evolutionary speaking. Instead, the brain recruits systems evolved for other purposes

in Scientific American on 2026-08-28 11:00:00 UTC.

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

How will NASA’s Roman Space Telescope see exoplanets?

NASA’s newest major observatory will include the most advanced planet-imaging tech ever flown in space. Here’s how it works

in Scientific American on 2026-08-28 10:45:00 UTC.

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

GTA has always raised anxieties over video games and violence—here’s what the science actually says

The evidence in favor of and against video games promoting aggressive behavior is murkier than you might think

in Scientific American on 2026-08-28 10:30:00 UTC.

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

How changes to Endangered Species Act regulations could hurt wildlife

Recent changes to the implementation of the Endangered Species Act could put wildlife at risk

in Scientific American on 2026-08-28 10:00:00 UTC.

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

Schneider Shorts 28.08.2026 – Liberalism’s fertility problem

in For Better Science on 2026-08-28 05:00:00 UTC.

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

Tropical Storm Dolly forms in the Atlantic

It’s a weird meteorological coincidence on the heels of Dolly Parton’s death

in Scientific American on 2026-08-27 18:52:00 UTC.

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

Japan institute defends Nobel Prize winner amid allegations of image duplication

The Center for iPS Cell Research and Application (CiRA) at Kyoto University in Japan is defending Nobel Prize winner Shinya Yamanaka against claims of  image manipulation in multiple studies on which he was an author. The institute says questioning Yamanaka’s integrity without sufficient evidence is “completely unacceptable.”

Yamanaka shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2012 and works at CiRA. 

On August 7, Gotham City Research LLC, a short-selling firm based in the United States, released a report alleging image manipulation in several papers by Yamanaka appearing between 2000 and 2020.

The targets of the report and another issued a few days earlier were two Japanese firms, Sumitomo Chemical And Sumitomo Pharmaceutical. These companies have provided funding to CiRA, where Yamanaka and his colleague Kazutoshi Takahashi conducted early proof-of-concept research on reprogramming mature cells into induced pluripotent stem cells. 

Earlier this year, Japan’s health ministry gave conditional approval to Amchepry, a treatment for Parkinson’s disease based on reprogrammed stem cells. But some researchers worry that the first-of-its-kind treatment has only been tested in seven patients.

Gotham has shorted all stocks of the two companies, the firm’s founder Daniel Yu, who is based in New York, told Retraction Watch. Gotham’s previous short-selling campaigns have yielded some success but it has rarely previously targeted pharmaceutical companies. “I generally root for them to succeed,” Yu told us. 

In 2024, Gotham shorted the stocks for Spanish healthcare company Grifols SA, arguing that the firm was masking its true debt. Gotham’s report wiped a third of the company’s value and the company had to undergo governance restructuring to win back investors. 

Short sellers have targeted scientific findings before. In 2021, a group expressed doubts about biotech Cassava Science’s experimental Alzheimer’s drug, which eventually failed clinical trials. Cassava sued them after a researcher associated with the treatment was charged with fraud, but those charges were later dropped. Cassava dropped its defamation lawsuit in 2024. 

Gotham’s report on Yamanaka raises allegations of image duplication in 10 papers, most of which are already flagged on PubPeer. Yamanaka — who served as CiRA’s director between 2008 and 2022 — was either first or corresponding author on three of the papers. 

For two of them, the issues have already been investigated, CiRA’s statement reads, “and the necessary actions have already been completed.” One of those papers, published in Science in 2008, has been corrected. The other, published by The EMBO Journal in 2000, the editors saw “no concrete evidence” to suggest images in the paper were duplicated, the journal said in a 2014 statement.

For the third study, published in 2003 in Cell, Yamanaka “reviewed the matter in response to the current report and concluded that the two images alleged to be similar are not identical, and that this does not constitute duplicate use or misidentification of an image,” the CiRA statement reads.  

Another study mentioned in Gotham’s report, published in 2011 in Human Molecular Genetics, was corrected last year for an apparent image duplication. According to the correction notice, the raw data were not fully available “but the authors determined that during the final figure assembly, inadvertent errors occurred.”

For four other studies in the Gotham report, Yamanaka was listed as a coauthor because he provided research materials such as cells or mice, the CiRA statement explained.

“Treating these different cases collectively as though they demonstrate an ongoing pattern of research misconduct by Professor Yamanaka or by CiRA disregards the facts specific to each case and is completely unacceptable,” CiRA stated. “We strongly object to statements that, without sufficient basis, damage a researcher’s integrity or reputation.”

Gotham also included two studies in its report on which Yamanaka was not a coauthor. 

One of them was retracted in 2018 by Stem Cell Reports. As Retracted Watch reported at the time, Kyoto University “punitively dismissed” Yamanaka’s colleague Kohei Yamamizu after an investigation found that he had fabricated and falsified data in that study. In 2019, another paper listing Yamamizu — but not Yamanaka — was retracted. 

While the Kyoto probe had found that Yamamizu was solely responsible for the manipulation, Yamanaka issued a statement at the time saying he felt “a strong responsibility for not having prevented research misconduct at our institute.” Yamanaka was also penalized by CiRA, according to his statement, but the nature of that punishment is unclear.  

For the final paper, published in 2020 in the Journal of Neuroscience Research, the study’s corresponding author Jun Takahashi, who served as CiRA’s director between April 2022 and March 2026, is reviewing the concerns and will take “appropriate action,” according to the CiRA statement.

We reached out to Yamanaka for a comment but heard back from Hiroyuki Wadahama from CiRA’s international public communications office. 

Wadahama told us CiRA officials are not aware of any ongoing institutional probes into these papers. “We have not been in touch with Gotham City Research regarding their report, nor did we receive inquiries from them prior to its publication,” he said. “We believe their report disregards the specific facts of each paper and draws unfounded conclusions.”

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 2026-08-27 18:26:20 UTC.

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

Climate change is supercharging El Niños, coral records show

Fossilized Galápagos corals show clear evidence that today’s El Niños are much stronger than those in the past

in Scientific American on 2026-08-27 18:00:00 UTC.

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

What Nepal's floods reveal about “cascading hazards”

The Nepal disaster appears to be a “cascading event,” where one hazard seems to have triggered another, experts say

in Scientific American on 2026-08-27 17:00:00 UTC.

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

Landslides pose the largest risks to those who can least afford them

in Science News: Science & Society on 2026-08-27 16:00:00 UTC.

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

Is the keto diet better than the Mediterranean? New clinical trial reveals health benefits

In a clinical trial, people with obesity saw clear health benefits on the keto diet that they didn’t see on two other popular eating regimens

in Scientific American on 2026-08-27 15:55:00 UTC.

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

NASA’s Roman Space Telescope will rewrite how we study the universe

Astronomers are lining up to leverage NASA’s soon-to-launch Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, which boasts capabilities unlike any previous off-world observatory

in Scientific American on 2026-08-27 15:15:00 UTC.

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

Why glacial collapse likely caused the Nepal disaster—and why climate change will make these events more likely

The disaster has claimed hundreds of lives, and at least 1,400 people are missing

in Scientific American on 2026-08-27 14:30:00 UTC.

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

Conversations Behind the Research: Reflections from WiNUK Day 2026

in Women in Neuroscience UK on 2026-08-27 14:00:07 UTC.

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

Secret sugar pairings curb abnormal cell-growth signals

in OIST Japan on 2026-08-27 12:00:00 UTC.

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

New NASA photos reveal 16 galaxies from across the cosmos in dazzling detail

Spirals, ellipticals, irregulars, oh my!

in Scientific American on 2026-08-27 10:00:00 UTC.

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

Is there a ‘window of opportunity’ to prevent Alzheimer’s in women?

A pair of new studies point to the role of early menopause and hormone treatment in cognitive decline, but more research is needed, experts say

in Scientific American on 2026-08-26 19:52:00 UTC.

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

Wall of floodwater sweeps away villages in Nepal, with hundreds missing

A massive flood potentially caused by a chunk of ice breaking off from a glacier has swept away bridges, schools, and other buildings and killed at least 160 people

in Scientific American on 2026-08-26 18:56:00 UTC.

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

More Americans believe the government is withholding information about UFOs

According to a new poll, more Americans also think they have seen a UFO now than they did in the past 53 years

in Scientific American on 2026-08-26 17:00:00 UTC.

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

Jill Lepore on why Silicon Valley gets science fiction wrong

Historian Jill Lepore explains what tech leaders miss in their favorite stories—and why the fight over AI data centers may be where the machine stops

in Scientific American on 2026-08-26 17:00:00 UTC.

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

U.S. approves breakthrough pancreatic cancer drug, heralding a new era for an intractable disease

Pancreatic cancer is considered one of the hardest to treat and most serious forms of cancer

in Scientific American on 2026-08-26 16:00:00 UTC.

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

Electric rain can eat through metal

New research shows that water becomes electrified as it slides down smooth surfaces, leading to corrosion

in Scientific American on 2026-08-26 15:02:00 UTC.

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

Mars may be two-faced to its core

The Red Planet’s global geography of low-lying northern plains and rugged southern highlands seems to have surprisingly deep roots, with profound implications for Mars’s ancient habitability

in Scientific American on 2026-08-26 15:00:00 UTC.

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

Meta to pay $18 billion and make sweeping app changes to settle social media harms lawsuit

Meta agreed to implement new safety measures, including a default two-hour daily limit for using Facebook and Instagram, for users under the age of 18

in Scientific American on 2026-08-26 14:20:00 UTC.

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

NASA’s Roman Space Telescope could reveal dark energy’s deepest secrets

The more scientists try to understand dark energy, the more its mysteries seem to grow. NASA’s newest space telescope is custom-built to crack the case

in Scientific American on 2026-08-26 13:45:00 UTC.

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

Controversial Alzheimer’s surgery is said to reverse symptoms. Here’s what scientists say

Jaw-dropping patient videos and miraculous testimonials ignited a frenzy in China over a technique that aims to improve drainage from the brain in dementia patients. Now it is entering trials worldwide

in Scientific American on 2026-08-26 13:00:00 UTC.

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

Elsevier to ‘soon investigate’ two Macchiarini papers more than a year after retraction request

Elsevier says it will begin investigating two papers coauthored by disgraced surgeon Paolo Macchiarini “soon,” more than a year after two critics of his work formally requested the publisher retract the articles — and nearly a decade after two institutions found him guilty of misconduct for related work. 

The papers, published in Biomaterials in 2009 and 2010, include descriptions of a 2008 trachea transplant in Barcelona conducted by Macchiarini — described in The Lancet that year, as well as in a five-year follow-up published in 2013. Both Lancet papers reported a successful surgery and that the patient had a “normal social and working life.” In reality, she needed stents, her lung function did not improve and she eventually had a lung removed. 

The Barcelona patient survived, but at least three others who underwent Macchiarini’s synthetic trachea transplants eventually died. In 2023, a Swedish court sentenced Macchiarini to 2.5 years in prison for gross assault related to his failed transplants. So far he has accumulated 13 retractions. 

Macchiarini told Retraction Watch our questions were the first he had heard of an effort to retract the two Biomaterials papers, and that neither the journal nor Elsevier had contacted him about them, when we reached him through his Substack account.

“The 2008 Lancet paper has been retracted, and the reasons given for that decision are publicly available,” Macchiarini said, noting that he is neither first nor last author of the two Biomaterials papers in question. “That fact does not, by itself, permit me to determine whether every allegation now being advanced concerning two separate Biomaterials publications is scientifically or factually established.”

In 2017, an ethical review board in Sweden had called for six retractions after finding Macchiarini and several coauthors had committed misconduct. A year later,  the Karolinska Institutet, where Macchiarini was employed until his dismissal in 2016, issued similar findings and also called for the retraction of the six papers. These included two other Biomaterials papers. The KI said the authors had “fabricated and distorted” descriptions of the patients and their surgical outcomes. 

The Lancet retracted the two papers reporting the Barcelona transplant in 2023, five years after the Swedish ethical review board and Karolinska found Macchiarini committed misconduct.. Those retractions came after another Swedish authority — the National Board for Assessment of Research Misconduct — found Macchiarini guilty of misconduct in his falsified descriptions of the 2008 surgery.

The two Biomaterials papers claimed that a year after the 2008 operation, the graft and the patient were healthy, and that the graft was functioning well. They stated the patient was “fully active and well,” and leading a “near normal life.” 

Peter Wilmshurst, a retired cardiologist from the United Kingdom known for exposing flawed medical research, and Patricia Murray, a stem cell biologist at the University of Liverpool, have been pursuing retractions of Macchiarini’s work for years. They requested the retraction of both articles in a letter to Kam Leong, editor-in-chief of Biomaterials, in July last year. 

The two papers were part of an effort to “support the original lies,” Murray and Wilmshurst wrote in their letter. The authors “attempt to give undeserved scientific credence to the original false 2008 Lancet paper by suggesting that the authors had spent a long period in incremental scientific developments,” they wrote. 

The 2009 article described a “step-wise work plan” that included animal testing before the first human operation. “They didn’t do any animal work before they put these in people,” Wilmshurst told Retraction Watch. “And they claimed that this was years of research, and we know it was actually cooked up in a couple of weeks.” 

In their July 2025 letter to Leong, Wilmshurst and Murray also pointed out inconsistent data across the papers. Two histology images in the 2009 article were described as biopsies taken after the transplant. But in the 2010 paper, the same images are said to depict biopsies taken before the procedure. Thirteen of the 14 authors on the 2009 article were also authors of the original paper in The Lancet describing the transplant, including Philipp Jungebluth, also found guilty of scientific misconduct by Karolinska Institute in 2018. In a recent blog post, Wilmshurst and Murray also call out other authors for their role in harming patients. 

Loredana De Bartolo, a research director at a membrane technology institute in Italy and coauthor of the 2010 Biomaterials paper Wilmshurst flagged, said she had not heard from either Elsevier or the journal about the article. She said the work identified limitations rather than supporting the transplants, and that the calculations were based on the scientific literature rather than Macchiarini’s studies. 

Regarding the inconsistent histology images, she said Macchiarini  provided the data, which were incorporated “in good faith” and “could be omitted without in any way compromising the scientific basis, validity, or conclusions of the study.”

“For these reasons, I do not believe that the content of the article provides any grounds for retraction,” she told us. Sara Mantero, of the Polytechnic University of Milan, and corresponding author of the other Biomaterials paper, has not responded to requests for comment. 

In July last year, after emailing Leong, who never responded to the letter, Wilmshurst corresponded with staff at Elsevier who told him his concerns had been forwarded to the editor-in-chief and publisher for review, according to emails we have seen. “In early 2018 the editors of the Lancet were aware that the Macchiarini et al paper was false, but it took more than 5 years for the Lancet to retract it,” Wilmshurst wrote in response. “We are concerned that this is a measure of the speed at which Elsevier journals deal with research fraud.”

After a follow up in September 2025, operations staff at the publisher told Wilmshurst his concerns were being investigated, and to expect updates. 

Two days later, Wilmshurst followed up again: “If Biomaterials is unwilling to act quickly, we will have little alternative to posting on-line our letter to Biomaterials.” 

The next day, Emma Xu, publisher of Biomaterials, told Wilmshurst Macchiarini’s was a “serious case” being handled by a central ethics team. She said Biomaterials had already retracted several of Macchiarini’s articles. “Obviously there are more articles published by Macchiarini” in the journal, “and we need to do individual investigation before actions,” she said. 

“Hopefully we could have the solutions soon,” Xu added. Wilmshurst last followed up at the end of July and said he has yet to receive a reply. “They initially said they’re looking into it,” Wilmshurst told us. “They’ve just stopped responding.” Xu and Leong did not respond to our request for comment. 

Elsevier told Retraction Watch it had retracted nine papers by Macchiarini in recent years. Rebecca Clear, a spokesperson for the company, said it would “soon investigate the two articles” Wilmshurst flagged, despite telling him last September it already was looking into these papers.

“If deemed appropriate by the journal editors they will be corrected,” Clear said. She could not confirm whether Elsevier had begun investigating the articles at all, nor whether it would only pursue corrections, not retractions. 

“Someone may look at it and think, in a few years’ time, that this [transplant] actually worked,” Wilmshurst said. “They may just look at this one paper and think, oh gosh, this works, we’ll try this, and not look at the 2008 Lancet paper and see it’s retracted.” 

“Everything that’s false needs to be retracted, doesn’t it?”

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, 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 2026-08-26 12:00:00 UTC.

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

The overlooked role of sperm DNA damage in recurrent miscarriage

New recommendations spotlight sperm’s role in recurrent miscarriage

in Scientific American on 2026-08-26 10:00:00 UTC.

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

Elon Musk’s SpaceX to expand beyond Texas Starbase with new Louisiana spaceport dedicated to Starship

The new spaceport will support thousands of launches each year, according to SpaceX

in Scientific American on 2026-08-25 20:10:00 UTC.