Planet Neuroscientists

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

Weekend reads: MIT rescinds support of AI paper; should AI write science papers, anyway?; another pub steps in for paused NIH journal

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• How do retractions impact researchers’ career paths and collaborations? A Q&A with the study’s authors
• Clarivate to stop counting citations to retracted articles in journals’ impact factors
• Dozens of Elsevier papers retracted over fake companies and suspicious authorship changes
• Paper with duplicated images retracted four months after concerns were raised
• Scopus indexed a journal with a fake editorial board and a sham archive. When we asked them about it, they removed it

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 59,000 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):

• “MIT Says It No Longer Stands Behind Student’s AI Research Paper.”
• “Is it OK for AI to write science papers? Nature survey shows researchers are split.”
• “As NIH publication halts manuscript acceptance, ToxSci steps in.” 
• University “shuts down research center plagued by plagiarism allegations.”
• “Peer review, registries, and evidence-based patient information take a big hit” in administration’s cuts at the National Cancer Institute.
• Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth “‘plagiarized’ small portions of his senior thesis, experts say. But how serious is it?“
• Researchers find early career researchers “suspect that [AI use is] approaching a cliff-edge, which can only be avoided with strong policies.”
• “A Primer on Research Integrity & Publishing Ethics”: A podcast.
• “Dear editors, your publication delays are damaging our careers,” says researcher. 
• “Misconduct in Your Backyard? An Ethical Review of Clinical Trials.”
• University “administrators remain mum on allegations of research misconduct” against professor.
• “‘Orwellian’: planetary scientists outraged over deletion of research records.”
• “Students, professors urge” university to “take action” against South Korean first lady after plagiarism accusations.
• “Intercepting Misconduct: Seven Practical Tips for Editors.”
• Shoddy study designs and false findings using a large public health dataset portend future risk of exploitation by AI and paper mills, a study and accompanying editorial conclude.
• Trump administration cancels university grant aimed at teaching research ethics.
• “University punishes professor and daughter for academic misconduct.”
• “Digging into the math of a study attacking the safety of the abortion pill.”
• “From ‘publish or perish’ to ‘be visible or vanish’: What’s next?” asks a university research director. 
• “Flood of AI-assisted research ‘weakening quality of science.'”
• “Science requires ethical oversight – without federal dollars, society’s health and safety are at risk.”
• Researchers find the “recent reduction in spelling error rates [in academic papers] could be due to an increased use of large language models.” 
• “Is the list of Highly Cited Researchers losing credibility?”
• Study finds “Democrats, left-leaning think tanks cite scientific studies more than Republicans.”
• “The Chilling Effect of DEI Crackdowns in Scientific Publishing.”
• “Germany’s Plan for an Open and Independent PubMed Safety Net.”
• In which a paper refers to “New Crown Epidemics” instead of the “COVID-19 Pandemic.” It has been retracted.
• “RETRACTION: A Sincere Apology To The Pangolin Community.”

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

in Retraction watch on 2025-05-17 10:00:00 UTC.

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

Healing for Her: Addressing the Gender Divide in the Mental Health Sector

in Women in Neuroscience UK on 2025-05-17 09:00:06 UTC.

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

Tornadoes Expected to Strike Multiple States This Weekend in One of the Worst Seasons This Decade

Tornadoes are predicted across swaths of the U.S. in the coming days, likely adding to this year’s already high tally of such storms

in Scientific American on 2025-05-16 18:00:00 UTC.

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

Some science seems silly, but it’s still worthwhile

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-05-16 17:30:00 UTC.

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

First Personalized CRISPR Treatment Gives Baby New Lease on Life

A CRISPR treatment seems to have been effective for a baby’s devastating disease, but it is not clear whether such bespoke therapies can be widely applied

in Scientific American on 2025-05-16 17:00:00 UTC.

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

RSV wasn’t as hard on U.S. babies last winter. This may be why

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-05-16 15:00:00 UTC.

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

Scopus indexed a journal with a fake editorial board and a sham archive

Editor’s note: We asked Elsevier to respond to some of the findings in this post. In response, a spokesperson told us they will now remove the journal from Scopus. See Elsevier’s response in this story.

I received a letter recently pointing me to a questionable journal indexed in Elsevier’s Scopus database. Scopus indexes many problematic and even hijacked journals, but this case is the most outrageous I have seen to date.

Scopus indexed Science of Law in July 2024. According to its profile in the database, the journal is published by the “Editorial Team of SoL.”  However, “the editorial team” and many members of the editorial board are fake names and that such individuals do not actually exist. For example, the three editors listed — Alessio Miceli from the University of Alabama School of Law, Anita Steinberg from Wichita State University, and Jeffrey Robinson from McGeorge School of Law — do not have author profiles in Scopus. The universities themselves do not have anyone with these names in their directories. 

The 60-plus members of the editorial board are also most likely fake. Jakub Muchlinski, Sofia Vermeulen and Caspian Magliveras can’t be found in Scopus because such an author probably doesn’t exist.

In reality this journal’s publisher is Online Science Publishing, which publishes 12 more journals, all of which can be identified in Crossref. Science of Law charges a publication fee of $780 USD.

Another red flag for the journal is the anonymous registration of the website domain legal-science.com in December 2023 with GoDaddy. Anonymous registration is a common practice among fraudulent journals.

The timeline raises further concerns. How could a journal with a domain registered in December 2023 be indexed in Scopus in July 2024, when Scopus requires at least two years of regular publication for newly launched journals before indexation? (They did remove that rule in August 2024, after this journal was indexed.) 

The likely answer: The journal backdated the archive and filled it with papers that are probably fabricated and “authored” by nonexistent researchers for issues starting in 2021 through the second issue of 2024 to demonstrate its continuous and regular publication. 

But that is hard to verify because the full text of articles is not freely accessible, which is very typical for problematic journals. For example, hijacked journals also have a fake archive that you can access only with a “subscription.” 

All the papers from these issues are currently indexed in Scopus. And, according to the database, some of these papers cite others in the journal. 

While the papers published before Scopus indexed the journal are likely fake, the third issue of 2024 most likely consists of real submissions. However, many published papers also have red flags. For example, there are collaboration anomalies, such as multiple affiliations per paper, a sign of paper mill production.

This case is shocking. It demonstrates that Scopus, “the world’s largest, comprehensive and trusted academic database,” can’t be trusted due to vulnerabilities in the evaluation processes and a lack of ability to identify fraudulent publishers. This is a very evident case of a fake journal that should have been immediately rejected during the evaluation process. This case demonstrates the failure of evaluation by the Content Selection and Advisory Board and content control in Scopus.  

It also shows that fraudsters now don’t need to buy a journal indexed in Scopus to publish problematic papers, as happened with many journals like Migration Letters and Journal of Namibian Studies. It is enough to create a fake journal with a fake editorial board and a fake archive to be indexed in one of the leading databases.

The experience of recent years shows that fraudulent publishing has increased, together with paper mills and fake, predatory or hijacked journals. Such bad practices are legitimized by indexing databases, and the lack of quality integrity control will lead to a decrease in trust in data quality.

To respond to the threats of fraudulent publishers, the databases collecting the scientific record must have an in-house research integrity board to identify bad actors. It should include research integrity experts who would proactively identify patterns of problematic journals, fraudulent publishers that hunt for journals indexed in bibliographic databases, hijacked and predatory journals. Without that, it only incentivizes fraudulent activity. 

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

in Retraction watch on 2025-05-16 14:15:23 UTC.

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

Elsevier removes journal from Scopus after Retraction Watch inquiry

Elsevier has removed a journal from its Scopus database after Retraction Watch inquired about its review process for the journal, whose editorial board lists fake names and digital fingerprint shows other red flags.

Scientific sleuth Anna Abalkina uncovered several issues with Science of Law, which she details in a post published today. Besides editors and editorial board members who cannot be verified and don’t seem to exist, the journal’s history doesn’t match its publication record, early articles show signs of fabrication, and its publisher data in Scopus doesn’t match that in Crossref. Despite this, Scopus added the journal to its index last year. 

To understand how these problems could have evaded reviewers at Scopus, we asked Elsevier if Scopus staff verifies editorial board members when vetting journals, and if they assess the quality and validity of articles in journals before adding them to the index.

A statement from an unnamed Elsevier spokesperson indicated that as a result of our inquiry, the company will remove the journal from the database. That statement reads:

Thank you for raising these serious concerns regarding the current content of Science of Law, which we share.

Science of Law was accepted for inclusion in July 2024, following Scopus’ rigorous evaluation processes, including review of the listed Editors, policies, and publication and citation record.

Unfortunately, the journal information and content on which acceptance was based have since been changed or removed, and the journal no longer meets Scopus’ standards for quality and integrity.

We have therefore taken the decision to immediately discontinue coverage of new content from Science of Law. We are also taking the exceptional step of removing all previous content.

Maintaining the integrity of Scopus and its high-quality, curated content is of paramount importance to us. This case will be used to inform our continuous efforts to review and refine Scopus’ (re)evaluation processes.

At publication time, the journal and its articles still appear in Scopus. 

We reached out to the email address on the journal’s website at the same time we contacted Elsevier and did not receive a reply.

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

in Retraction watch on 2025-05-16 14:15:11 UTC.

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

Pain relief without addiction? FDA approves first non-opioid alternative in decades

in Women in Neuroscience UK on 2025-05-16 14:00:23 UTC.

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

Loneliness Is Inflaming Our Bodies—And Our Politics

Medical research shows that social isolation is a serious chronic stressor. You can say something similar about its impact on our political system

in Scientific American on 2025-05-16 14:00:00 UTC.

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

RFK, Jr. Is Completely Wrong about Autism, Say Scientists and Parents

A coalition of autism scientists has formed to counter RFK, Jr.’s misrepresentations of science and of autism spectrum disorder

in Scientific American on 2025-05-16 13:30:00 UTC.

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

The End of the Universe May Arrive Surprisingly Soon

A new study suggests the universe's end could occur much sooner than previously thought. But don't worry, that ultimate cosmic conclusion would still be in the unimaginably distant future

in Scientific American on 2025-05-16 12:00:00 UTC.

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

How Measles, Polio and Other Eliminated Diseases Could Roar Back If U.S. Vaccination Rates Fall

As U.S. childhood vaccination rates sway on a “knife’s edge,” new 25-year projections reveal how slight changes in national immunization could improve—or drastically reverse—the prevalence of measles, polio, rubella and diphtheria

in Scientific American on 2025-05-16 11:00:00 UTC.

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

What Makes Stars Twinkle?

The quirks of light moving through gas are the cause of stellar twinkling, which can be a bane—and sometimes a boon—for astronomers

in Scientific American on 2025-05-16 10:45:00 UTC.

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

Real Ice Experiments with Polar Geoengineering to Refreeze Melting Arctic Sea Ice

Refreezing the melting sea ice in the Arctic is more complicated than you would think. The U.K. is funding geoengineering experiments like this one to curb the effects of climate change.

in Scientific American on 2025-05-16 10:00:00 UTC.

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

Schneider Shorts 16.05.2025 – Something that runs through the whole organisation

in For Better Science on 2025-05-16 05:00:00 UTC.

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

‘Ancient’ brainstem structure evolved beyond basic motor control

in The Transmitter on 2025-05-16 04:00:52 UTC.

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

Paper with duplicated images retracted four months after concerns were raised

We write plenty of stories about lengthy investigations and long wait times for retractions. So we are always glad when we can highlight when journals act in a relatively timely fashion.

The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, published by Wiley on behalf of Kaohsiung Hospital in Taiwan, seemed to exhibit some urgency after a sleuth raised concerns in December 2024 about a 2019 paper with problematic figures. 

The sleuth, who has asked us to remain anonymous but goes by “Mitthyridium jungquilianum” on PubPeer, had pointed out similarities between the 2019 paper and another article by different authors, published in Oncotarget in 2014. One figure from each work was “more similar than expected” to each other, Mitthyridium wrote, citing ImageTwin. 

Although Mitthyridium wasn’t the first to raise concerns on PubPeer — a separate comment in 2021 drew parallels between the Kaohsiung article and a retracted 2018 paper from a separate journal — the sleuth sent their concerns to the journal on December 28. 

According to emails we have seen, the journal responded two days later requesting a formal report. After the sleuth refused to provide one, the research integrity office at Wiley told the sleuth on January 4 they were investigating the paper. The journal and publisher retracted the article three months later, on April 8. The retraction notice cites images that were “found duplicated in other articles published earlier elsewhere, and in some cases representing a different scientific context.”

The article has been cited 13 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

A Wiley spokesperson told us there was no particular reason the retraction happened so quickly. “We did not expedite this investigation, rather, consider the timing quite standard for an investigation of this size,” the spokesperson said. They also noted the authors did not respond to inquiries, which could have helped the process move faster. 

In the past year, the journal has retracted two other articles, one for data issues brought up by authors and one for data duplication. The journal of Kaohsiung Medical University in Taiwan, it was formerly published by Elsevier; the website notes it was transferred “back to the society” as of 2019, at which time Wiley partnered with the university to publish it. 

The journal aims to “promote clinical and scientific research in the medical sciences in Taiwan, and to disseminate this research to the international community,” according to their mission statement. 

Gong-En Tang, the corresponding author, did not respond to our request for comment. Tang’s most recent paper appears to have been published in 2020. It lists their affiliation as Linyi Central Hospital in China. Tang does not have an ORCID profile. 

In a PubPeer comment, Rui Wang, the co-corresponding author of the article in Oncotarget, said similarities between his work and later papers “obviously indicate that the images … were copied from our paper.”

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

in Retraction watch on 2025-05-15 21:01:32 UTC.

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

FDA plan to ban fluoride supplements baffles and alarms dental experts

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-05-15 20:00:00 UTC.

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

‘Supersonic’ Planes Could Make a Comeback in the U.S. after Decades-Long Ban

A bill to repeal the ban on supersonic flights over the U.S. could increase the demand for the gas-guzzling jets from around a dozen to as many as 240

in Scientific American on 2025-05-15 17:45:00 UTC.

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

An at-home cervical cancer screening device was OK‘d by the FDA

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-05-15 17:00:00 UTC.

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

Newly Discovered Fossil Tracks May Rewrite Early History of Reptiles

Fossilized claw tracks discovered in Australia show that the animal group that includes reptiles, mammals and birds formed earlier than expected

in Scientific American on 2025-05-15 16:00:00 UTC.

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

This Strange Mutation Explains the Mystifying Color of Orange Cats

Your orange cat may host a never-before-seen genetic pathway for color pigmentation, according to new studies

in Scientific American on 2025-05-15 15:00:00 UTC.

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

New Google AI Chatbot Tackles Complex Math and Science

A Google DeepMind system improves chip designs and addresses unsolved math problems but has not been rolled out to researchers outside the company

in Scientific American on 2025-05-15 14:30:00 UTC.

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

Trump’s Budget Cuts Would Sabotage NASA’s Plans to Find Alien Life

NASA’s astrobiology ambitions are at risk of collapsing under the White House’s proposed budget. But your voice can make a difference

in Scientific American on 2025-05-15 13:30:00 UTC.

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

Cryopreservation is not sci-fi. It may save plants from extinction

in Science News: Science & Society on 2025-05-15 13:00:00 UTC.

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

Bird-Watching Is Better When You Unplug

Technology has made it easier than ever to quickly find, identify and record birds. But to truly appreciate feathered friends, consider unplugging

in Scientific American on 2025-05-15 11:30:00 UTC.

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

Iceland’s Orca Pods Mysteriously Include Baby Pilot Whales

Newborn pilot whales have been spotted mysteriously swimming among pods of orcas. Scientists are trying to puzzle out how the pilot whale calves got there and what happened to them

in Scientific American on 2025-05-15 11:00:00 UTC.

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

Clarivate to stop counting citations to retracted articles in journals’ impact factors

Clarivate will no longer include citations to and from retracted papers when calculating journal impact factors, the company announced today. 

The change comes after some have wondered over the years whether citations to retracted papers should count toward a journal’s impact factor, a controversial yet closely watched metric that measures how often others cite papers from that journal. For many institutions, impact factors have become a proxy for the importance of their faculty’s research.

Retractions are relatively rare and represent only 0.04% of papers indexed in Clarivate’s Web of Science, according to the announcement. But the overall retraction rate has risen recently, to about 0.2%, which, along with a decrease in the time it takes to retract papers, motivated the policy change. Nandita Quaderi, the editor-in-chief of Web of Science, said in the announcement the policy would “pre-emptively guard against any such time that citations to and from retracted content could contribute to widespread distortions in the [journal impact factor].”

Clarivate publishes impact factors annually in its Journal Citation Reports. The impact factor represents the number of citations in a given year to works published in a journal in the previous two years, divided by the total number of citable items published in those previous two years. 

Starting with the 2025 Journal Citation Reports, Clarivate will exclude citations to and from retracted articles in the numerator, “ensuring that citations from retracted articles do not contribute to the numerical value of” the impact factor, the announcement stated. Retracted articles will remain in the article count for the denominator, “maintaining transparency and accountability.” 

“This decision makes intuitive sense but could incentivize against retraction,” bibliometrics expert Reese Richardson said. By keeping retracted items in the denominator of the equation, “this deepens the impact that any given retraction will have on a journal’s [impact factor],” he told us. He said he also wonders “how many journals will actually see a substantial reduction” in impact factor as a result of the change. 

Quaderi told us Clarivate would stop counting citations once the paper is retracted, but would keep those that occurred before. The company will continue to use the Retraction Watch Database to flag retracted papers in indexed journals, which it has done since 2022.

Clarivate typically releases the annual Journal Citation Reports in late June. The JCR incorporates information from impact factors to assess the overall standing of its indexed journals. The company also suppresses impact factors for journals with abnormal citation behaviors. 

Quaderi told us this change would not impact a researcher’s h-index, another metric that measures citation behavior and productivity. In other words, when Clarivate calculates h-index, it won’t remove retracted papers – or citations to those papers – from the calculation. 

In 2011, Arturo Casadevall and Ferric Fang, who is now a member of our parent nonprofit’s board of directors, showed using the Retraction Index that journals with higher impact factors tended to have more retractions, for unclear reasons.

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

in Retraction watch on 2025-05-15 11:00:00 UTC.

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

As Oceans Warm, Scientists Fight to Save Lush Kelp Forests

New research helps the “ocean’s veins” thrive under heat stress

in Scientific American on 2025-05-15 10:45:00 UTC.

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

Reporter’s notebook: Highlights from INSAR 2025

in The Transmitter on 2025-05-15 04:00:08 UTC.

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

Why NASA’s VIPER Lunar Rover Is Still in Limbo

NASA’s nearly complete yet canceled lunar rover VIPER isn’t going to get carried to the moon by a private space exploration company—but it’s also not quite dead yet

in Scientific American on 2025-05-15 00:15:00 UTC.

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

NIDA shutters diversity fellowship program, axes active awards

in The Transmitter on 2025-05-14 20:09:22 UTC.

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

Dozens of Elsevier papers retracted over fake companies and suspicious authorship changes

Since March of last year, Elsevier has pulled around 60 papers connected to companies in the Caucasus region that don’t seem to exist. The retraction notices attribute the decision to suspicious changes in authorship and the authors being unable to verify the existence of their employers. Online sleuths have also flagged potentially manipulated citations among the articles. 

Each of the retracted papers appears to follow an identical pattern, based on the details given in the retraction notices. First, a solo author submits a paper and claims to be affiliated with a company that doesn’t appear in any business registries. During the revision process, the author adds several other authors to the paper — including new first and corresponding authors, despite no clear contribution to the original work. This behavior is typical of paper mills and authorship-for-sale schemes. 

When asked by the editors, the original authors are unable to explain why they added the additional authors, nor validate the “nature” or “existence” of the companies they were claiming an affiliation with, according to the retraction notices. 

 The papers linked to these companies seem to be largely published in Elsevier journals, with a few exceptions. A spokesperson for the publisher said they discovered “unauthorized authorship changes” during the review process. That prompted a wider investigation across multiple journals, the spokesperson said. “Many of the issues which subsequently came to light were in papers that had already been published.”

Elsevier does allow authors to be added during the revision process, under certain conditions. According to a December 2024 guide, any changes to authorship before a paper is accepted should be approved by the editor and accompanied by a written explanation. The guide states authors are “now required” to submit a form for editorial consideration to change authorship, but when that form became a requirement is unclear. 

Dozens of papers are linked to ‘Sun-life’ or ‘Sunlife’ company, and in one instance “Sun-light.” The company is purportedly headquartered in Baku, Azerbaijan, although one article bases it in Bangkok, Thailand. Several authors claim to be affiliated with the departments of electrical engineering, solar energy, or stomatology – a field related to dentistry. 

Neither business name appears to be on any Azerbaijani corporate listings, but a website for the company briefly appeared online. A domain was registered in March 2024, around the time that ‘For Better Science’ began raising questions about the papers, and of the first retractions. 

The website’s meta description says the company is a “leading force” in the renewable energy sector, and that it was founded in 2015. But the domain status is pending delete, meaning whoever owns the domain has not renewed the purchase, and the link no longer seems to connect to any content. An archived snapshot of the website shows a paragraph referring to an American non-profit organization that’s unrelated to Sunlife. 

A similar pattern appears with “Arian company,” claiming to be based in Yerevan, Armenia. That name can be found among legitimate Armenian businesses, but they are hospitality or jewelry businesses, not ones involved in scientific research. In one case, a submitting author named Ashk Fars claimed an affiliation with Sunlife in Azerbaijan in 2021, and then to Arian company in Armenia in 2023 as well as “Yerevn Company” the same year. No contact information or online presence could be found for Fars. 

Alexander Magazinov, a Kazakhstan-based software engineer known for uncovering suspicious papers, has looked into these companies, commenting on dozens of the articles on PubPeer highlighting the fake affiliations. While Magazinov said the first retraction was independent of his findings, he later contacted Elsevier about the papers linked to Arian Company, prompting the publisher to ask him for evidence the company was fake. 

In his research, he has spotted another affiliation he presumes to be fake: “Solar Energy and Power Electronic Co.,” which claims to be based in Japan but is also listed in cities across Turkey and in Germany. None of these papers have been retracted. 

Nasrin Eghbalian appears at least five times as the submitting author and was the only person affiliated with the ghost companies who had a listed email address. In February 2024, Eghbalian responded to a PubPeer inquiry about the nature of Sunlife. He claimed the company is active in research projects and renewable energy projects, but that it had stopped operating, even though the company’s website was registered a month after his comment: 

The research activity of this company is closed and we are not be able to contact with the related manager. We used the valid affiliation due to the collaboration with this company. Now, if there is serious concern about this affiliation, please remove it. Regards, Authors

When asked for proof of the company’s existence, Eghbalian declined to provide proof publicly: 

As you know the employees in a private company doesn’t have accessibility for the company details. To solve the mentioned problem, I have contacted with all managers in the company who I was familiar with them. Fortunately, I get some information from this company. But, to have more details, I can not send them in public pages. Please send me your email for further communications and clarifications. 

Eghbalian did not respond to a request for comment to the listed email address, and doesn’t appear to have a verifiable online presence. Nor do any of the other authors who had initially submitted the papers. 

The authors added to the papers during the revision stage are affiliated with institutions in China. Nearly all of these authors’ names appear just once among all the retracted papers, whereas the authors who initially submitted the work published several papers each. None of the new corresponding authors have responded to a request for comment. 

Retraction Watch has written about some of the journals that published papers from with the sham company affiliations. At least eight papers appear in the Journal of Cleaner Production, which has previously been flagged for large numbers of self-citations. At least nine of the papers appear in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, which has come under scrutiny for publishing papers with fake peer reviews. 

Apart from authorship concerns, one PubPeer commenter mentioned possibly manufactured citations. Many of the retracted papers cite Oveis Abedinia from the Zenith Sustainable Energy Institute in Iran. In an email to Retraction Watch, Abedinia asked us not to name him in this story and wrote: 

I have no connection to the authors or the journals involved, and I was not aware of these papers citing my work. I have never used or supported any citation-increasing services, and I strongly oppose any unethical citation practices.

Update, May 15, 2025: The fourth paragraph of the story was updated with comment from an Elsevier spokesperson to clarify why authorship issues found during the review process affected published papers.

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

in Retraction watch on 2025-05-14 18:03:01 UTC.

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

Strange Formations on Venus Hint at Ongoing Geological Activity

A reappraisal of decades-old data suggests that strange circular formations on Venus could be volcanic “rings of fire” created by ongoing geological activity

in Scientific American on 2025-05-14 18:00:00 UTC.

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

The Hidden Crisis: Alarming Suicide Rates Amongst Men

in Women in Neuroscience UK on 2025-05-14 17:00:22 UTC.

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

Trump USDA Restores Climate Information for Farmers after Lawsuit

Facing a lawsuit, the Department of Agriculture says it will restore climate-related websites that the agency erased after President Donald Trump took office

in Scientific American on 2025-05-14 16:00:00 UTC.

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

Black Hole Mergers Show Strange Mathematical Link to String Theory

Researchers have shown that abstract mathematical functions from the frontiers of theoretical physics have a real-world use in modeling gravitational waves

in Scientific American on 2025-05-14 15:00:00 UTC.

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

Updated version of the “How Equitable Is It?” tool for assessing equity in scholarly communication models

Note: PLOS, cOAlition S and Jisc issued the following press release on Wednesday, May 14, 2025

[Strasbourg, 14 May 2025] The “How Equitable Is It?” tool, designed to assess the equity of scholarly communication models, has been officially launched today in its updated version following a comprehensive review of community feedback. Originally introduced as a beta version in September 2024 at the OASPA conference, this refined version of the tool incorporates significant improvements based on input from across the scholarly publishing ecosystem.

Developed by a multi-stakeholder Working Group, comprising librarians, library consortia representatives, funders and publishers, and convened by cOAlition S, Jisc and PLOS, the tool aims to provide a framework for evaluating scholarly communication models and arrangements on the axis of equity.

Key enhancements

The revised tool offers enhanced guidance for users and clearer definitions of equity indicators, across the seven core assessment criteria:

• Access to Read 
• Publishing immediate Open Access 
• Maximizing participation 
• Re-use rights 
• Pricing and fee transparency 
• Promoting and encouraging open research practices: data and code 
• Promoting and encouraging open research practices: preprints and open peer review

Community-driven improvements

From September 2024 through January 2025, the Working Group collected extensive feedback from stakeholders who tested the beta version. This collaborative approach ensured that the tool’s updated version addresses practical challenges faced by institutions, library consortia, funders, and publishers in evaluating equity within scholarly communication models and arrangements.

The tool, which was inspired by the “How Open Is It?” framework, is targeted at institutions, library consortia, funders and publishers, i.e. the stakeholders either investing or receiving funds for publishing services. It offers users the opportunity to rate scholarly communication models and arrangements across seven criteria: 

Robert Kiley, Head of Strategy at cOAlition S and co-Chair of the Working Group, stated: “We are grateful to everyone who provided feedback during the testing period. Their insights have been instrumental in refining this tool to better serve stakeholders in making informed decisions when investing or receiving funds for publishing services while seeking equity”.

Roheena Anand, Executive Director of Global Publishing Development & Sales at PLOS, added: “With this updated release, we’re delivering on our promise to create a practical tool that reflects diverse stakeholder perspectives. The refinements made based on community feedback have strengthened the tool’s ability to assess equity across different publishing models and arrangements.”

Anna Vernon, Head of Research Licensing at Jisc, commented: “We’ve been using the “How Equitable Is It?” tool to understand how agreements can broaden participation in scholarly publishing. The clearer framework of the updated version will further allow institutions to make more nuanced assessments of how their resources can best support equitable knowledge dissemination.”

How the tool works

Based on the above-mentioned criteria, the “How Equitable Is It?” tool prompts users to consider to what extent the model (and associated funding flow) they are assessing facilitates (or restricts) equitable participation in knowledge sharing. Users score each criterion on a scale from “least equitable” to “most equitable,” receiving an overall equity score upon completion, along with a summary of their responses.

Rather than prescribing outcomes, the tool empowers users to exercise their judgment in rating models against equitable criteria, with no pre-populated data shaping evaluations.

The “How Equitable Is It?” tool is available at https://coalitions.typeform.com/Equity-Tool. A detailed description of the revised criteria and their definitions can be accessed at: Framework_criteria_definitions.pdf

Future development

The Working Group remains committed to the ongoing development of the tool, with plans to gather implementation case studies and establish a community of practice around equity assessment in scholarly communication. Users of the tool are encouraged to share their experiences at info@coalition-s.org.  The Group will review this feedback and publish annual updates as appropriate.

The post Updated version of the “How Equitable Is It?” tool for assessing equity in scholarly communication models appeared first on The Official PLOS Blog.

in The Official PLOS Blog on 2025-05-14 14:42:10 UTC.

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

HHS says new vaccines should be tested against placebos. They already are

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-05-14 13:00:00 UTC.

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

Migraine Drug Ubrogepant Tackles Debilitating Early Symptoms

Results from a phase 3 clinical trial suggest that taking ubrogepant at the first sign of an oncoming migraine can prevent preheadache fatigue and light sensitivity

in Scientific American on 2025-05-14 13:00:00 UTC.

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

Tiny ocean microbes have big ecological impact

in OIST Japan on 2025-05-14 12:00:00 UTC.

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

Science Tells Us the U.S. Is Heading toward a Dictatorship

The red flags abound—political research tells us the U.S. is becoming an autocracy

in Scientific American on 2025-05-14 11:30:00 UTC.

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

Wiggling Sperm Power a New Male Fertility Test

A physics-based sperm-screening technique could offer a more accurate at-home test for people trying to conceive

in Scientific American on 2025-05-14 10:45:00 UTC.

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

West Texas Measles Cases Threaten Elimination Status in the U.S. Here’s Why That Matters

High vaccination rates eliminated measles in the U.S. An outbreak that began in West Texas is threatening to overturn that status.

in Scientific American on 2025-05-14 10:00:00 UTC.

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

‘We still exist’: How four neuroscience advocacy groups are navigating federal DEI funding cuts

in The Transmitter on 2025-05-14 04:00:23 UTC.

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

What Are AI Chatbot Companions Doing to Our Mental Health?

AI chatbot companions may not be real, but the feelings users form for them are. Some scientists worry about long-term dependency

in Scientific American on 2025-05-13 16:00:00 UTC.

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

Hurricanes, Wildfires and Other Disasters Displaced a Record 46 Million People Last Year

In 2024 disasters displaced a record number of people both globally and in the U.S. About 11 million U.S. residents had to relocate to another part of the country because of hurricanes, floods and wildfires

in Scientific American on 2025-05-13 15:30:00 UTC.

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

Humans have shockingly few ways to treat fungal infections

in Science News: Health & Medicine on 2025-05-13 13:00:00 UTC.

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

How to Build a ‘Black Hole Bomb’

Astronomical amounts of energy could be extracted from black holes—to build a gigantic bomb, for example. Experts have now implemented this principle in the laboratory

in Scientific American on 2025-05-13 13:00:00 UTC.