More than 8,000 of the world’s most-cited scientists have at least one retraction, according to a database that links retractions to top-cited papers. Database shows that researchers with retracted papers had higher self-citation rates and published more than those without retractions.

Read Full Article

#ScientificIntegrity #ResearchEthics #CitationsMatter #AcademicAccountability #RetractionStudies

The Big Beautiful Bill Disrupting Science 💥📉. We've already seen NIH grants at Duke terminated for the prefix "trans" as in "Transgenic." Now, we're going to see even more codified impacts on science. https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2025/06/duke-university-national-institutes-of-health-cut-cancel

Read Full Article

#ScienceDisruption #NIHGrants #TransgenicResearch #ScientificIntegrity #AcademicFreedom

Study finds nearly two-thirds of AI-generated citations are fabricated or contain errors. The lack of reliability of large language models like OpenAI’s GPT-4o highlights a significant risk for scientific research. 📊🤖⚠️

Read Full Article

#AIGeneratedContent #ResearchReliability #ScientificIntegrity #GPT4Challenges #AIinScience

Conceptual and methodological flaws undermine claims of a link between the gut microbiome and autism 🦠🧠🔗💔

Read Full Article

#GutMicrobiome #AutismResearch #ScientificIntegrity #MethodologicalFlaws #HealthClaims

Journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology has issued a rare retraction of one of the most cited studies on the safety of the pesticide glyphosate 🌱, the main ingredient in the weedkiller Roundup 🌾.

Read Full Article

#GlyphosateRetracted #PesticideSafety #RoundupResearch #ToxicologyNews #ScientificIntegrity

US science after a year of Trump: what has been lost and what remains 🔬📉🌍🧬Here’s a concise, nonpartisan overview of what scientists and policy observers noted about a year into the Trump era. It covers proposed changes, actions taken, and what continued to function.What has been lost (or perceived as diminished)- Climate science emphasis and messaging - Signals from federal policy suggesting a deprioritization of climate research and climate-related regulatory work, along with moves to roll back or slow certain environmental regulations.- Long-term basic research and program stability - Proposals and discussions about cutting budgets for energy research, environmental programs, and some fundamental sciences, creating concerns about continuity for long-term projects and early-career researchers.- Federal science advisory capacity and staffing - The sense among some scientists that senior advisory roles and cross-agency science coordination were trimmed or reoriented toward policy priorities, reducing the visibility or influence of independent scientific expertise in policymaking.- International science collaboration and openness (in some policy contexts) - Broader tensions around multilateral science programs and foreign collaboration under broader national policy shifts, which some researchers worried could hinder global partnerships and data sharing.- Public science communication and integrity norms (perceived shifts) - Debates about how science results are communicated in official channels and how scientific integrity guidelines are applied or interpreted within the administration.What remains (and what endured)- Core research institutions and funding streams - NIH, NSF, NASA, DOE Office of Science, and other major U.S. research funders continued to operate, publish findings, and support grants, even as budgets and priorities shifted in various directions.- NASA’s multi-mission posture - Continued emphasis on exploration, planetary science, and human spaceflight missions; ongoing research and launches persisted, preserving NASA’s central role in aerospace and space science.- University and private-sector research vitality - Universities, think tanks, and private industry continued to drive a large share of discovery, development, and translation, sustaining the U.S. science ecosystem despite federal policy changes.- Scientific publishing and data infrastructure - Routine data collection, open data practices, peer-reviewed publishing, and scientific collaboration across institutions largely persisted, providing continuity for researchers and students.- Public trust and culture of inquiry - The broader scientific enterprise—its norms, training pipelines, and international collaborations—remained resilient, with many scientists continuing to advocate for evidence-based policy and continued investment in discovery.What to watch going forward- Budget trajectories and policy reversals - As administrations change or Congress shifts, funding for specific programs (climate, energy, environment, basic science) can move quickly. Tracking enacted budgets vs. proposed cuts will illuminate where losses persist or ease.- Restoration of advisory capacity and integrity norms - The role of independent scientific advice in policy-making may rebound or be recalibrated with new leadership and congressional oversight.- Global collaboration and data sharing - Diplomatic and policy developments will influence cross-border research partnerships, data access, and joint programs, impacting long-term science outcomes.- Early-career researchers and workforce dynamics - Uncertainty about funding and policy signals can affect the career pipeline; ongoing funding stability and opportunities for new researchers will shape the sector’s resilience.If you’d like, I can tailor this to a specific year (e.g., the first year after inauguration) or add concrete examples and sources to illustrate each point.

Read Full Article

#USScience #TrumpEraScience #ScienceInAmerica #FundingForScience #ScientificIntegrity

Over 400 U.S. patents cite retracted scientific papers

Read Full Article

#Retractions #ScientificIntegrity #PatentsCitations

🔬 Around 400 U.S. patents cite at least one retracted scientific paper, a recent study found. Of the 13 million patents analyzed, 401 cited retracted papers, with 19 of those patents relying substantially on the retracted research.

💡 The study, conducted by Hana Kim, highlights that corrections in scientific literature often don't transfer to patent records. Kim suggests better linking of patent systems with databases like Retraction Watch to identify and potentially correct patents citing retracted work.

⚖️ Experts agree that while retracted papers shouldn't automatically invalidate patents, patent offices need better infrastructure to identify such citations. The U.S. lacks a formal process to retract patents, though severe inaccuracies could lead to invalidation in court.

#PatentLaw #ScientificIntegrity #IntellectualProperty

A new blind spot in AI research uncovered: ‘Autonomous AI scientists’ can use hidden data manipulation, benchmark bias, and automated p-hacking. Because these critical flaws vanish entirely in the final paper, traditional peer review can’t catch them—exposing deep risks for science.

Read Full Article

#AIethics #AIsafety #ScientificIntegrity