mastodon 4.8.0-nightly.2026-10-06Features editor, Nature.
r.vannoorden[[at]]nature[[dot]]com
richardvannoorden⟦at⟧protonmail⟦dot⟧com
Toots are searchable via tootfinder.
Which scientific publishers/journals are worst affected by fraudulent or dubious research papers, and which have done least to clean up their portfolio?
A science-integrity startup called Argos says it has answers.
There are quite a few integrity tools now that look for red flags in papers, but this is the first to go public with what it's finding across journals and publishers.
Here's my exclusive look at their figures.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03427-w
What's the most cited research published in the 21st century?
Which are the most cited papers of all time?
And what decades-old science studies are still heavily referenced today?
Answers to all these and more in a series of features in Nature on the research that makes the top of the citation charts.
(Long-time readers will remember a 'top 100 papers' that Nature ran in 2014 -- as part of this package this is updated to the present day)
"AI tools could help scientists to produce high-quality reviews, but might also fuel the rapid generation of substandard ones".
Great overview by Helen Pearson in Nature of current efforts to have AI create review articles from the scientific literature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03676-9
@ScienceSurf@mastodon.social @BorisBarbour@mastodon.social It would have to be an automated/semi-automated procedure to make such an index, whatever it was. Would counting up a journal's articles mentioned on PubPeer be unfair?