From 6c1f3d78264929a6f507bbebcc3a5a70eb8e89bf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: neurofedorabot
last updated by Pluto
- on 2024-12-20 08:20:52 UTC
+ on 2024-12-21 08:18:42 UTC
on behalf of the NeuroFedora SIG.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket - in WIRED Science on 2024-12-20 19:05:48 UTC.
+ - Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket - The authors of an influential but controversial 2020 paper on the activity of bat coronaviruses in China which proposed the animals as a “likely origin” for the virus that causes COVID-19 have retracted their work and republished a revised version of the analysis. They say their results and conclusions did not change. The paper, “Origin and cross-species transmission of bat coronaviruses in China,” appeared Aug. 25, 2020, in Nature Communications. It has been cited 154 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science, and by at least two international policy documents. The authors are affiliated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the New York City-based nonprofit organization EcoHealth Alliance, which has come under intense scrutiny by members of the U.S. Congress and others. The U.S. government in May suspended funding for EcoHealth amid concerns the COVID-19 pandemic virus may have developed from research on which the nonprofit and Wuhan lab collaborated – a so-called “lab leak.” EcoHealth has denied the pandemic virus could have emerged from its work. Peter Daszak, a corresponding author of the paper and president of EcoHealth, told Retraction Watch the researchers had discovered dozens of the more than 1,000 viral sequences in the paper didn’t come from China, but from “a few miles over the border” in Laos. He explained: Given that bats on both sides of the border likely co-mingle, and that our initial analyses were conducted by zoogeographic regions which encompass cross-border populations, we did not expect that the inclusion of these samples changed any conclusions substantially. However, given that the title and focus of the paper was for CoVs from bats in China, the authors decided to remove the 41 Laotian sequences, and repeat all of the paper’s analyses. During this process, we were also able to remove 29 sequences that were duplicated in the Genbank database. As expected, the results did not change substantially, and the conclusions remain the same. Nature Communications published the revised analysis on December 19, along with a retraction notice for the original article. The abstracts of the original and revised papers are identical, except for the number of viral sequences. The authors learned of the erroneously included sequences “months after publication,” Daszak said. He did not immediately respond to our questions about when his group informed the journal, or whether they considered publishing an expression of concern while they conducted the new analysis. Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, 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 2024-12-20 19:02:00 UTC.
+ - Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket - in Science News on 2024-12-20 19:00:00 UTC.
+ - Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket - in Science News on 2024-12-20 18:00:00 UTC.
+ - Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket - in WIRED Science on 2024-12-20 17:17:44 UTC.
+ - Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket - in Science News on 2024-12-20 16:00:00 UTC.
+ - Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket - in Science News on 2024-12-20 15:12:43 UTC.
+ - Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket - in Science News on 2024-12-20 14:00:00 UTC.
+ - Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket - The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation (JHLT) has decided against retracting a November 2024 paper that violated the ethics policy of the publication. After publishing the paper, which describes a new mechanical circulatory support device used to treat heart failure that was developed in China, staff at the journal realised two of the patients in the study had received organ transplants in that country. Dozens of research articles have been retracted or flagged for appearing to have used organs procured from executed prisoners in China, and many journals around the world have introduced policies to avoid such research. JHLT’s ethics statement, published in 2022, bans data on human organ transplants from journals or scientific sessions when they originate from countries, particularly China, where organ procurement from prisoners has been observed. The study, “Long-term outcomes of a novel fully magnetically levitated ventricular assist device for the treatment of advanced heart failure in China,” has been cited twice, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. The study’s abstract was initially presented at the annual meeting of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, which runs the journal, said cardiologist Joseph Rogers, president and chief executive officer of the Texas Heart Institute and the editor-in-chief of JHLT. After a “lengthy debate,” Rogers said, the editors decided retracting the paper would be an “inappropriate response” despite the journal’s ethics statement. “We didn’t want to convey to the readership that there was something scientifically invalid about the paper,” Rogers said. “That’s not true. The paper was scientifically valid.” The journal also printed two editorials, one by the journal’s then interim editor-in-chief, Michelle Kittleson of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, who initially accepted the study, and the other about the journal’s ethics statement, signed by the JHLT’s ethics committee. Retraction Watch has reached out to Savitri Fedson, of the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and a co-author of the editorial about JHLT’s ethics statement. Rogers said the journal published the editorials to recognise JHLT missed the issue and had violated its own ethics commitments. If the issue was spotted beforehand, he noted, JHLT would have rejected the study. Going forward, the journal has put in “additional safeguards” to prevent violation of the ethics statement, Rogers said. Shengshou Hu, the study’s corresponding author, who is based at Fuwai Hospital in Beijing, has not responded to a request for comment from Retraction Watch. As part of the safeguards, all papers are now sent to Rogers, who desk-rejects any papers involving human organ transplants in China, he said. That step is particularly important, he noted, because peer reviewers working for the journal are not required to read the publication’s ethics statement. Rogers said the journal contacted the study’s authors. “What we really wanted to do was reassure them that the reason that we were editorializing their paper in this manner was not because of the scientific content of the paper,” he added. “It was really a failure of our internal checks and balances that allowed that paper to move forward.” Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, 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 2024-12-20 13:00:00 UTC.
+ - Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket - in WIRED Science on 2024-12-20 12:30:00 UTC.
+ - Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket - Chemosphere, the Elsevier title which in September published an article on “unexpected exposure to toxic flame retardants in household items” such as black plastic cooking utensils, has been removed from Clarivate’s Web of Science index in its December update.
By clicking submit, you agree to share your email address with the site owner and Mailchimp to receive marketing, updates, and other emails from the site owner. Use the unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time. An engineer accused of being involved in paper mill activities mysteriously reappeared on a list of editorial board members at Springer Nature’s Scientific Reports earlier this year, Retraction Watch has learned.
By clicking submit, you agree to share your email address with the site owner and Mailchimp to receive marketing, updates, and other emails from the site owner. Use the unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time.
By clicking submit, you agree to share your email address with the site owner and Mailchimp to receive marketing, updates, and other emails from the site owner. Use the unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time. - Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket - in Science News on 2024-12-13 18:00:00 UTC.
- - Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket - in Science News on 2024-12-13 16:00:00 UTC.
- - Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
By clicking submit, you agree to share your email address with the site owner and Mailchimp to receive marketing, updates, and other emails from the site owner. Use the unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time. - Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket - in Science News on 2024-12-13 14:00:00 UTC.
- - Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket - - Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket - in Science News on 2024-12-12 22:39:47 UTC.
- - Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
By clicking submit, you agree to share your email address with the site owner and Mailchimp to receive marketing, updates, and other emails from the site owner. Use the unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time. - Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket - in Science News on 2024-12-12 19:04:55 UTC.
- - Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
By clicking submit, you agree to share your email address with the site owner and Mailchimp to receive marketing, updates, and other emails from the site owner. Use the unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time. Planet Neuroscientists
An aggregation of RSS feeds from various neuroscience blogs.
An aggregation of RSS feeds from various neuroscience blogs.
+
This Tropical Virus Is Spreading Out of the Amazon to the US and Europe
+
+
+ Oropouche virus has posed little threat outside South America in the past, but land-use change, the climate crisis, and international travel all appear to be spreading this insect-borne disease to new places.
+
+
+ EcoHealth Alliance retracts and replaces paper on potential origin of COVID-19 in bats
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Eyelashes’ special features help fling water from the eyes
+
+
+ Eyelashes “micro-ratchet” structure and curved shape help wick water away from the eyes.
+
+
+ These are the 5 most popular Science News stories of 2024
+
+
+ Science News drew millions of visitors to our website this year. Here’s a recap of the most-read and most-watched news stories of 2024.
+
+
+ Why Can’t You Switch Seats in an Empty Airplane?
+
+
+ Yes, the weight distribution on an aircraft really does affect how well it flies. Our physics guy explains.
+
+
+ 50 years ago, astronomers saw the surface of a distant star for the first time
+
+
+ In the 1970s, technological advances let scientists peer through stars’ atmospheres. Now, scientists can measure roiling gas in the stars themselves.
+
+
+ Telehealth helps people get health care, but access may soon be in limbo
+
+
+ COVID-era telehealth laws made health care more accessible for rural patients, but telehealth might not be as easy to access next year.
+
+
+ Stage 0 breast cancer patients may not need to rush to surgery
+
+
+ Women with Stage 0 breast cancer who got biannual mammograms and delayed surgery for two years fared as well as those who got immediate surgery.
+
+
+ Journal won’t retract paper that involved human organ transplants in China
+
+
+
+
+
+What’s the Winter Solstice? Celebrations, Science, Livestream
+
+
+ Here’s what happens on the longest night of the year—in the solar system and across different cultures here on Earth.
+
+
+ Schneider Shorts 20.12.2024 – A Christmas Carroll
@@ -177,7 +461,7 @@
-
+
-
+
Weekend reads: ‘Race science’ under review; researcher blames critiques on anti-LGBTQ discrimination; the politics of the politics of smell
-
+
-
Cancer screening and quitting smoking have saved nearly 6 million lives
-
-
- Prevention, screening and treatment advances combined stopped 5.94 million deaths from cancer in the United States from 1975 through 2020.
-
-
- Humans have linked emotions to the same body parts for 3,000 years
-
-
- 3,000-year-old clay tablets show that some associations between emotion and parts of the body have remained the same for millennia.
-
-
- Exclusive: Researcher who received settlement to leave University of Iowa won’t be starting new job
@@ -962,7 +1222,7 @@
+
-
The 2024 eclipse gave a rare view of the sun. Here’s a peek at early data
-
-
- Teams are starting to analyze data from the total solar eclipse to learn more about the sun’s corona, gravity waves and changes in Earth’s ionosphere.
-
-
- Schneider Shorts 13.12.2024 – Most lying, deceiving person in the world
@@ -1007,18 +1255,6 @@
-
NASA’s Perseverance rover found a new potential setting for Martian life
-
-
- Now atop Jezero Crater, the robotic explorer found quartz indicative of habitable environments and possibly the oldest rocks yet seen in the solar system.
-
-
- Bribery offers from China rattle journal editors. Are they being scammed?
@@ -1137,7 +1373,7 @@
+
-
The ‘Blob,’ an unprecedented marine heat wave, killed 4 million seabirds
-
-
- Millions of other animals may have perished too, suggesting the die-off event might be one of the worst in modern times.
-
-
- RFK Plans to Take on Big Pharma. It’s Easier Said Than Done
@@ -1318,7 +1542,7 @@
+
in Retraction watch on 2024-12-11 21:39:48 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
-in WIRED Science on 2024-12-11 11:30:00 UTC. -
-- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
-in WIRED Science on 2024-12-11 11:02:41 UTC. -
-- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
-Earlier this year, Milen Zamfirov, dean of the faculty of educational sciences at Sofia University in Bulgaria, was named an exceptional scientist in the social sciences and humanities. As part of the accolades at the prestigious Pythagoras Science Awards from the Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science, Zamfirov received a commemorative plaque, diploma, and a cash prize of 8,000 BGN (US $4,300).
- - - -Now, he is accused of plagiarising past research in a paper he co-authored with Margarita Bakracheva, who received a certificate of excellence from the Union of the Bulgarian Scientists earlier this year.
- - - -Their study, titled, “In Search of Integrativity of Sciences: the Principle of Supplementarity in the Story of Pauli and Jung,” was published in Bulgarian in 2021.
- - - -But the paper seems to have significant overlap with other sources, according to Irene Glendinning, a researcher and consultant based in Leicester, UK.
- - - - - - - -“I don’t think there is any doubt that this is plagiarism,” said Glendinning, who has studied plagiarism policies at higher education policies across the European Union. “In this case, together with the ridiculous mistakes in the narrative, I guess they knew it was wrong, but thought it was worth the risk because their paper was in Bulgarian and they thought it unlikely anyone would notice or care.”
- - - -Two previous English-language papers that the 2021 paper has overlap with are a 2015 Frontiers in Psychology study and a paper published by the Journal of Consciousness Studies in 2012.
- - - -Zamfirov did not reply to a request for comment. Bakracheva told Retraction Watch in an email that her study was a theoretical review of the “very few studies highlighting Jung-Pauli collaboration and common approach in different sciences, in this case physics and psychology.”
- - - -As for the text overlap and similarities between figures, Bakracheva said past literature is “correctly referenced” at the end of each paragraph. “Since it is explicitly stated that the aim of the article is to give a brief example of a possible historical illustration of the cooperation and integration of different scientific fields, there is no demarcation between the referenced sources and the ‘personal thoughts’.”
- - - -However, Jerome Busemeyer, a psychologist and brain sciences researcher at Indiana University Bloomington who co-authored the paper in Frontiers in Psychology study, was not convinced. “I think the work should be retracted or rejected,” he said. “There are proper ways to refer and make use of others’ work by properly acknowledging and getting permissions.”
- - - -As a “minor defence,” Glendinning said some academics “think it is OK to paraphrase or directly copy material as long as a reference to the original is given somewhere in the paper. No real excuse in this case, but I’ve come across this quite a lot in different countries.”
- - - -Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, 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 2024-12-10 15:29:57 UTC. -
-- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
-in WIRED Science on 2024-12-10 12:00:00 UTC. -
-- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
-in WIRED Science on 2024-12-10 10:00:00 UTC. -
-