Search

Scitility’s tool Argos identifies work whose authors have a record of misconduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data from giant project show how withdrawn research propagates through the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A scientist reviewing a study spotted figures that looked identical to his own, leading to a frustrating campaign to prevent its publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The pulp and paper industry is an important contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions1,2. Country-specific strategies are essential for the industry to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, given its vast heterogeneities across countries3,4. Here we develop a comprehensive bottom-up assessment of net greenhouse gas emissions of the domestic paper-related sectors for 30 major countries from 1961 to 2019—about 3.2% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from the same period5—and explore mitigation strategies through 2,160 scenarios covering key factors. Our results show substantial differences across countries in terms of historical emissions evolution trends and structure. All countries can achieve net-zero emissions for their pulp and paper industry by 2050, with a single measure for most developed countries and several measures for most developing countries. Except for energy-efficiency improvement and energy-system decarbonization, tropical developing countries with abundant forest resources should give priority to sustainable forest management, whereas other developing countries should pay more attention to enhancing methane capture rate and reducing recycling. These insights are crucial for developing net-zero strategies tailored to each country and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 for the pulp and paper industry.A bottom-up assessment of the net greenhouse gas emissions of the pulp and paper industries of 30 countries from 1961 to 2019 leads to country-specific strategies to achieve net zero by 2050. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of articles being retracted rose sharply this year. Integrity experts say that this is only the tip of the iceberg. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unreliable data, falsification and other issues related to misconduct are driving a growing proportion of retractions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An unpublished analysis suggests that there are hundreds of thousands of bogus ‘paper-mill’ articles lurking in the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Theories of scientific and technological change view discovery and invention as endogenous processes1,2, wherein previous accumulated knowledge enables future progress by allowing researchers to, in Newton’s words, ‘stand on the shoulders of giants’3–7. Recent decades have witnessed exponential growth in the volume of new scientific and technological knowledge, thereby creating conditions that should be ripe for major advances8,9. Yet contrary to this view, studies suggest that progress is slowing in several major fields10,11. Here, we analyse these claims at scale across six decades, using data on 45 million papers and 3.9 million patents from six large-scale datasets, together with a new quantitative metric—the CD index12—that characterizes how papers and patents change networks of citations in science and technology. We find that papers and patents are increasingly less likely to break with the past in ways that push science and technology in new directions. This pattern holds universally across fields and is robust across multiple different citation- and text-based metrics1,13–17. Subsequently, we link this decline in disruptiveness to a narrowing in the use of previous knowledge, allowing us to reconcile the patterns we observe with the ‘shoulders of giants’ view. We find that the observed declines are unlikely to be driven by changes in the quality of published science, citation practices or field-specific factors. Overall, our results suggest that slowing rates of disruption may reflect a fundamental shift in the nature of science and technology.A decline in disruptive science and technology over time is reported, representing a substantive shift in science and technology, which is attributed in part to the reliance on a narrower set of existing knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Experiments reveal that human skin is most reliably cut by specific thicknesses of paper, including the kind used to print certain high-profile journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EXCLUSIVE: Poor-quality studies are polluting the literature — a group will study the businesses that produce them to stem the flow of bogus research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some publishers say they are battling industrialized cheating. A Nature analysis examines the 'paper mill' problem — and how editors are trying to cope. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper-folding mechanism has been widely adopted in building of reconfigurable macroscale systems because of its unique capabilities and advantages in programming variable shapes and stiffness into a structure1–5. However, it has barely been exploited in the construction of molecular-level systems owing to the lack of a suitable design principle, even though various dynamic structures based on DNA self-assembly6–9 have been developed10–23. Here we propose a method to harness the paper-folding mechanism to create reconfigurable DNA origami structures. The main idea is to build a reference, planar wireframe structure24 whose edges follow a crease pattern in paper folding so that it can be folded into various target shapes. We realized several paper-like folding and unfolding patterns using DNA strand displacement25 with high yield. Orthogonal folding, repeatable folding and unfolding, folding-based microRNA detection and fluorescence signal control were demonstrated. Stimuli-responsive folding and unfolding triggered by pH or light-source change were also possible. Moreover, by employing hierarchical assembly26 we could expand the design space and complexity of the paper-folding mechanism in a highly programmable manner. Because of its high programmability and scalability, we expect that the proposed paper-folding-based reconfiguration method will advance the development of complex molecular systems.A method is presented to harness the paper-folding mechanism of reconfigurable macroscale systems to create reconfigurable DNA origami structures, in anticipation that it will advance the development of complex molecular systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Browser plug-in alerts users when studies — or their references — have been posted on a site known for raising integrity concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientists compiling a review scan more than 1,000 papers and find troubling images in some 10%.Scientists compiling a review scan more than 1,000 papers and find troubling images in nearly 20%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For a century, scientists pondered whether bird flight evolved by animals gliding down from trees or by creatures running and flapping from the ground up. A landmark 1974 paper reset the debate to focus on the evolution of the flight stroke instead. Fiftieth anniversary of an advance in understanding how flight evolved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Awareness of when a paper can’t be trusted is often too low — but adopting some easy-to-use technological solutions can help researchers, publishers and referees to clean things up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Text- and image-generating tools present a new hurdle for efforts to tackle the growing number of fake papers making their way into the academic literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An algorithm that takes just seconds to scan a paper for duplicated images racks up more suspicious images than a person. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By designing an autonomous system that fed prompts to the chatbot, researchers produced a paper that was fluent and insightful. Yet they still have concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns about image integrity have so far led to 17 retractions, corrections or expressions of concern for papers co-authored by geneticist Gregg Semenza. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This journal will double down on efforts to diversify the pool of corresponding authors and referees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Journals have begun retracting publications with suspicious links to sites trading in author positions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Online integrity hub will contain tools to help publishers combat bogus research and image manipulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies to tackle air quality in Delhi and solve the mystery of an emerging pathogen are among those helping to raise the profile of Indian science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The nonsensical computer-generated articles, spotted years after the problem was first seen, could lead to a wave of retractions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Theories of innovation emphasize the role of social networks and teams as facilitators of breakthrough discoveries1–4. Around the world, scientists and inventors are more plentiful and interconnected today than ever before4. However, although there are more people making discoveries, and more ideas that can be reconfigured in new ways, research suggests that new ideas are getting harder to find5,6—contradicting recombinant growth theory7,8. Here we shed light on this apparent puzzle. Analysing 20 million research articles and 4 million patent applications from across the globe over the past half-century, we begin by documenting the rise of remote collaboration across cities, underlining the growing interconnectedness of scientists and inventors globally. We further show that across all fields, periods and team sizes, researchers in these remote teams are consistently less likely to make breakthrough discoveries relative to their on-site counterparts. Creating a dataset that allows us to explore the division of labour in knowledge production within teams and across space, we find that among distributed team members, collaboration centres on late-stage, technical tasks involving more codified knowledge. Yet they are less likely to join forces in conceptual tasks—such as conceiving new ideas and designing research—when knowledge is tacit9. We conclude that despite striking improvements in digital technology in recent years, remote teams are less likely to integrate the knowledge of their members to produce new, disruptive ideas.Analysis of research articles and patent applications shows that members of teams that collaborate remotely are less likely to make breakthrough discoveries than members of on-site teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Borrowing the idea of ‘bug bounties’ from the technology industry could provide a systematic way to detect and correct the errors that litter the scientific literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

David Bimler, also known as Smut Clyde, scours the scientific literature for bogus articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In some areas of social science, around half of studies can’t be replicated. A new test-fast, fail-fast initiative aims to show what research is hot — and what’s not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ERROR project offers researchers a bounty for spotting mistakes in published papers — a strategy borrowed from the software industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Analysis reveals that strange turns of phrase may indicate foul play in science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large language models can draft abstracts or suggest research directions, but these artificial-intelligence tools are a work in progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemistry can transform disposable cups into industrially useful structures called cellulose nanocrystals.Most paper cups are not recycled, but a new technique could turn them into biodegradable packaging films.: Chemistry can transform disposable cups into industrially useful structures called cellulose nanocrystals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do you get your creative juices flowing after spending hours, days or months looking at a blank screen? Researchers share their advice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Campaigners who want scrutiny of biometrics research on Uyghurs, Tibetans and other groups are frustrated by slow progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A crop of referee reports from the Royal Society’s archive reveal discussions about cutting printing costs, reviewer holidays and even editing images. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neuroscientist Sergiy Sylantyev tells Nature that science and war cannot be separated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At least four articles credit the AI tool as a co-author, as publishers scramble to regulate its use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Make science more reliable by placing the burden of replicability on the community, not on individual laboratories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An analysis of DOIs suggests that digital preservation is not keeping up with burgeoning scholarly knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial intelligence could help speedily summarize research. But it comes with risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some researchers publish a new paper every five days, on average. Data trackers suspect not all their manuscripts were produced through honest labour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ranga Dias will have a second paper revoked. A journal’s investigation found apparent data fabrication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most universal trends in science and technology today is the growth of large teams in all areas, as solitary researchers and small teams diminish in prevalence1-3. Increases in team size have been attributed to the specialization of scientific activities3, improvements in communication technology4,5, or the complexity of modern problems that require interdisciplinary solutions6-8. This shift in team size raises the question of whether and how the character of the science and technology produced by large teams differs from that of small teams. Here we analyse more than 65 million papers, patents and software products that span the period 1954-2014, and demonstrate that across this period smaller teams have tended to disrupt science and technology with new ideas and opportunities, whereas larger teams have tended to develop existing ones. Work from larger teams builds on more-recent and popular developments, and attention to their work comes immediately. By contrast, contributions by smaller teams search more deeply into the past, are viewed as disruptive to science and technology and succeed further into the future—if at all. Observed differences between small and large teams are magnified for higher-impact work, with small teams known for disruptive work and large teams for developing work. Differences in topic and research design account for a small part of the relationship between team size and disruption; most of the effect occurs at the level of the individual, as people move between smaller and larger teams. These results demonstrate that both small and large teams are essential to a flourishing ecology of science and technology, and suggest that, to achieve this, science policies should aim to support a diversity of team sizes. Analyses of the output produced by large versus small teams of researchers and innovators demonstrate that their work differs systematically in the extent to which it disrupts or develops existing science and technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To thwart publishing rackets that undermine scholars and scholarly publishing, legitimate journals should show their workings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Letter to the Editor [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies involving hundreds, even thousands, of scientists are on the rise, but how do such large groups coordinate their work? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Publishers are deploying AI-based tools to detect suspicious images, but generative AI threatens their efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hundreds of junk-science papers have been retracted from reputable journals after fraudsters used ‘special issues’ to manipulate the publication process. And the problem is growing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]