Search

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

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]

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

The confidential 124-page report from the University of Rochester, disclosed in a lawsuit, details the extent of Ranga Dias’s scientific misconduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Universities must declare all their retractions and launch investigations into misconduct cases; a Nature analysis reveals that since 2021 there have been more than 17,000 retractions with Chinese co-authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By joining a collecting society, researchers can ensure they are paid when copyrighted book content and papers are reproduced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Generative-AI technologies can create convincing scientific data with ease — publishers and integrity specialists fear a torrent of faked science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The large language model does everything from reading the literature to writing and reviewing its own papers, but it has limited applicability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ways in which researchers can artificially inflate their reference counts are growing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Letter to the Editor [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Covalent bonds share electron pairs between two atoms and make up the skeletons of most organic compounds in single, double and triple bonds. In contrast, examples of one-electron bonds remain scarce, most probably due to their intrinsic weakness1–4. Although several pioneering studies have reported one-electron bonds between heteroatoms, direct evidence for one-electron bonds between carbon atoms remains elusive. Here we report the isolation of a compound with a one-electron σ-bond between carbon atoms by means of the one-electron oxidation of a hydrocarbon with an elongated C–C single bond5,6. The presence of the C•C one-electron σ-bond (2.921(3) Å at 100 K) was confirmed experimentally by single-crystal X-ray diffraction analysis and Raman spectroscopy, and theoretically by density functional theory calculations. The results of this paper unequivocally demonstrate the existence of a C•C one-electron σ-bond, which was postulated nearly a century ago7, and can thus be expected to pave the way for further development in different areas of chemistry by probing the boundary between bonded and non-bonded states.The one-electron oxidation of a hydrocarbon with an elongated C–C single bond provides direct evidence for a one-electron σ-bond between carbon atoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2004, physicists reported something remarkable: they had isolated ultrathin films of carbon atoms using sticky tape alone, and found that the films had astounding properties. The finding would forever change condensed-matter physics.Two decades of 2D materials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Too often, journal assessments of potentially unreliable research are superficial, opaque and prolonged. Changes to the guidance given by the Committee on Publication Ethics could tighten up the process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A study of review reports identifies dozens of adjectives that could indicate text written with the help of chatbots. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large language models are transforming scientific writing and publishing. But the productivity boost that these tools bring could have a downside. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2. In April 2020, an influential paper3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization.Evaluation of evidence generated to test 19 proposed policy recommendations and guidance for the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The controversy over online misinformation and social media has opened a gap between public discourse and scientific research. Public intellectuals and journalists frequently make sweeping claims about the effects of exposure to false content online that are inconsistent with much of the current empirical evidence. Here we identify three common misperceptions: that average exposure to problematic content is high, that algorithms are largely responsible for this exposure and that social media is a primary cause of broader social problems such as polarization. In our review of behavioural science research on online misinformation, we document a pattern of low exposure to false and inflammatory content that is concentrated among a narrow fringe with strong motivations to seek out such information. In response, we recommend holding platforms accountable for facilitating exposure to false and extreme content in the tails of the distribution, where consumption is highest and the risk of real-world harm is greatest. We also call for increased platform transparency, including collaborations with outside researchers, to better evaluate the effects of online misinformation and the most effective responses to it. Taking these steps is especially important outside the USA and Western Europe, where research and data are scant and harms may be more severe.This Perspective identifies common misperceptions regarding the harms of online misinformation, finding that exposure to false and inflammatory content is rare and concentrated among a small minority of people who already have extreme views. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chatbots and other tools are increasingly being considered, but people power is still seen as a safer option. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Letter to the Editor [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]