Now that I have finally been paid I made a video about the Dana-Farber legal case from my own perspective: youtu.be/ioRtnMEV46Y

Weekend reads: Half of social science ‘doesn’t replicate’; ‘Scientific ghosts: Life after retraction’; multisensory learning paper retracted

How to be a science sleuth: Research integrity experts share their tips for spotting and reporting fraudulent papers Rupali Dabas writes @chemistryworld.com Featuring @smutclyde.bsky.social , @deevybee.bsky.social, Nick Wise, Jack Wilkinson, Anna Pendlebury, and me.

🤔 How confident are you in what your current research oversight isn’t showing you? In our recent webinar, Proactive Strategy for Research Security, Dr. Shirley Han explored how agencies can uncover hidden risks before they become real problems. 🔗https://ow.ly/EW4l50YCrZ4 #DigitalScience

Just tried Idea Gatekeeper, a very useful AI tool to evaluate the research ideas. Developed by Prof. Ning Li's team at Tsinghua University. Perfect for checking the viability of your next paper‘s pitch. Try it out: gatekeeper.spansurvey.net

China is winning the AI talent race “In 2025, for the first time, more studies presented at the world’s top AI conference had lead authors based in China than in either America or Europe” 🧪 economist.com/interactive/... from The Economist

Really great update from altmetric!

"Journalists rarely follow up on scientific retractions due to a combination of structural, economic, and professional barriers."

Un estudio que hicimos sobre el ceviche ecuatoriano, retractado dos años después por no tener aprobación de un comité de ética, que no se solicitaba cuando se publicó. Todo muy triste. journalofethnicfoods.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.... #porCulpaDeLaEscasezDeRinocerontes

À ce rythme il va avoir plus de rétractations que d'articles publiés pour plein de collègues. Ça existe le r-index pour le ratio rétractations/ articles ?

This is so cool

Check out the Retraction Risk Scanner we built! It evaluates a paper's overall risk by aggregating PubPeer comments, negative discussions on BlueSky and X, and the paper's current retraction status. www.retractionrisk.com

Happening in 1 hour: Unreliable Science - Unravelling the Impact of Mainstream Media Misrepresentations Hosted by @culturebullet.com . Speakers are Kim Holmberg, Irini Katsirea and @mikethelwall.bsky.social www.altmetric.com/event/unreli...

How to use our RetractionRisk Scanner browser extension 👇 www.retractionrisk.com/plugin.html

I just launched the RetractionRisk Scanner browser extension! 🚀 With just one click, instantly check if a paper has flagged issues or retraction risks while reading. Available now on Chrome & Firefox. Try it out! 👉 www.retractionrisk.com/plugin.html

A Retraction Watch story left one reader intrigued. “I’ve never seen anything like that before,” said John Loadsman of the University of Sydney, an anesthesiologist and journal editor. “I thought, I’ve got to have a look.”

Today we launch ORION: a coordinated initiative to make open research information more inclusive, accessible and democratic. Our experience with GoogleBigQuery support collaborative and community solutions for ORI infrastructures, increasing sustainability & resilience. doi.org/10.54900/2pn...

Random Fact of the Day In January of 2025 Altmetric had recorded 212 million posts on all of Twitter/X that cite research. As of today that number has dropped to 203 million total. A lot of posts being deleted and/or migrated to Bluesky it seems.

Why not go for an even stronger signal? deevybee.blogspot.com/2026/02/the-...

Happy to see our paper has been featured by Nature. Building on this work, we developed retractionrisk.com to help researchers screen their references for potential retraction risks. We warmly welcome the community to explore the tool!

Posts on X that are critical of scientific research can act as early warning signs of problematic articles go.nature.com/4qGhiCq

💥New: UK academia’s presence on X is reaching a tipping point ✍️ @andytattersall.bsky.social #X #AcademicSocialMedia #AcademicSky

I launched version 3.0 of my browser extension "Lazy Scholar", a free in-browser research assistant. It opens automatically when you load an academic article. See: lazyscholar.org/2026/01/10/l...

The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker, developed and maintained by @abalkina.bsky.social, now has 400 entries.

Nicholas, you may like: Altmetric Explorer altmetric.com PubPeer pubpeer.com using the filter "Forums" in Google Search www.google.com/search?udm=1... RetractionRisk Scanner (copy-paste DOIs and get negative mentions of papers across PubPeer, Bluesky, and X) www.retractionrisk.com

We recognized users who most often flagged paper issues before retraction. Thank u for outstanding contributions to combating scientific misconduct and safeguarding research integrity👏! retractionrisk.com/sleuths.html @fabricefrank.bsky.social @elisabethbik.bsky.social @spottingthespot.bsky.social

Surprised to see even my GPT Year in Review is research-centric🤣

Tools fail to identify most AI-generated peer-review reports, say researchers, who warn that the issue is only getting worse. go.nature.com/3MTmdAR

We built the RetractionRisk Scanner based on our research, to help researchers screen their references for potential retraction risks prior to manuscript submission. We warmly welcome the community to use and explore the tool😊! www.retractionrisk.com

Here's how we analyse sentiment on Twitter/X and Bluesky www.frontiersin.org/journals/res...

Many say that AI tools are saving them time and money, but others have seen the negative effects that such tools can have on research go.nature.com/4oFomNQ

Nature Sci Rep publishes incoherent AI slop. eLife publishes a paper which the reviewers didn't agree with, making all the comments and responses public with thoughtful commentary. One of these journals got delisted by Web of Science for quality concerns from not doing peer review. Guess which one?

👀ICYMI: "The choice for discretion is not driven by a desire to hide problems, but by a pragmatic response to the realities of academic life." @freddie2310.bsky.social #Corrections #AcWri #ResearchEthics

Based on a dataset of ~30k #ICLR2026 peer-review reports, I found that reviewers from non-English-speaking countries are more likely to submit fully AI-generated reviews (using the AI-detection method shared by iclr.pangram.com).

Asked nano banana pro to turn our paper into a Doraemon comic. Really impressive... onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...

👀ICYMI: "When members of Reddit’s r/schizophrenia discovered their posts had been analysed in a published paper ~ the backlash was swift." @drsbrooke.bsky.social & Nick Oh, on doing ethical AI research. #AIResearch #PublicData #ResearchEthics blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsoci...

As a librarian, are you looking for more ways to support researchers, create impact and engage with policy? Well, we have some tips for you…

In today's episode of @npr.org's @marketplace.org, I talk to @kairyssdal.bsky.social about science fraud and paper mills (segment starts at 25 min). www.marketplace.org/episode/2025...

Journals are considering doing identity checks to expose fake authors — but there are downsides go.nature.com/4hqvw6F

Just discovered the platform @prereview.bsky.social. It’s a refreshing innovation in academic publishing! Researchers can review preprints they’re interested in, or invite others to review their own, helping improve manuscripts earlier. Looking forward to seeing it grow💪! #PublishYourReviews

Recently, we opened a public dashboard sharing frequently asked for stats from PREreview. You can check it out here: stats.prereview.org 👀 What other kinds of stats would you like to have? What other questions would you like to ask that might be addressed by this dashboard? We'd love to know

I just reviewed the article 'Implicit reporting standards in bibliometric research: what can reviewers' comments tell us about reporting completeness?' by @dimitystephen.bsky.social and colleagues. I like the article a lot! Article: arxiv.org/abs/2508.162... Review: prereview.org/reviews/1739...

Positive sentiment does not mean your research is necessarily good, nor does negative sentiment mean your research is trash. Both positive and negative sentiment can be found on Wakefield's retracted Lancet article on MMR and vaccines for example. LOL at the negative one.

Just tried this feature and found a podcast about my study (www.microbe.tv/twiv/). Seeing people discussing your research is really cool! Tks Altmetric👍👍

PODCASTS Altmetric now tracks podcasts mentioning research In 2018 there were roughly 500,000 podcasts in existence. Just 3 years later that number was 2 million. Today it's around 4 million. Amid all the Squarespace ads there's citations to research. Let's go 1/7

Next week @jameszou.bsky.social & colleagues will host a conference where all the papers are written by AI agents & reviewed by them too. What do you reckon? A good chance to put AIs through their paces? Or a way to divert AI slop from elsewhere? 🧪🤖 My story here: www.nature.com/articles/d41...

This perfectly aligns with our findings that science is being discussed more actively on Bluesky! arxiv.org/abs/2507.18840

It’s Sam Altman: the man who stole the rights from copyright. If he’s the future, can we go backwards? | Marina Hyde

Why does every story about Nobel prize winners receiving the call involve them being woken in the middle of the night? Do the Nobel people not understand how time zones work or is it a deliberate strategy to generate fun stories about confused winners...?