Reese Richardson
LightNews LightNews
banner
reeserichardson.bsky.social
Reese Richardson
@reeserichardson.bsky.social
510 followers 140 following 390 posts
A newly-minted PhD studying metascience and computational biology.
My blog: https://reeserichardson.blog
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
reeserichardson.bsky.social
Reese Richardson @reeserichardson.bsky.social · Aug 4
Today, our article "The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly" is finally published in PNAS. I hope that it proves to be a wake-up-call for the whole scientific community.

reeserichardson.blog/2025/08/04/a...
A do-or-die moment for the scientific enterprise
Reflecting on our paper “The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly”
reeserichardson.blog
Reposted by Reese Richardson
cosig.net
COSIG has a new mascot but he doesn't yet have a name! Any suggestions?
A mottled gray Chinese giant salamander wearing a deerstalker peers into a magnifying glass. He holds a copy of COSIG in his right hand (foot? limb? idk).
November 19, 2025 at 3:12 PM
reeserichardson.bsky.social
Attended Carmina Burana at the Lyric Opera of Chicago tonight, where I unexpectedly ran into @davidsanderssci.bsky.social !
A view of the gilded stage of the Lyric Opera of Chicago with a seated orchestra.
November 19, 2025 at 3:04 AM
Reposted by Reese Richardson
sophieehill.bsky.social
Economist Nicholas Apergis (h-index=90!) appears to have engaged in large-scale plagiarism.

Example: Jebli, Youssef, & Apergis (2019) self-plagiarises Apergis & Payne (2014), which in turn plagiarises Afonso & Rault (2010).

Substantial text overlap with no citation.

pubpeer.com/publications...
Paired sentence comparisons Below are paired comparisons of particular sentences, with Apergis & Payne (2014) first, and Afonso & Rault (2010) second. • "Panel unit root tests of the first-generation can lead to spurious results (because of size distortions) if significant degrees of positive residual cross-sectional dependence exist, but are ignored." • " '... panel unit root tests of the first generation can lead to spurious results (because of size distortions) if there exists significant degrees of error cross-section dependence and this is ignored." • "Consequently, the implementation of second-generation panel unit root tests is desirable only when it has been established that the panel is subject to a significant degree of residual cross-sectional dependence." • "Consequently, the implementation of second-generation panel unit root tests is desirable only when it has been established that the panel is effectively subject to a significant degree of error cross-section dependence."
November 18, 2025 at 10:33 PM
Reposted by Reese Richardson
jeremymberg.bsky.social
Important new analysis identifying the scope of clinical trials disrupted because of NIH shenanigans.

> 74 thousand trial participants affected

jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...

1/4
Clinical Trials Affected by Research Grant Terminations at the National Institutes of Health
This cross-sectional study summarizes the number of trials with terminated grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and calculates the proportion of affected trials among those with previou...
jamanetwork.com
November 17, 2025 at 5:45 PM
Reposted by Reese Richardson
retractionwatch.com
An international computing society has begun retracting conference papers for “citation falsification” only months after the sleuth who flagged the suspect articles was convicted for defamation in a lawsuit filed by one of the offending authors.
Computing society pulls works for ‘citation falsification’ months after sleuth is convicted of defamation
Solal Pirelli An international computing society has begun retracting conference papers for “citation falsification” only months after the sleuth who flagged the suspect articles was convicted for …
retractionwatch.com
November 17, 2025 at 7:32 PM
reeserichardson.bsky.social
Behold: the first EDX spectrum labeled with Miller indices!

#crystallography #chemsky
A line graph of an EDX spectrum where the peaks are labelled with Miller indices, as if this is actually supposed to be an X-ray diffraction patterns. Red arrows indicate overhangs.
November 16, 2025 at 3:07 PM
Reposted by Reese Richardson
cosig.net
Check out the latest issue of REACH magazine from @sci-integrity.com, which features COSIG on page 42!

www.sci-integrity.com/reach-octobe...
REACH October-December 2025 | Science Integrity Alliance
REACH is a modern, interactive, and comprehensive digital magazine designed to meet the shared needs of all stakeholders in the research community.
www.sci-integrity.com
November 16, 2025 at 2:52 PM
Reposted by Reese Richardson
cosig.net
The FDA Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) is useful for identifying potential adverse events associated with drugs. However, its data is often exploited to produce articles reporting spurious drug risks.

COSIG's entry on formulaic research now covers low-quality pharmacovigilance studies!
COSIG: The Collection of Open Science Integrity Guides Newest version available at cosig.net!
November 14, 2025 at 6:41 PM
Reposted by Reese Richardson
brendannyhan.bsky.social
A staggering statistic: "North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year." What are we doing?
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 8d
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 12, 2025 at 1:58 PM
Reposted by Reese Richardson
environmicrobio.bsky.social
“The prohibited activities would include joint research, co-authorship on papers, and advising a foreign graduate student or postdoctoral fellow. The language is retroactive, meaning any interactions during the previous 5 years could make a scientist ineligible for future federal funding.”
U.S. Congress considers sweeping ban on Chinese collaborations
Researchers speak out against proposal that would bar funding for U.S. scientists working with Chinese partners or training Chinese students
www.science.org
November 14, 2025 at 1:03 AM
reeserichardson.bsky.social
my latest comfort .jpeg
Harrison Ford embraces a bottle of Kirin beer as tall as he is in a Japanese advertisement.
November 14, 2025 at 12:45 AM
Reposted by Reese Richardson
jamesheathers.bsky.social
“The authors have informed the journal that an auditable replacement dataset has been prepared and will be made available to The BMJ. The BMJ will update this notice and make a decision about what post-publication change to the content is needed.”

I am not enjoying the implications of this.
retractionwatch.com Retraction Watch @retractionwatch.com · 7d
@bmj.com has issued an expression of concern for a paper claiming stem cell therapy can reduce the risk of heart failure. The move comes after sleuths and scientists critiqued the “complete mismatch” between the study data and the article itself.
BMJ places expression of concern on heavily criticized stem cell paper
The BMJ has issued an expression of concern for a paper claiming stem cell therapy can reduce the risk of heart failure. The move comes after sleuths and scientists critiqued the “complete mismatch…
retractionwatch.com
November 13, 2025 at 12:16 AM
Reposted by Reese Richardson
hansonmark.bsky.social
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Reese Richardson
jeremymberg.bsky.social
Director Bhattacharya "Let's fund emerging investigators"

Yeah, who's the idiot running NIH who allowed 15% or few fewer early stage investigators be funded in FY2025 compared to FY2024?

(Estimate: The official numbers are not yet available (at least publicly)
November 6, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Reposted by Reese Richardson
jamesheathers.bsky.social
These are mill papers.

Further reading, @reeserichardson.bsky.social may have more:

www.researchgate.net/publication/...

... and hilariously a 'bibliometric' analysis that doesn't mention paper mills:

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
triadsou.bsky.social Triad sou. @triadsou.bsky.social · 13d
The rapid growth in Mendelian randomization studies. Gibran Hemani, Stefan Stender, Frank J. Wolters, Albert Hofman & George Davey Smith. European Journal of Epidemiology. link.springer.com/article/10.1...
The rapid growth in Mendelian randomization studies - European Journal of Epidemiology
European Journal of Epidemiology -
link.springer.com
November 6, 2025 at 2:43 PM
Reposted by Reese Richardson
kendallsciwrite.bsky.social
Reporter @virginiagewin.bsky.social interviewed 19 current and former US federal agency scientists about the science being dismantled at EPA, NOAA, NASA, CDC, NIH, & USGS.

They say it's making America unprepared for environmental and public health crises.

www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Dismantling of US federal agencies will ‘destroy science’
From NASA to the National Institutes of Health, federal agencies conduct research that universities cannot. Agency scientists speak out about the irreplaceable facilities, institutional knowledge and ...
www.nature.com
November 4, 2025 at 12:21 PM
Reposted by Reese Richardson
retractionwatch.com
A network of peer reviewers in Italy is targeting medical journals, threatening “both the scientific record and patient safety,” a team of researchers including @deevybee.bsky.social report.
Review mill in Italy targeting ob-gyn journals, researchers allege
Examples of “boilerplate” text used in the suspect reviews.M.A. Oviedo-Garcia et al/medRxiv 2025 A network of peer reviewers in Italy is targeting medical journals, threatening “both the scientific…
retractionwatch.com
November 4, 2025 at 8:54 PM
reeserichardson.bsky.social
"If we are to rebuild our scientific enterprise, we will need the support of the American people, and that means cleaning up our house. Policies to forbid ghostwriting and strong sanctions for researchers who violate those policies would be a good place to start."

doi.org/10.1126/scie...
Cleaning the scientific house: Rebuilding trust in science requires confronting the harms of ghostwriting
American science is under attack. Recent cuts to funding and staffing of federal agencies, layoffs of scientists, and rescission of billions of dollars in grants are unprecedented in US history and th...
doi.org
November 4, 2025 at 10:49 PM
reeserichardson.bsky.social
I was on 🇨🇦 CBC Radio's Quirks and Quarks last weekend to talk about systematic scientific fraud! Listen to the 18-minute segment here: www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks...
Nov 1: Sleuthing out scientific fraud, and more... | CBC Radio
On this week's episode: selling sunlight on demand, rhinos roamed Canada’s Arctic 23 million years ago, making a more precise parachute using kirigami, the winner of this year's prestigious Gerhard He...
www.cbc.ca
November 4, 2025 at 1:48 PM
Reposted by Reese Richardson
jeffreybrainard.bsky.social
A rapidly growing share of letters to journals may be drafted by machines, undetected by editors. Study quantifies recently ‘prolific debutante authors’ who had published no letters before 2022, when ChatGPT debuted. #academicjournals #peerreview @science.org www.science.org/content/arti...
Letters to scientific journals surge as ‘prolific debutante’ authors likely use AI
New study reinforces worries about “mass production of junk” by unscrupulous scholars aiming to pad their CVs
www.science.org
November 3, 2025 at 6:40 PM
Reposted by Reese Richardson
jsmoliga.bsky.social
"Patients and consumers shouldn’t need a FOIA request to understand whether “FDA authorized” reflects compelling evidence or a device permitted despite serious internal concerns, addressed only through labeling caveats."

www.statnews.com/2025/11/02/q...
A sports device to ‘protect the brain’ illustrates a major problem with the FDA de novo pathway
“This is not just about one device. It’s about what happens when institutions grow comfortable living in their own ambiguity and hiding behind opacity.”
www.statnews.com
November 2, 2025 at 1:31 PM
Reposted by Reese Richardson
eugenie-reich.bsky.social
For others troubled by the exoneration of Hoau-Yan Wang, there's an analysis of the difficulty prosecuting scientific fraudsters at 13:00 in this @bjkspod.bsky.social podcast. I didn't anticipate the role of institutional research integrity offices in manufacturing "reasonable doubts."
November 1, 2025 at 7:57 PM
Reposted by Reese Richardson
alexanderfurnas.com
my letter to the CEO, President, and COO of Services Corporation International, the owner of Dignity Memorial, which manages the cemetery in which my mom is buried that was being used as an ICE staging ground this afternoon.
Alexander Furnas <zfurnas@gmail.com> 3:11 PM (4 minutes ago) to john.faulk, thomas.ryan, sumner.waring, bcc: Amy, bcc: George Dear Mr. Faulk, Mr. Ryan, and Mr. Waring, My mother is buried in Rosehill Cemetery, a Dignity property in Chicago, which your company manages. My father also holds a reserved plot there. I was deeply disturbed to learn that today, armed and masked federal agents were using the cemetery grounds as a staging area for immigration enforcement operations in the surrounding community. I want to be clear: I do not expect SCI or Dignity to take political positions. What I do expect is that you uphold the dignity, sanctity, and safety of the spaces entrusted to your care. Cemeteries are sacred ground—places of mourning, reflection, and remembrance. Allowing armed, unidentified agents in unmarked vehicles to occupy that space desecrates it. It frightens visitors, community members, and employees alike, and it betrays the trust of the families who have chosen Rosehill as their loved ones’ final resting place. As a private entity, SCI and Dignity have the legal right to prohibit ICE, CBP, and other federal enforcement personnel from using your property for such operations without a judicial warrant. I urge you to exercise that right and to adopt clear policies ensuring that no government agency may use any cemetery grounds under your management for enforcement or staging purposes. Doing so is not a political act—it is a moral and professional obligation to the deceased, their families, and your own staff. Many of those interred at Rosehill, and the families who visit them, are immigrants themselves. To allow their resting place to be used in acts that terrorize the living descendants of immigrant communities is a profound moral failure. I ask that you take immediate steps to ensure that this never happens again and communicate publicly your commitment to protecting the sanctity of these grounds. I am requesting a written response outlining yo…
October 29, 2025 at 8:17 PM
reeserichardson.bsky.social
Paper mills are far more adaptable than the institutions fighting them. Case in point: after journals started using "anti-plagiarism" software, paper mills started selling access to the same software.

See our new letter in PNAS, replying to a letter by Philipp Singer: doi.org/10.1073/pnas...
A Telegram advertisement from a paper mill with some information redacted. It reads: Greatings of the day Join in our [whatsapp chat link] We provide: Publication services: SCI/Scopus/UGC Care Publications PhD Assistance (From Research Proposal to Thesis Writing) Textbook Publication with ISBN Scopus indexed Book chapter publication IEEE conference Paper writing Check Plagiarism with Turnitin Software (With AI Report) Plagiarism removal
October 29, 2025 at 3:28 PM
reeserichardson.bsky.social
Tell Goblin to quit sulking and get busy publishing! 🐈📝
librarykirsten.bsky.social Kirsten the Librarian @librarykirsten.bsky.social · 21d
Goblin is cross at me for paying attention to another cat @reeserichardson.bsky.social
Photo of a tortoise shell cat standing on a desk in front of a two screen set up. On one screen is a PowerPoint presentation showing a slide with a photo of a cat with a photoshopped mortar board.
October 29, 2025 at 3:13 PM