A 2024 Nature Perspective argues that AI can make scientists feel they understand more than they do. The fix starts with knowing the assumptions behind a fluent answer.

When one patient's scans end up in both training and test data, a medical imaging model can look far better than it is, and nobody has to cheat.

In March 2025, bioRxiv and medRxiv moved to a new independent nonprofit. Science leans on these servers now, so how they are run and paid for matters.

A December 2024 consensus asks health AI teams to say who is in their data, who is missing, and how a model works for each group.

A December 2022 Liver-Chip study reported strong results on one defined job. The useful question is what a model is validated for, not whether it replaces animals.

In a 2023 study, radiologists followed a fake AI's wrong calls on mammograms. The lesson is less about AI than about when and how its answer is shown.

Nature's 2023 postdoc survey found more optimism than in 2020, alongside familiar pressures. I think the healthiest reading is that a science career has many homes.

A 2024 study reran thousands of notebooks from biomedical papers, and few gave the same answer. Sharing code is the first step. Making it run again is the real work.

A 2023 Nature study found that science is breaking with the past less often. Critics call the yardstick flawed. Either way, it is worth asking what we reward.

In 2022, eLife announced it would stop saying yes or no to papers after review. Public reviews and a short verdict on the evidence now travel with the paper instead.

In October 2024 a scholarly society told members that, according to its publisher, its journal content was being made available for AI training. The deal may be lawful. Authors still deserved to hear first.

Each year, a list of the world's top 2% of scientists makes the rounds. Its own authors call it a measure of citation impact and warn against leaning on it.