An April 2024 update to a reporting guideline asks prediction model papers to show their work. A strong result means little when readers cannot see how it was made.

A journal openly invited clinical trials that missed their main goal. That is welcome, but only a well designed "no" tells anyone something useful.

A 2022 experiment sent one finance paper to hundreds of reviewers under a Nobel laureate's name, a junior researcher's name, or no name. The name changed the verdict.

The 2023 Hindawi retractions showed how paper mills exploit special issues. Better detection helps, but mills keep finding customers because publication counts are what get rewarded.

In 2023 Crossref opened up the Retraction Watch database, creating what it called the largest open database of retractions. A retraction only works if the warning follows the paper to where people read and cite it.

Misinformation and disinformation threaten science. Learn the difference and how to fight back for truth and reliable knowledge.

A claim is scientific when a fair test could prove it wrong and its supporters accept the result. This post looks at how astrology and homeopathy did when they were tested, gives a short checklist, and explains where the line gets blurry.