The estimate that 10% of cancer papers could be from paper mills is somewhat shocking, but less so when country of origin and rate of increase in paper output by country relative to global output is taken into account. Nice to see AACR journals with the lowest percentage of suspect papers.
I wrote this song on Saturday, recorded it yesterday and released it to you today in response to the state terror being visited on the city of Minneapolis. It’s dedicated to the people of Minneapolis, our innocent immigrant neighbors and in memory of Alex Pretti and Renee Good.
Stay free
The new COPE guidelines on retraction that lists “undisclosed involvement of AI” as a form of misrepresentation that could cause a loss of confidence in the work that justifies retraction will almost certainly act as an incentive to disclose.
Certainly from some authors.
I don’t think the requirements will change much in the near future but I expect some efforts to confirm the validity of the AI-use disclosures.
Nice to see this article in Science about our work at AACR.
I was surprised to see that a firm claims to have essentially solved the issue of detecting when there‘s LLM-generated text in content. But researchers at Pangram Labs say they have, claiming false-positive rates of 1 in 10,000. www.nature.com/articles/d41...
@nature.com | @miryamnaddaf.bsky.social
Pangram does retrain regularly. It seems that usually there is little change between model releases, but sometimes there is a substantial change in a model’s output that makes the retraining critically important.
Guest Post – Code Plagiarism and AI Create New Challenges for Publishing Integrity - The Scholarly Kitchen
Yes but writing is not the rate limiting step, completing a publishable research study is. The writing can be completed in under a week w/o AI. The study takes months and often years. So speeding up the writing will not increase the load on reviewers as long as journals filter out the junk first.
Interesting, but your premise appears to ignore the time required to actually do the research, what the underlying cause(s) of the recent increase in submissions is, or whether ethical use of AI could aid editorial/peer review more than it aids creation of legitimate research outputs.
Because cancer is not one illness, but a whole category, much of the progress in fighting it has come not from big breakthroughs, but thousands of smaller advances
Looking forward to presenting this work at #PRC10. Use of genAI by authors and reviewers is increasing rapidly and the ability to measure it with high sensitivity and a false positive rate <0.1% is invaluable for tracking usage.
Today, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) called on Congress to reject the Administration's nearly 40% cut to the NIH budget and allocate a bipartisan funding increase to $51.3 billion for the agency to accelerate progress for patients. www.aacr.org/about-the-aa...
Overall, cancer cases and deaths in the US are continuing a slow decline acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
Who’s with me? #PeerReview ensures the integrity of scientific knowledge.
Science isn’t social media, and it’s dangerous to treat it as such. For this reason, I believe preprints serve an anti-science agenda & threaten our fields.
Check out my editorial in @ScholarlyKitchen.bsky.social.
🧪 #SciPub
Let's hit em and hit em where it hurts boys, now get out there and do your worst
LEAKED: Heard Island tariff response strategy meeting! #auspol #heardisland
Donald Trump has committed the most profound, harmful and unnecessary economic error in the modern era. Almost everything he said—on history, economics and the technicalities of trade—was utterly deluded econ.st/3YbbFjq
Cancer research, long protected, feels ‘devastating’ effects under Trump
www.statnews.com/2025/03/24/t... via
"The [...] administration’s threat to dramatically reduce or delay funding for the NIH [...] represents a crushing blow not only to the development of future #cancer therapies, but to all of medical research. Without previous funding, I would not be alive today."
www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-e...
The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) is looking to fill a new publications position of Editorial Ethics Manager to oversee
#ResearchIntegrity and #ImageForensics cases related to #CancerResearch manuscripts and articles at our ten journals. careers-aacr.icims.com/jobs/1702/ed...
90% of people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer die from the disease. That's why the medical community is excited about the results of a small trial in which nearly half of the pancreatic cancer patients who received an mRNA vaccine for the disease remained relapse-free three years later.
Meet Gracie Himes, age 20.
Her goal: Fight cancer by developing new medicines.
On March 3, her dreams were shattered when Trump admin cuts hit West Virginia University, which rescinded her PhD program offer.
www.wsj.com/us-news/educ...
You are correct that the current policies at virtually all journals regarding immediate public access of the author manuscript through green OA don’t satisfy upcoming US funder requirements. The embargo period will need to be eliminated, but I doubt any will do so until required.
None of the public access plans released by US funding agencies in response to the Nelson memo require gold open access, only immediate public access. So this requirement was not expected to negatively impact societies in a substantial way.
If you're a biologist interested in data visualisation, check out the vizbi conference www.linkedin.com/events/vizbi... #omics
Very happy to see AACR's new guaranteed peer review benefit to reward reviewers highlighted in today's "the Brief" @brieferyet.bsky.social. They incorrectly state that Cancer Discovery "is seemingly excluded from the offer." We will add a table to clarify journal-specific details.
Yikes!
Peer review is critical for the integrity of our science, and outside experts are always needed to vet new grant proposals.
By moving this all in-house at NIH, we lose scientific independence & make it easy for the government to determine what research should be funded.
🧪 #PeerReview
This claim sounded absurd to me so I checked our 2024 reviewer activity. 25.1% of reviewers provided 50% of reviews to our 10 journals last year. This counts initial reviews only, not re-reviews. I'd really like to see where this writer got this 'fact'. A >2-fold diff shouldn't be normal variation.