#paperclip | James Zou | 46 comments

Nikhil Krishnan on Twitter / X

yeah there used to be a company called Eureka that powered these types of observational, more lifestyle style studies (here's an example looking at coffee's effect on different biomarkers/conditions)https://t.co/urQRvTVTb7I think it can work if you have enough people in…— Nikhil Krishnan (@nikillinit) September 14, 2025

Jason Shepherd on Twitter / X

I have quite a lot of thoughts on this..that won't fit in a tweet. Bottomline is that there are issues scientists in the US would love to improve - faster review, less grant writing, more stability and freedom to do risky science. The folks celebrating this doc are mostly../1 https://t.co/xlPAH9XYNC— Jason Shepherd (@JasonSynaptic) July 23, 2026

Maybe scientific progress isn’t slowing, after all

A new paper takes aim at the claim that science has become less disruptive

Paperstars

A better way to evaluate scientific papers. Methodological soundness and transparency, not citation counts.

Acute Effects of Coffee Consumption on Health among Ambulatory Adults

Coffee is one of the most commonly consumed beverages in the world, but the acute health effects of coffee consumption remain uncertain. We conducted a prospective, randomized, case-crossover trial...

White House Health Report Included Fake Citations (Published 2025)

A report on children’s health released by the Make America Healthy Again Commission referred to scientific papers that did not exist.

Itai Yanai on Twitter / X

Is the scientific paper a fraud? Peter Medawar (Nobel Prize winner) suggested that publications are overly structured and formal, giving only a sanitized version of the discovery without revealing the thought process that actually led to it. pic.twitter.com/E3ttRPzcfL— Itai Yanai (@ItaiYanai) October 27, 2024

Andreas De Block on Twitter / X

It took Nature three years to publish this rebuttal, which clearly demonstrates the fundamental flaws in the original paper. In the meantime, the paper's conclusions influenced scientific debate and policy decisions. Such delays in correcting flawed research do real damage. https://t.co/QI3Ei3PE70— Andreas De Block (@DeblockBlock) August 13, 2026

How to make a friend fast — the scientific method

Believe-it-or-not, we actually know exactly how to create friendships in the lab!

AI for Research | Scite

Scite searches 280M+ scholarly articles to give you citation-backed answers and show you how every claim is supported or disputed.

PubPeer - Efficacy of oral folinic acid supplementation in children wi... | Ioana A. Cristea | 13 comments

Over the last week, I have privately been in contact with several friends and collaborators over the *SINGLE* study that was cited by the FDA in supporting the label extension of leucovorin for autism spectrum disorders. https://lnkd.in/dHpfCt_9 https://lnkd.in/dYWbHXyY Given the enormous importance of this study, and the fact that the results look too good to be true and there are various signals I would have thought would have raised a sleuth eyebrow (for example, Table 1 where all categorical values in each group except for 1 differ by exactly one unit), I am very surprised that until now the only Pubpeer comments are by two MDs and by myself, pointing to some inconsistencies between tables and figures. https://lnkd.in/duFQDccr I have also formally asked the authors for the individual participant data. Perhaps given this is not some random wacky study about how much food can one eat in a fast-food or some obscure paper citing another obscure retracted paper, but the SINGLE study that now underpins the retrospective post-marketing approval of an entire treatment, the very large community of people who want to correct science ASAP particularly when findings have huge policy implications could join me in scrutinizing this study to make sure findings are reliable and that the data are correct and analyzed correctly. | 13 comments on LinkedIn

How To Prompt on Twitter / X

scientist tested a 3.5 billion dollar medical AI against regular chatGPT and it lost on every single one.they just published a paper in nature medicine, and the results are actually mindblowing.they took specialized clinical ai tools and tested them against general-purpose… pic.twitter.com/P7ePLunrDj— How To Prompt (@HowToPrompt__) July 6, 2026

Fabricated citations: an audit across 2·5 million biomedical papers

Scientific literature depends on the integrity of its references. Each reference implicitly asserts that a verifiable source exists and supports the claims being made. When references point to non-existent studies, readers, reviewers, and policy makers are unable to evaluate the evidence.