Journalology #133: Nadolig Llawen

Hello fellow journalologists,

This is the final issue of Journalology in 2025. In a few days I will hit “pause” on this Substack, which means that the timer on paid subscriptions will stop for a week or so; I want to be able to take time off without feeling guilty, you see. It also means that the ‘Substack Journalology shop’ will be closed and you won’t be able to upgrade your subscription until next year.

Thank you for reading Journalology in 2025. I hope you have a restful break and are able to forget about research-integrity challenges and AI slop for a few days at least.

---

News headlines

U.S. senator asks Science to provide its coronavirus manuscripts, emails

U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R–KY), who has accused scientists of conducting dangerous research that created the coronavirus responsible for COVID-19, yesterday asked Science to divulge a range of confidential information about its scholarly articles and external private communications on that family of viruses. His letter seeks all relevant manuscripts submitted to Science, including unpublished ones; peer-reviewer comments and details of editorial decisions; and any coronavirus-related emails to and from certain groups and scientists, including Anthony Fauci, formerly a top official at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

JB: You can read the request here, which was sent to the AAAS CEO rather than to the Editor-in-Chief of Science. This incident bookends a challenging year for journal editors who have repeatedly come under fire from US politicians.

This week the International Science Council ran an opinion piece: Safeguarding scientific integrity in fragile democracies

In fragile democracies, trust in science cannot be separated from trust in democratic institutions. When governments manipulate or suppress scientific information for political ends, they erode not only public confidence in science but also the foundations of evidence-based governance. Nicaragua’s experience illustrates how scientific integrity becomes a critical, and often endangered, pillar of democratic life.

---

Hack reveals reviewer identities for huge AI conference

A data breach last month has revealed the identities of the anonymous reviewers who evaluated thousands of papers for one of the world’s biggest conferences on artificial intelligence (AI). The revelation—which has resulted in harassment and attempted extortion of some reviewers—comes as many AI researchers fear the field’s rapid growth is straining peer review to its breaking point.

JB: This data breach affected the OpenReview platform.

---

Dana-Farber settles suit alleging image manipulation for $15 million

Sleuth Sholto David filed the claim in April 2024, about three months after he first posted about the allegations, which played a key role in Dana-Farber’s decision to retract or correct dozens of studies. Authors of some of those papers were among senior leaders of the institution, including president and CEO Laurie Glimcher. As is typical in such cases, the complaint remained sealed while the Department of Justice investigated. As part of the agreement, David will receive $2.63 million, or 17.5 percent of the settlement.

JB: It’s rare for a research integrity news story to elicit a smile, but this one from Retraction Watch managed to do just that. According to coverage in Science, Sholto David is a molecular biologist who works for a biotech firm in Wales.

David is apparently not letting the windfall go to his head. He will keep his day job for now, he says. “I’m not a well-off person, nor is my job highly paid. This will make a big difference for me, but only if I’m sensible with it. Last night I had a £1.10 frozen pizza in celebration.”

Sholto’s latest YouTube video documented his 10,000 km bike ride from the UK to China in 90 days. Wow!!! Nadolig Llawen, Sholto.

---

‘Elite cohort’ of biz school scholars and editors scratch each others’ backs, study finds

Of the nearly 1,000 pairs of authors and handling editors, Mindel and Ciriello found at least half had at least one identifiable potential conflict of interest, with about 40 percent of the author-editor pairs having accepted each other’s papers. Their findings suggest editorial conflicts of interest “are not isolated anomalies but pervasive features of elite journal governance,” Mindel and Ciriello write in the preprint.

JB: This is one reason why I’m a strong advocate for journals that have in-house, salaried editors. They undoubtedly have biases, as all humans do, but they aren’t reliant on getting a good grant review from the authors whose work they assess.

---

AI Chatbots Are Poisoning Research Archives With Fake Citations

Of course, many aren’t even trying to do that — which is why the phony stuff has been so widely disseminated. It’s almost as if the uncritical and naive adoption of AI has made us more credulous and sapped our critical thinking at the precise moment we should be on guard against its evolving harms. In fact, someone may be toiling away on a (real) study of that phenomenon right now.

JB: This article isn’t particularly insightful, but it was published in Rolling Stone magazine, which I’ve never linked to before, so it makes the cut. Thankfully, there are many more engaging articles for you to read below the paid subscription fold.

---

---