Join the #hybrid# event #ResearchIntegrity# #Ethics# and #CORRIE# - More than a soap on Wednesday 29 May for the latest #OER# on #ResearchIntegrity# & #ResearchEthics# from #RIMTU# #Keynote# from #DrSuzanneMcMurphy# of @UWindsor #NextGenerationEU# @ntutorr @TomFarrelly @ATU_ResearchDL

A super buzz from today's #hybrid# event on #ResearchIntegrity# #ResearchEthics# & #CORRIE# - More than a soap Video of the event - Resources demoed - #RIMTU# #NextGenerationEU# @TomFarrelly @ATU_ResearchDL @UWindsor @jeanrickenMTU

What happens to science if it becomes common that people don't understand the papers they have written. Should every published paper require a human who can defend it? From recent @OriginsProject podcast w @skdh. #AI# #Science# #Academia# #ResearchIntegrity# #TechTok# #ScienceTok#

Chief Scientific Officer Search at the AOI The Ackman Oxman Institute (AOI) is a new translational neuroscience, rehabilitation, and brain health institute in New York City founded to accelerate the translation of promising science to treating and curing patients. We are seeking a Chief Scientific Officer (CSO) who shares our ambition and recognizes that transformative advances depend on creative, independent scientists pursuing fundamental questions relevant to brain injury, degeneration, recovery, and rehabilitation. The CSO will help shape AOI's scientific identity, organization, and culture. We welcome the candidate's ideas about how best to organize the science and create an environment in which outstanding investigators can do their best work. Mandate Lead AOI's discovery science enterprise. Working with the Chief Translational Officer (CTO) and institute leadership, the CSO will define the research agenda, recruit and develop exceptional scientists, and determine the mix of investigator-led laboratories, collaborative teams, shared resources, and external partnerships best suited to the mission. The portfolio will support two complementary kinds of work: Patient-Anchored Translational Programs Research developed in anticipation of, as well as in response to, clinical observations. For example, a mechanistic program on mitochondrial delivery and bioenergetic rescue could inform a parallel clinical study of mitochondrial transplantation. Programs pursuing a defined path to patients will have clear milestones and criteria for advancement, redirection, or stopping, appropriate to their stage of development. Mission-Relevant Discovery Science Protected support for fundamental research on brain injury, repair, plasticity, and aging, led by investigators with intellectual independence. Major continuation or stop decisions will use a five-to-seven-year horizon, with ongoing scientific exchange and peer review to maintain rigor. This work can generate new therapeutic ideas and give AOI the depth to recognize and pursue discoveries arising from patient studies. The CSO will shape the balance between these forms of research and how they interact, with resources and review practices suited to each. Scientists will have the freedom to pursue original ideas within AOI's mission and contribute to a collaborative scientific community. Scope and Responsibilities Scientific Portfolio Define the research agenda with the CTO across acquired brain injury (stroke, TBI), and neurodegenerative and neuropsychiatric diagnoses as well brain health in aging. Build on AOI's initial priorities in bioenergetics/mitochondria, neuroinflammation, and neuroplastogens (devices or biologics that increase neuroplasticity), helping refine their scope, sequence, and organization. Identify promising mechanistic programs early so AOI is prepared to act on clinical discoveries, and welcome new ideas through a transparent scientific review process. Independent Discovery Recruit exceptional investigators and give them the resources and latitude to pursue fundamental questions relevant to AOI's mission. Develop peer review that evaluates scientific quality, originality, and contribution over an appropriate time horizon, recognizes the value of well-reasoned negative results, and protects intellectual independence. Scientific Infrastructure Determine which laboratory and measurement capabilities will best support the science, and which to build internally, share, or access through partnerships. Guide scientific use of shared resources, including GLP vivarium and GMP capabilities, in coordination with the CTO and Chief Regulatory Officer. Scientific Recruitment and Community Shape a recruitment and support model that attracts outstanding scientists with diverse approaches to discovery and collaboration. Explore joint or affiliated academic appointments and shared recruitment with New York City and regional universities and medical centers, where these strengthen recruitment, mentorship, and scientific exchange. Appointment arrangements will be developed with partner institutions and individual recruits. External Scientific Network Build a network of well-funded collaborations with academic laboratories in New York City and the region whose fundamental work is relevant to AOI's mission, so that AOI's discovery capacity extends well beyond its own walls. The Pershing Square MIND Prize community is a natural springboard for this network, though collaboration is not limited to prize recipients. Work with the founders on how the MIND Prize and AOI's basic research program should relate to each other over time. Scientific Quality Lead a collegial, rigorous scientific review process. For translational and later-stage preclinical programs, agree on clear milestones and advancement or stop criteria with program leaders and the CTO. For fundamental discovery, combine ongoing scientific dialogue with substantive peer review and five-to-seven-year continuation decisions. Uphold research integrity and reproducibility across all programs. External Standing Represent AOI's science to the field, to funders (NIH, ARPA-H, DoD, philanthropy), to scientific advisors, and to academic and industry partners. Relationship to the Chief Translational Officer The CSO and CTO are peers who connect discovery with development and clinical investigation. The CSO leads fundamental and exploratory preclinical research; the CTO leads regulated preclinical development, manufacturing, engineering, and trial readiness, and clinical studies. They jointly define the evidence needed to advance a program into development and review the portfolio together. Scientific collaboration continues as programs advance and clinical observations raise new research questions. First 6 Months •Develop a scientific strategy with the CEO, CTO, and board, including the proposed research organization, the balance of discovery and translation, initial priorities and resources, and a first set of anticipatory mechanistic programs. Agree on review practices that protect independent discovery and support timely development decisions. •Begin recruiting priority scientific leaders and independent investigators, with the mix and sequence of appointments shaped by the scientific strategy. Develop the support and affiliation arrangements needed to attract exceptional candidates. •Establish an agreed plan for laboratory capabilities and launch initial research using in-house resources or external partnerships as appropriate. Work with the CTO and clinical leadership to align research with patient studies and their readiness requirements. •Co-define the criteria for entering development with the CTO and begin well-funded collaborations with regional academic laboratories. Set the subsequent launch timetable around scientific priorities, recruitment, and facility readiness. Who We Are Looking For Essential •MD/PhD or PhD with a first-rank research record in neuroscience, immunology/neuroinflammation, bioenergetics, or a convergent field. •Experience building and leading a research organization (institute, department, biotech R&D unit, or focused research organization). •A track record of attracting outstanding scientists. •Enthusiasm for a patient-centered research model and for leading a team whose work spans the continuum from discovery to therapy development. Valued •Experience supporting independent investigators and collaborative research in academia, research institutes, or industry. •Scientific credibility in at least one of AOI's initial priority areas. •Comfort spanning biologics and device/neurotechnology science. •A demonstrated ability to protect creative discovery while guiding translational programs toward clear milestones. Practical AOI welcomes candidates from academia and industry who are excited to build the institute over the coming decade and beyond. The position is full-time in New York City. Candidates should be eager to focus their research leadership on the brain, recovery, and rehabilitation; any continuing research commitments should support that mission. Compensation will be competitive and will include the opportunity to participate in the value created through company formation at AOI. Leadership Team Engagement Works closely with the CTO as described above and with clinical leadership to connect research and patient studies. Engages the legal/regulatory team early on regulatory strategy, quality systems, and evidence requirements. Collaborates with the Chief AI Officer on data-rich study design and computational modeling, the COO on laboratory development and recruitment operations, and the CFO on scientific resource planning. Interested candidates should send their CV and a brief cover note to: CSO@aoi.org

In September 2024 Clarivate put two of the world’s largest journals on hold in the same announcement. Web of Science stopped indexing new content from Heliyon and from Cureus while it reviewed them both. Clarivate says around 85% of journals put on hold are eventually delisted. Heliyon landed in the other 15%. Elsevier’s research integrity team audited it, and the publisher issued about 1,100 corrections to the scientific record. Cell Press told Retraction Watch the exact figure was 1,197, of which 687 were retractions, 80 expressions of concern, 317 corrigenda, 108 editor’s notes, two withdrawals and three removals. The audit “revealed behaviors that did not align with our policies.” The publisher says the corrections touch roughly 3 percent of twelve years of output. The hold came off on 14th May. Missing content was backfilled by a 1st August cutoff, which is Clarivate’s condition for getting a metric that year. A new impact factor is due in October. Cureus did not do that. It was delisted on 27th October 2025 and lost its impact factor. Heliyon published 4,007 papers in 2022, 17,573 in 2024, and about 2,800 in 2025. Publishing there costs up to $2,270, with automatic waivers for authors in lower income countries. Nothing in the record shows the indexing hold caused either the retractions or the collapse in volume, and a journal that quadruples output in two years accumulates problems whether or not anyone is watching. Heliyon’s own website today still displays an impact factor of 3.6. It was awarded for 2024, in the last edition released before the hold cost the journal a cycle.

Today, I sent a letter to SAGE Open Medicine requesting an explanation for its decision to append an expression of concern to the article, “Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders,” without publicly explaining the reasons for doing so. Scientific journals have a responsibility to uphold transparency, protect research integrity, and defend academic freedom. The American people deserve a scientific process that is open, accountable, and worthy of their trust.