Search

Timothy Sheahan, a virologist studying COVID-19, wishes he could keep pace with the growing torrent of new scientific papers about the disease and the novel coronavirus that causes it But there are just too many—more than 4000 alone last week “I’m not keeping up,” says Sheahan, who works at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill “It’s impossible ” A loose-knit army of data scientists, software developers, and journal publishers is pressing hard to change that Backed by large technology firms and the White House, they are racing to create digital collections holding thousands of freely available papers that could be useful to ending the pandemic, and scrambling to build data-mining and search tools that can help researchers quickly find the information they seek And the urgency is growing: By one estimate, the COVID-19 literature published since January has reached more than 23,000 papers and is doubling every 20 days—among the biggest explosions of scientific literature ever

The COVID-19 pandemic has spawned one of the largest explosions of scientific literature—more than 5000 research articles per week were appearing in May, with the total expected to top 50,000 by mid-June. Biomedical researchers and health care workers say they are overwhelmed by the volume and eager for help to tame the tsunami. In response, a loose-knit army of health researchers, data scientists, and software developers is racing to create digital collections of papers and build new search tools powered by artificial intelligence. But challenges remain to provide tools that are user-friendly and help readers find relevant, high-quality papers and other information. If new tools and approaches can be refined, they might improve how researchers navigate the scientific literature on a range of topics besides COVID-19.

In increasing numbers, researchers around the world are turning to Sci-Hub, the controversial website that hosts 50 million pirated papers and counting. Now, with server log data from Alexandra Elbakyan, the neuroscientist who created Sci-Hub in 2011 as a 22-year-old graduate student in Kazakhstan, Science addresses some basic questions: Who are Sci-Hub9s users, where are they, and what are they reading? The Sci-Hub data provide the first detailed view of what is becoming the world9s de facto open-access research library. Among the revelations that may surprise both fans and foes alike: Sci-Hub users are not limited to the developing world. Some critics of Sci-Hub have complained that many users can access the same papers through their libraries but turn to Sci-Hub instead—for convenience rather than necessity. The data provide some support for that claim. Over the 6 months leading up to March, Sci-Hub served up 28 million documents, with Iran, China, India, Russia, and the United States the leading requestors.

Organic Chemistry A typical chemist running a known reaction will start by finding the method described in a published paper. Mehr et al. report a software platform that uses natural language processing to translate the organic chemistry literature directly into editable code, which in turn can be compiled to drive automated synthesis of the compound in the laboratory. The synthesis procedure is intended to be universally applicable to robotic systems operating in a batch reaction architecture. The full process is demonstrated for synthesis of an analgesic as well as common oxidizing and fluorinating agents. Science , this issue p. [101][1] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.abc2986

European science funders are expected this month to finalize a measure, Plan S, that would force funded authors to publish articles in venues immediately free to read. Some publishers of subscription journals, which have long dominated scholarly publishing, are considering an approach they hope will both comply with the plan and maintain their subscription income: allowing authors to post manuscripts in public archives as soon as their papers are published. Some editors of nonprofit scientific journals reckon this "green" form of open access will not significantly erode their subscription income because Plan S–funded authors contribute only about 3% of the world9s scholarly literature. And some publishers see green open access as potentially more financially sustainable than switching subscription journals to an entirely "gold" open access model, in which authors pay journals to make their articles immediately open access.

Vaccines for human papillomavirus (HPV), given to girls to prevent cervical cancer, have come under fire in several countries for allegedly causing such side effects as difficulty walking, headache, fatigue, poor concentration, and pain. Numerous studies have found no causal link between the vaccine and these symptoms. But concerns have caused vaccination rates to collapse in Japan and to sag in other countries. Vaccine advocates warn this trend exposes women—and men—to preventable cancers and other illnesses. The debate is heating up over a recent paper that claims to show that the HPV vaccine affects the central nervous system in mice. Critics are attacking the paper's methodology and conclusions and are asking the journal to retract it in light of the potential negative impact it could have on public health.

Developers have high hopes for paper-thin flexible displays, but some technologists say "killer apps" to drive the technology remain to be found.

Once an investigation is completed and the publicity dies down, what happens to fraudulent or suspect papers? In many cases, not much. (Read more.)

China is well known for the generous bonuses it pays scientists who land a peer-review publication in a top journal like Science or Cell. But scientists in many countries are reaping similar bounties. Awards are primarily cash; some are as small as the $10 that Oakwood University in Huntsville, Alabama, bestows on authors when their papers are cited in the literature. At the other end of the scale, scientists at Chinese institutions stand to make a small fortune if a paper they author appears in journals with high citation impacts. A recent analysis posted to arXiv showed that, on average, Chinese universities offer first authors more than $43,000 for publishing a paper in Science or Nature, with the top reward for such a paper receiving a knee-wobbling $165,000.

Just before Christmas, the U.S. government announced that a biosecurity advisory board had asked two research teams to strike key details from papers in press at Science and Nature . The studies describe how researchers made the deadly H5N1 avian influenza virus more transmissible between mammals—possibly providing a blueprint on how to set off a flu pandemic. The researchers and the journals agreed, but only if the U.S. government comes up with a system that allows "responsible" scientists to see the deleted information, which public health experts say could be crucial to monitoring H5N1 outbreaks and developing drugs and vaccines. The unprecedented decision by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity has sparked fierce criticism and strong support.

The largest effort yet to replicate psychology studies has yielded both good and bad news. On the down side, of the 100 prominent papers analyzed, only 39% could be replicated unambiguously, as a group of 270 researchers describes on page 943. On the up side, despite the sobering results, the effort seems to have drawn little of the animosity that greeted a similar replication effort last year. This time around, even some of the original authors see the replications as a useful addition to their own research. "This is how science works," says Joshua Correll, a psychologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and one of the authors whose results could not be replicated. "How else will we converge on the truth? Really, the surprising thing is that this kind of systematic attempt at replication is not more common." That9s encouraging news to Brian Nosek, a psychologist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville who led the mass replication effort, which began in 2011 with the goal of putting psychological science on more rigorous experimental footing.

Franklin explores how the development of in vitro fertilization into a routine procedure has changed our understanding of technology and biology.

Research on the ways people learn and share information about health and science, Southwell argues, suggests that systematic reliance on social networks will increase inequity.

They have been called the most famous papers that were never published. But now, one of two controversial studies that shows how to make H5N1 avian influenza more transmissible in mammals is up on Nature9s Web site for all the world to scrutinize—including, some worry, would-be bioterrorists who might use the information to set off a pandemic. The other paper received a crucial go-ahead from the Dutch government last week and will likely be published by Science soon.

Members of a U.S. government advisory panel gathered last week to reconsider their controversial December 2011 recommendation that two groups of scientists redact key details from papers describing how they made the H5N1 avian influenza virus more transmissible between mammals. The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) then announced its new recommendation to the U.S. government: The two papers should be made public, in full. The studies still include information that might someday be useful to evildoers, the NSABB said in a 30 March statement, but "additional information changed the Board's risk/benefit calculation." The potential public health benefits of publishing, they had decided, now outweighed the potential harm. A WHO panel reached a similar conclusion in February.

A Japanese investigating committee concluded that image manipulation and the use of pictures from an old experiment constitute research misconduct in one of two papers reporting a new method of deriving stem cells. The head of RIKEN says he will call for the retraction of the paper if the committee9s findings are confirmed on appeal. The lead author rejects the misconduct charges, maintains the problems resulted from simple mistakes, and contends the new cells really exist.

A paper in press at a top psychology journal argues that the results of nine experiments conducted with more than 1000 college students provide statistically significant evidence of an ability to predict future events. Not surprisingly, the news has provoked outrage from pseudoscience debunkers and counteraccusations of closed-mindedness from those willing to consider the possibility of psychic powers. It has also rekindled a long-running debate about whether the statistical tools commonly used in psychology—and most other areas of science—too often lead researchers astray.

Drawing on complexity theory, network autocatalytic mechanisms, and original historical case studies, the authors argue for the importance of intertwined networks in social and organizational transformations.

The Fourth Paradigm Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery Tony Hey, Stewart Tansley, and Kristin Tolle, Eds. Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, 2009. 286 pp. Paper, $46. ISBN 9780982544204. PDF at This set of essays from researchers and computer scientists describes the prospects and possibilities of data-intensive science.

After deliberating for more than 3 years on ways to expand public access to taxpayer-funded research papers, the White House is finally taking action. The Office of Science and Technology Policy has asked agencies to make papers on research that they fund freely available online within 12 months after the results appear in a journal. Traditionally, scientists have published their work in scholarly journals that charge readers a subscription fee. In recent years, however, libraries and others concerned about high journal prices have pushed to make papers free.

An elite group of 22 influenza scientists, public health officials, and journal editors from 11 countries recommended last week that the details of how a highly pathogenic bird flu virus was rendered capable of being transmitted easily among mammals be published in full. The recommendation, agreed to at a meeting at the World Health Organization in Geneva, flies in the face of advice from an influential U.S. committee that key details of the experiments be confined only to those who have a need to know.

The exhibition features 60 design projects that address the complex issues arising from the explosive growth of informal urban settlements in emerging and developing economies.

The contributors highlight tools for implementing the concept of ecosystem services in biodiversity conservation, development, and sustainability efforts.

Drawing on case studies from Africa and successes in developing countries, Juma describes policy and institutional changes for improving Africa's agricultural output and economies.

We are writing to address the retraction of five papers on structural studies of ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters—three in Science (G. Chang et al. , “Retraction,” Letters, 22 Dec. 2006, p. [1875][1]), one in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ([1][2]), and one in the

The contributors, participants in an OpenNet Initiative project, discuss tools for Internet controls that go beyond simple denial of access—such as targeted viruses, denial of service attacks, surveillance, take-down notices, and stringent usage policies.

Holmes has woven an engaging narrative from tales of English scientists in the decades around 1800.