The shift from paywalled to open-access scientific publishing is progressing, driven in part by platforms like Sci-Hub -- a website that allows users to upload PDFs of published papers and share them with anyone. While the shadow library website has faced ongoing attempts by publishers to block access, it has another problem: the platform features many outdated or retracted papers that could spread misinformation or flawed findings. Ars Technica reports: Sci-Hub works a bit like a combination of cache and aggregator for published materials. Whenever it gets a request for a paper that's not already in its database, it uses leaked login credentials to go to the website of whatever journal published the paper and obtain a copy. If it already has a copy, however, it will simply serve that up instead. This leaves open the possibility that it will have obtained a copy of a paper prior to its retraction and continue to distribute that copy after the paper has been retracted.

To check this, the researchers obtained a list of nearly 17,000 retracted papers and searched for them on Sci-Hub. They then visually examined the documents that were returned. They found that 85 percent of them contained no indication that the paper had been retracted. "The availability of [unlabeled retracted articles] in the field of health sciences is particularly high," they note, "which indicates a significant risk of their unintended use and further citation in future research."

While corrections are less severe than retractions, they're likely to suffer a similar problem. And corrections will often involve the technical details of a paper -- the experimental approaches or raw data that will be critical for anyone wanting to replicate or extend previously published results. So, if anything, their impact will be more significant. Ars notes that a system called Crossmark is available to help find the most up-to-date version of a paper, including any corrections or retraction notices.

Before NASA Administrator Bill Nelson retires in a couple of weeks, he has one final message for the next administration: Don't give up on the agency's Artemis Program to return humans to the Moon. In an interview with Ars Technica's Eric Berger, Nelson discussed his time in office, the major decisions he made, and his concerns for the space agency's future under the Trump administration. Here's an excerpt from the interview: Ars: I wanted to start with the state of Artemis. You all had an event a few weeks ago where you talked about Artemis II and Artemis III delays. And you know, both those missions have slipped a couple of years now since you've been administrator. So I'm just wondering, do you know how confident we should be in the current timeline?

Bill Nelson: Well, I am very confident because this most recent [delay] was occasioned by virtue of the heat shield, and it has been unanimous after all of the testing that they understand what happened to Orion's heat shield. The chunks came off in an irregular pattern from the Artemis I heat shield. With the change in the re-entry profile, they are unanimous in their recommendation that we can go with the Artemis II heat shield as it is. And I must say that of the major decisions that I've made, that was an easy one for me because it was unanimous. When I say it was unanimous, it was unanimous in the IRT, the independent review team, headed by Paul Hill. It wasn't to begin with, but after all the extensive testing, everybody was on board. It was unanimous in the deputy's committee. It was unanimous in the agency committee, and that brought it to me then in the Executive Council, and it was unanimous there. So I'm very confident that you're going to see Artemis II fly on or around April of 2026, and then if the SpaceX lander is ready, and that, of course, is a big if -- but they have met all of their milestones, and we'll see what happens on this next test... If they are ready, I think it is very probable that we will see the lunar landing in the summer of 2027.

Ars: Do you think it's appropriate for the next administration to review the Artemis Program?

Bill Nelson: Are you implying that Artemis should be canceled?

Ars: No. I don't think Artemis will be canceled in the main. But I do think they're going to take a look at the way the missions are done at the architecture. I know NASA just went through that process with Orion's heat shield.

Bill Nelson: Well, I think questioning what you're doing clearly is always an issue that ought to be on the table. But do I think that they are going to cancel, as some of the chatter out there suggests, and replace SLS with Starship? The answer is no.

Ars: Why?

Bill Nelson: Put yourself in the place of President Trump. Do you think President Trump would like to have a conversation with American astronauts on the surface of the Moon during his tenure?

Ars: Of course.

Bill Nelson: OK, let me ask you another question. Do you think that President Trump would rather have a conversation with American astronauts during his tenure rather than listening to the comments of Chinese astronauts on the Moon during his tenure? My case is closed, your Honor, I submit it to the jury. Further reading: Elon Musk: 'We're Going Straight to Mars. The Moon is a Distraction.'

Computer scientists are using hypothetical devices called "oracles" to advance the field of computational complexity theory, exploring fundamental questions about problem-solving difficulty. These theoretical tools, which instantly provide correct yes-or-no answers to specific questions, help researchers understand relationships between different classes of computational problems.

Oracles have proved particularly valuable in studying quantum computing, leading to breakthroughs like Peter Shor's 1994 quantum algorithm for factoring large numbers. The technique has also helped researchers rule out certain approaches to solving the longstanding P versus NP problem, a central question in computer science.

"We're going straight to Mars. The Moon is a distraction," Elon Musk posted Thursday on X.com.

Ars Technica's senior space editor points out that "These are definitive statements that directly contradict NASA's plans to send a series of human missions to the lunar south pole later this decade and establish a sustainable base of operations there with the Artemis Program." And "It would be one thing if Musk was just expressing his opinion as a private citizen..." but Musk "has assumed an important advisory role for the incoming administration. He was also partly responsible for the expected nomination of private astronaut [and former SpaceX flight commander] Jared Isaacman to become the next administrator of NASA. Although Musk is not directing US space policy, he certainly has a meaningful say in what happens." So what does this mean for Artemis? The fate of Artemis is an important question not just for NASA but for the US commercial space industry, the European Space Agency, and other international partners who have aligned with the return of humans to the Moon. With Artemis, the United States is in competition with China to establish a meaningful presence on the surface of the Moon. Based upon conversations with people involved in developing space policy for the Trump administration, I can make some educated guesses about how to interpret Musk's comments. None of these people, for example, would disagree with Musk's assertion that "the Artemis architecture is extremely inefficient" and that some changes are warranted.

With that said, the Artemis Program is probably not going away. After all, it was the first Trump administration that created the program about five years ago. However, it may be less well-remembered that the first Trump White House pushed for more significant changes, including a "major course correction" at NASA... To a large extent, NASA resisted this change during the remainder of the Trump administration, keeping its core group of major contractors, such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin, in place. It had help from key US Senators, including Richard Shelby, the now-retired Republican from Alabama. But this time, the push for change is likely to be more concerted, especially with key elements of NASA's architecture, including the Space Launch System rocket, being bypassed by privately developed rockets such as SpaceX's Starship vehicle and Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket.

In all likelihood, NASA will adopt a new "Artemis" plan that involves initiatives to both the Moon and Mars. When Musk said "we're going straight to Mars," he may have meant that this will be the thrust of SpaceX, with support from NASA. That does not preclude a separate initiative, possibly led by Blue Origin with help from NASA, to develop lunar return plans.
One month ago in a post on X.com, incoming NASA administrator Isaacman described himself as "passionate about America leading the most incredible adventure in human history..."

And he also added that Americans "will walk on the Moon and Mars and in doing so, we will make life better here on Earth."

"Private space stations have been raising billions of dollars in an effort to build future hubs — and even one day cities — in orbit," according to a recent report from the U.K. newspaper, the Telegraph: Axiom Space, a US business aiming to build its own station, has raised more than $500m (£400m). Vast, a space business backed by crypto billionaire Jed McCaleb, is plotting two stations before the end of the decade. Gravitics, meanwhile, has raised tens of millions of dollars for its modular space "real estate". Nasa itself, along with other space agencies, is planning a further station, Lunar Gateway, which will orbit the Moon. Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin has also announced plans to build a space station by 2027, called Orbital Reef, which it has described as an orbital "mixed-use business park". Working with US aerospace business Sierra Space, Orbital Reef will be made up of inflatable pods, which can be launched on a regular rocket before being "blown up" in space. Sierra Space says these modules could house in-space manufacturing or pharmaceutical technology...

Since 2021, Nasa has also offered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to private companies to develop commercial space stations that could succeed the ISS. So far, it has handed $400m to companies including Axiom, Blue Origin (which is working with Sierra Space), and Northrop Grumman... Vast hopes to launch its first space station, Haven-1, as soon as 2025. This simple module will be the first privately-run space station and will be occupied by a crew of four over four two week expeditions... While Vast was not one of the businesses to secure funding from Nasa, it hopes by launching the first proof-of-concept space station as soon as next year it can leapfrog rival efforts and claim the agency as an anchor customer. From there, it can target other space agencies or companies looking to conduct research.
Some interesting perspectives from the article:

• Chris Quilty, an analyst at Quilty Space: "If China were not building its own space station it is arguable whether Nasa would have felt enjoined to maintain a human presence in low Earth orbit."

• Tim Farrar, founder of TMF Associates, which advises some of the world's top space companies: "Unless they either secure government funding or focus on space tourism, they will inevitably have to rely on the largess of either billionaires or gullible investors who are space enthusiasts."

Thanks to Slashdot reader fjo3 for sharing the news.

Cornell Tech researchers have developed a portable device called SoilScanner that uses radio frequency signals and machine learning to detect lead contamination in soil. It offers a cost-effective alternative to traditional methods of testing that "generally involves either sending samples to a lab for analysis, which relies upon harsh chemicals and can be expensive, or using a portable X-ray fluorescence device," notes Phys.org. From the report: "In recent years, especially during COVID, a lot of us got excited about having our own backyard garden, or spending more time at home," said [Rajalakshmi Nandakumar, assistant professor at the Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute at Cornell Tech] who's also a member of the Department of Information Science in the Cornell Ann S. Bowers College of Computing and Information Science. "But if you look at instructions for how to grow tomatoes, no one actually tells you that you have to check your soil for lead," she said. "It's all about pH levels. A lot of us, even though we interact very often with soils, are totally unaware of possible lead contamination."

[Yixuan Gao, a doctoral candidate in computer science] said the group was motivated by a map of lead contamination in New York City that Cheng's Urban Soils Lab (USL) had produced over the course of several years of testing for hundreds of soil samples throughout the five boroughs. The testing revealed dangerously high levels of lead in many locations, most notably in northern Brooklyn. About 45% of the soil samples tested by USL had lead levels above 400 parts per million (ppm), the previous EPA recommended screening level (revised a year ago to 200 ppm for residential soils). "This means there is a significant risk when gardening in these urban soils," Gao said. You can learn more about the device here (PDF).

ZipNada shares a report from Phys.org: In a paper published today in Nature, a team led by Columbia Engineering researchers and collaborators report that they have invented new nanoscale sensors of force. They are luminescent nanocrystals that can change intensity and/or color when you push or pull on them. These "all-optical" nanosensors are probed with light only and therefore allow for fully remote read-outs -- no wires or connections are needed. They have 100 times better force sensitivity than the existing nanoparticles that utilize rare-earth ions for their optical response, and an operational range that spans more than four orders of magnitude in force, a much larger range -- 10-100 times larger -- than any previous optical nanosensor. "We expect our discovery will revolutionize the sensitivities and dynamic range achievable with optical force sensors, and will immediately disrupt technologies in areas from robotics to cellular biophysics and medicine to space travel," said Jim Schuck, associate professor of mechanical engineering.

"The importance of developing new force sensors was recently underscored by Ardem Patapoutian, the 2021 Nobel Laureate who emphasized the difficulty in probing environmentally sensitive processes within multiscale systems -- that is to say, in most physical and biological processes," Schuck notes. "We are excited to be part of these discoveries that transform the paradigm of sensing, allowing one to sensitively and dynamically map critical changes in forces and pressures in real-world environments that are currently unreachable with today's technologies."

Scientists have discovered that great whales can live well beyond previously estimated lifespans, according to research published in Science Advances. The study found that southern right whales can survive past 130 years, while their heavily hunted northern counterparts rarely live beyond 47 years.

The findings support earlier evidence from Arctic bowhead whales, which can reach 200 years old. Scientists determined whale ages by analyzing earplugs from specimens caught by Japanese whalers in the 1970s, revealing some fin and blue whales lived to at least 114 years.

Studies using new brain-mapping and wearable devices have shown that unstimulating urban architecture can harm residents' health, leading to increased rates of depression, cancer and diabetes. Research projects across Europe and North America, including the EU-funded eMOTIONAL Cities project and studies at the University of Waterloo's Urban Realities Laboratory, are measuring people's physiological responses to their surroundings. The findings are pushing architects and city planners to prioritize human wellbeing in design, with some cities like London's Newham borough now including happiness metrics in economic planning.

Exercise is the most potent medical intervention known, according to Stanford University researchers who mapped its molecular effects across body tissues. In a study examining sedentary and exercising rats over eight weeks, scientists found comprehensive changes in every tissue examined, from fat cells to mitochondria, with exercise often reversing disease-related molecular changes. The findings explain how exercise reduces heart disease and cancer risks by 50%.

MIT scientists have pinpointed the origin of a fast radio burst (FRB) to within 10,000 kilometers of a neutron star, settling a long-standing debate about these cosmic phenomena. Using a novel technique analyzing signal scintillation, researchers determined that FRB 20221022A, detected in 2022 from a galaxy 200 million light-years away, emerged from the star's turbulent magnetosphere rather than from a distant shockwave.

The findings, published in Nature, provide the first conclusive evidence that FRBs can originate in the extreme magnetic environment immediately surrounding these ultra-compact objects.

Research from Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University reveals a concerning correlation between micro and nanoplastic (MNP) concentrations in damaged human tissues and various health conditions, including inflammatory bowel disease, thrombosis, and cancer. Phys.Org reports: In the study, "Mapping micro(nano)plastics in various organ systems: Their emerging links to human diseases?" published in TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, investigators collected 61 available research articles for MNP detection in human tissues, plus 840 articles on MNP toxicological mechanisms. Data came from spectroscopy, microscopy, and pyrolysis-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry investigations to identify polymer types in different tissues. Toxicological studies employed cell models and animal experiments to examine oxidative stress, inflammatory responses, and related signaling pathways.

The studies documented particles detected in skin, arteries, veins, thrombi, bone marrow, testes, semen, uterus, and placenta. MNPs were found in the digestive system, from saliva to feces, liver, and gallstones. Within the respiratory system, MNPs were everywhere, including lung tissue, with microscopic fibers common in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and sputum. Positive correlations emerged between particle abundance and specific disorders, such as inflammatory bowel disease, thrombosis, cervical cancer, and uterine fibroids. Toxicological tests showed possible MNP-triggered oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, inflammatory responses, and apoptosis in various cell types, along with organ-level concerns like neurodegenerative disease onset when crossing the blood-brain barrier.

A critically important signal in the metadata discovered by the researchers was that measured levels of MNPs tended to be higher in tissues with lesions than in non-lesioned tissues. These included inflamed intestines, fibrotic lungs, or cancerous growths, suggesting a potential link between MNP buildup and local pathology. There is an intriguing "what came first, the chicken or the egg" problem with lesions having higher concentrations of MNPs. [...] In the case of "what came first, the lesion or the microplastic," it is possible that MNPs contribute to inflammation, oxidative stress, and cellular damage, which can cause or worsen tissue lesions. But it is also possible that these lesions accumulate more MNPs in already damaged tissue areas. While the current findings do not provide a direct cause-and-effect relationship, they offer good targets for further study.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: When the scientist and inventor Prof Archibald Montgomery Low predicted "a day in the life of a man of the future" one century ago, his prophecies were sometimes dismissed as "ruthlessly imaginative." They included, reported the London Daily News in 1925, "such horrors" as being woken by radio alarm clock; communications "by personal radio set"; breakfasting "with loudspeaker news and television glimpses of events"; shopping by moving stairways and moving pavements. One hundred years after Low's publication of his book The Future some of his forecasts were spot on. Others, including his prophecy that everyone would be wearing synthetic felt one-piece suits and hats, less so.

Researchers from the online genealogy service Findmypast, have excavated accounts of Low's predictions from its extensive digital archive of historical newspapers available to the public and included them in a collection on its website of forecasts made for 2025 by people a century ago. Low, born in 1888, was an engineer, research physicist, inventor and author. A pioneer in many fields, he invented the first powered drone, worked on the development of television, was known as the "father of radio guidance systems" for his work on planes, torpedo boats and guided rockets and reportedly attracted at least two unsuccessful assassination attempts by the Germans. "It's amazing that a century ago, one visionary scientist could predict how emerging technology -- in its infancy at the time -- could have changed the world by 2025," said Jen Baldwin, a research specialist at Findmypast. "It makes you stop to wonder how the advancements we see around us today will be experienced by our own descendants."

Astronomers using the James Webb Space Telescope have discovered Zhulong, the most distant grand-design spiral galaxy identified so far, located at a redshift of approximately 5.2. Phys.Org reports: The galaxy was named Zhulong, after a giant red solar dragon and god in Chinese mythology. [...] Its mass was found to be comparable to that of the Milky Way, which is relatively high for a galaxy that formed within one billion years after the Big Bang, as the redshift indicates. The study found that Zhulong has a classical bulge and a large face-on stellar disk with spiral arms extending across 62,000 light years. The spectral energy distribution (SED) analysis points to a quiescent-like core and a star-forming stellar disk. Furthermore, it turned out that compared to the stellar disk, the center core of Zhulong is red and has the highest stellar mass surface densities measured among quiescent galaxies. The core is quiescent, which is consistent with the expectations of inside-out galaxy growth and quenching.

The study also found that although the disk is still forming stars, Zhulong has a relatively low overall star-formation rate -- at a level of 66 solar masses per year. The baryons-to-stars conversion efficiency was calculated to be approximately 0.3, which is about 1.5 times higher than even the most efficient galaxies at later epochs. These results suggest that Zhulong must have been forming stars very efficiently and is in the transformation phase from star-forming to quiescence. In concluding remarks, the authors of the paper note that Zhulong appears to be the most distant spiral galaxy discovered to date. The properties of this galaxy seem to suggest that mature galaxies emerged much earlier than expected in the first billion years after the Big Bang. The findings have been published on the pre-print server arXiv.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica, written by Jennifer Ouellette: Over the holiday weekend, all but one member of the editorial board of Elsevier's Journal of Human Evolution (JHE) resigned "with heartfelt sadness and great regret," according to Retraction Watch, which helpfully provided an online PDF of the editors' full statement. It's the 20th mass resignation from a science journal since 2023 over various points of contention, per Retraction Watch, many in response to controversial changes in the business models used by the scientific publishing industry. "This has been an exceptionally painful decision for each of us," the board members wrote in their statement. "The editors who have stewarded the journal over the past 38 years have invested immense time and energy in making JHE the leading journal in paleoanthropological research and have remained loyal and committed to the journal and our authors long after their terms ended. The [associate editors] have been equally loyal and committed. We all care deeply about the journal, our discipline, and our academic community; however, we find we can no longer work with Elsevier in good conscience."

The editorial board cited several changes made over the last ten years that it believes are counter to the journal's longstanding editorial principles. These included eliminating support for a copy editor and a special issues editor, leaving it to the editorial board to handle those duties. When the board expressed the need for a copy editor, Elsevier's response, they said, was "to maintain that the editors should not be paying attention to language, grammar, readability, consistency, or accuracy of proper nomenclature or formatting." There is also a major restructuring of the editorial board underway that aims to reduce the number of associate editors by more than half, which "will result in fewer AEs handling far more papers, and on topics well outside their areas of expertise." Furthermore, there are plans to create a third-tier editorial board that functions largely in a figurehead capacity, after Elsevier "unilaterally took full control" of the board's structure in 2023 by requiring all associate editors to renew their contracts annually -- which the board believes undermines its editorial independence and integrity.

In-house production has been reduced or outsourced, and in 2023 Elsevier began using AI during production without informing the board, resulting in many style and formatting errors, as well as reversing versions of papers that had already been accepted and formatted by the editors. "This was highly embarrassing for the journal and resolution took six months and was achieved only through the persistent efforts of the editors," the editors wrote. "AI processing continues to be used and regularly reformats submitted manuscripts to change meaning and formatting and require extensive author and editor oversight during proof stage." In addition, the author page charges for JHE are significantly higher than even Elsevier's other for-profit journals, as well as broad-based open access journals like Scientific Reports. Not many of the journal's authors can afford those fees, "which runs counter to the journal's (and Elsevier's) pledge of equality and inclusivity," the editors wrote. The breaking point seems to have come in November, when Elsevier informed co-editors Mark Grabowski (Liverpool John Moores University) and Andrea Taylor (Touro University California College of Osteopathic Medicine) that it was ending the dual-editor model that has been in place since 1986. When Grabowki and Taylor protested, they were told the model could only remain if they took a 50 percent cut in their compensation.