Scientific Correspondence allows authors to challenge the central findings of a published paper, and gives the original authors an opportunity to respond.
Johannes Jacobus Fahrenfort, Philippa A Johnson ... Simon van Gaal
This response counters arguments given in a commentary by Sandberg and Overgaard, 2025 regarding an article in eLife about criterion confounds in neural measures of consciousness based on subjective measures by Fahrenfort et al, 2025.
James Taniguchi, Riccardo Melani ... Nicolas X Tritsch
We are writing to comment on the article by Mohebi et al., 2023: we show that blue light alters the fluorescent properties of a genetically-encoded dopamine sensor in a manner that may be misconstrued as phasic dopamine release.
We are writing to respond to the comment by Anderson et al., 2023 on our article about limb movements in male little torrent frogs (Zhao et al., 2022).
We are writing to respond to the comment by Sustar and Tuthill, 2023 on our article about appendage regeneration in jellyfish, fruit flies, and mice (Abrams et al., 2021).