"He went on to say that "unless these journals change dramatically," the federal government would "stop NIH scientists from publishing there" and create "in-house" journals instead."
This isn't about Nature. It's about the idea of subjecting your research to outside peer review of any kind. They're objecting to the idea of submitting their research to any outside standards.
Jcampuzano2 · 9h ago
While I do agree that there are some academic journals that publish studies that are probably a bit suspicious, given there has been proof of enough high profile researchers publishing using false or fabricated data, though I'm not sure about this particular one to be fair - I do not like the against science as a whole messaging.
This administration is pushing anti-science as a whole which is going to do irreparable harm to all well meaning scientists and those interested in these fields as a whole. And in the end the ones suffering will be us for years to come as we will have effectively stifled innovation, especially when it comes to health.
hackingonempty · 8h ago
> some academic journals that publish studies that are probably a bit suspicious, [...], though I'm not sure about this particular one to be fair
Nature is literally the worlds top scientific journal. This action by RFK/HHS is not in good faith.
JADev62096 · 5h ago
"Pro-Science" and "Anti-Science" is too blunt of an instrument. It doesn't distinguish between the scientific method, journals, and institutions.
If someone has the opinion that the scientific method is great, but the current incentives at journals and institutions lead to poor practice of it too often, is that "anti-science?"
stogot · 8h ago
I don’t see where it’s “science as a whole” but rather names specific (narrow) set of journals to cancel subscriptions because they are funded by big pharma or are too expensive. Seems more reasonable than your comment purports
I recall reading about journal’s positive bias to only publish positive results of pharmaceutical drugs, but would not publish negative results in later years (when another researcher disproves it). This is bad science and bad for patients. This in addition to the downright fraud.
I’m not a fan of this secretary’s approaches, but I’ve been hoping for 10 years someone would take a stand against predatory journal practices
yurongshui · 9h ago
After three decades in academia, I've seen firsthand how systemic issues plague research integrity - from selective data presentation to outright fabrication. While these problems absolutely need addressing, this current approach misses the mark entirely. We require measured, structural reforms rather than reactionary measures that risk throwing out legitimate science with the bad.
passwordoops · 9h ago
What I hate is there is an issue with the way big academic research is done. Anyone involved has to have seen at the very least cherry-picking all the way to outright fraud. Has been for probably 30 years.
However this is not the way to go about fixing it
ethan_smith · 8h ago
The solution is stronger pre-registration requirements, open data mandates, and funding replication studies - not politically-motivated journal cancellations that cut researchers off from the very information needed to advance knowledge.
derbOac · 4h ago
This is the thing: if RFK Jr were acting in good faith, and this had anything to do with a serious interest in scientific integrity rather than avoiding scrutiny of his antivax conspiracies, he would be setting rigorous standards and then directing NIH to meet those standards.
Cutting off access to journals for vague unspecified vilifying reasons doesn't increase integrity.
This is a preemptive action aiming to justify why they don't have to subject an upcoming deluge of junk research to rigorous review. It's the MO of this administration: discredit investigatory transparency bodies, and then engage in unethical behavior that would be subject to investigation by those bodies. Foxes running the henhouses, etc.
WaxProlix · 9h ago
This is classic playbook for this administration. Is air force one out of date, is replacing it a boondoggle? Yes and yes! Should we take a garish bug ridden pile of expense second hand from foreign sources? No! Does America somewhat subsidize the 'free world' with its military spending and asymmetric dollar? Sure, yeah. Should we fucking tank the economy and ruin our standing with every ally to address it? Probably not!
This pattern is pretty common when you look for it.
derbOac · 5h ago
> Anyone involved has to have seen at the very least cherry-picking all the way to outright fraud. Has been for probably 30 years.
I had to read up to your first sentence to figure out if you were talking about some of RFK's vaccine advisors or someone else.
tchbnl · 9h ago
I'm going to burrow into a hole under my shed and hope for the best when I emerge in four years.
Flatcircle · 8h ago
talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water....
scrubs · 9h ago
RFK's move (if true) is cheap political symbolism. It's not science. It's BS.
But that's not today's question.
Where is power, agency, missing for the RFK's of the world? Call that X. Ideally RFK would telescope symbolism there.
Presumably he forgot X, isn't invited to X, can't win with X, or can't reason with X.
As a result nature and science/policy based human health is temporarily buggered by same.
>Springer Nature is a leading publisher of books, journals, and other materials for researchers across disciplines and regions. Learn about its initiatives, partnerships, and platforms for open science, women in science, SDGs, DEI, and more.
and yeah, the thing looks exactly as you'd expect it to look.
"He went on to say that "unless these journals change dramatically," the federal government would "stop NIH scientists from publishing there" and create "in-house" journals instead."
This isn't about Nature. It's about the idea of subjecting your research to outside peer review of any kind. They're objecting to the idea of submitting their research to any outside standards.
This administration is pushing anti-science as a whole which is going to do irreparable harm to all well meaning scientists and those interested in these fields as a whole. And in the end the ones suffering will be us for years to come as we will have effectively stifled innovation, especially when it comes to health.
Nature is literally the worlds top scientific journal. This action by RFK/HHS is not in good faith.
If someone has the opinion that the scientific method is great, but the current incentives at journals and institutions lead to poor practice of it too often, is that "anti-science?"
I recall reading about journal’s positive bias to only publish positive results of pharmaceutical drugs, but would not publish negative results in later years (when another researcher disproves it). This is bad science and bad for patients. This in addition to the downright fraud.
I’m not a fan of this secretary’s approaches, but I’ve been hoping for 10 years someone would take a stand against predatory journal practices
However this is not the way to go about fixing it
Cutting off access to journals for vague unspecified vilifying reasons doesn't increase integrity.
This is a preemptive action aiming to justify why they don't have to subject an upcoming deluge of junk research to rigorous review. It's the MO of this administration: discredit investigatory transparency bodies, and then engage in unethical behavior that would be subject to investigation by those bodies. Foxes running the henhouses, etc.
This pattern is pretty common when you look for it.
I had to read up to your first sentence to figure out if you were talking about some of RFK's vaccine advisors or someone else.
But that's not today's question.
Where is power, agency, missing for the RFK's of the world? Call that X. Ideally RFK would telescope symbolism there.
Presumably he forgot X, isn't invited to X, can't win with X, or can't reason with X.
As a result nature and science/policy based human health is temporarily buggered by same.
>Springer Nature is a leading publisher of books, journals, and other materials for researchers across disciplines and regions. Learn about its initiatives, partnerships, and platforms for open science, women in science, SDGs, DEI, and more.
and yeah, the thing looks exactly as you'd expect it to look.