"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.
The problem here is that at least half the population just lacks the critical thinking skills to even understand why peer review is necessary.
If you've ever talked to one of these people about contrails, or whether evolution is real or not, or ghosts, or any number of boneheaded nonsense, you will eventually realize just how hopeless it is to expect them to ever be able to use logic. You might as well be teaching your dog to talk.
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.
"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?"
> "Pro-Science" and "Anti-Science" is too blunt of an instrument.
I agree, generally. However RFK Jr. and this administration are explicitly anti-science. If that seems extreme it's because it is - these are extremist ideologues.
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
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.
the problem that you speak of exist literally everywhere (from public (lowest) to private sector (highest)).
Making fixation on research, academia and science is typical retard behavior. As functioning society (human in general) WE should have ZERO tolerance toward this behavior and RFK Jr kinds should be ignored, he doesn't deserve to be heard, he have ZERO qualification whatsoever (same goes to 90% of this administration).
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.
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.
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.
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.
There may be more to it than this article, based on a story from nature.com, suggests.
There is a dispute going on where the NIH wants papers publicly available:
>New NIH Public Access Policy goes into effect TODAY! Research accepted for publication on July 1, 2025, must be publicly available as soon as it is published.
and
>Nature-Springer and Elsevier already have stated their intent to charge new fees to comply with the new NIH policy (a fee of $12,690.00 per paper for Nature). https://x.com/R_H_Ebright/status/1940156677501726959
I have the sensation that US is experiencing a transition similar to what happened to Europe when it went to the middle ages, ruling parties, leveraging religion a lot, tries to control knowledge as a way of controlling ideals/values and, as a colateral, detains progress.
My doubt is if other regions will take the lead like the arab world did during the middle ages or if the whole world will fall under this.
Readit News
"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.
If you've ever talked to one of these people about contrails, or whether evolution is real or not, or ghosts, or any number of boneheaded nonsense, you will eventually realize just how hopeless it is to expect them to ever be able to use logic. You might as well be teaching your dog to talk.
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 agree, generally. However RFK Jr. and this administration are explicitly anti-science. If that seems extreme it's because it is - these are extremist ideologues.
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
Making fixation on research, academia and science is typical retard behavior. As functioning society (human in general) WE should have ZERO tolerance toward this behavior and RFK Jr kinds should be ignored, he doesn't deserve to be heard, he have ZERO qualification whatsoever (same goes to 90% of this administration).
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.
There is a dispute going on where the NIH wants papers publicly available:
>New NIH Public Access Policy goes into effect TODAY! Research accepted for publication on July 1, 2025, must be publicly available as soon as it is published.
and
>Nature-Springer and Elsevier already have stated their intent to charge new fees to comply with the new NIH policy (a fee of $12,690.00 per paper for Nature). https://x.com/R_H_Ebright/status/1940156677501726959
My doubt is if other regions will take the lead like the arab world did during the middle ages or if the whole world will fall under this.