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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
passwordoops•7mo ago
However this is not the way to go about fixing it
WaxProlix•7mo ago
This pattern is pretty common when you look for it.
ethan_smith•7mo ago
derbOac•7mo ago
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.
derbOac•7mo ago
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.