Is the atmosphere used for academic publishing – Watt?

Kip Hansen's comments – February 10, 2025 – 1800 words

There is a long list of things that need to be fixed in our current academic science publishing system. These include:

Publishing Prejudice: Trends to publish only positive results lead to incomplete and potentially misleading conclusions of the research results.

Editorial Prejudice: In many journals, even the most respected journals, editors determine what to publish, leading many to consider this to be a huge bias against certain scientific views and against others. In some areas, papers that do not support broad consensus in the field of research have no chance of publication at all.

Paywall: Many scientific articles are behind the paywall, limiting research visits to scientists in developing countries and the public.

Opacity of peer review: The peer review process for experts to evaluate the study before publication can be opaque and encounter bias, and reviewers sometimes do not fully disclose their identity or conflict of interest.

Profit-driven Publishing: For-profit publishers can prioritize profits over disseminating knowledge, resulting in high subscription costs and limited access.

Lack of repeatability: Difficulty in replicating published research results, which may undermine the credibility of scientific results.

Repeated calls for new paradigms where scientific publishing is truly open, transparent, accessible and sustainable. Some of these efforts include:

1. Brian Nosek, co-founder and executive director of the Open Science Center (http://cos.io/), operates the Open Science Framework (http://osf.io/).

2. JohnPa Ioannidis – a proponent of evidence-based medicine and the author of the well-known “Why most published research results are wrong”, found “Claimed research findings are usually only accurate measurements. Ioannidis has a strong opinion on the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and has published 81 papers on the topic (the link is download.doc) as author or co-author.

3. AdamMarcus and Ivan Oransky: ( Retract the watch) Last year's statement in The Washington Post: “The popularity of scientific forgery threatens overwhelming publishers,” lamenting the rise of poor and often fake scientific papers published in garbage and predatory journals.

There are many more.

Now, in the field of public health, a new journal has been created. reaction? The online magazine Wired has just been released:

Donald Trump's NIH draft just launched a controversial science magazine

Written by Emily Mullin and Matt Reynolds, it was both a political attack and a selected scientist.

What is a new journal? This is the journal of the School of Public Health. The college itself is new, its internet homepage states:

“School of Public Health

The School of Public Health is an International Association of Public Health Scholars, researchers and professionals in the field of public health and many of their majors. Members unite and are committed to open discourse, intellectually rigorous and extensive, and equitably obtaining scientific discoveries.

The aim of the Academy is to promote an open and transparent scientific discourse on science and public health. The tools to do so should be passed through its relevant diary, open access and open peer review of the Public Health School. ”

Who is responsible?

The members of the founding committee are:

Sand Greenland – Member of the Academy [ see here and here ]

George F Tidmarsh – Member of the Academy [ see here and here ]

David Desrosiers – Independent Board Member [ President of the RealClear Foundation ]

The editorial board of the journal is by: (Long list with links)

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Founding editor-in-chief

Andrew Noymer, MSC, PhD, Editor-in-chief

Carl Heneghan, BM, Dphil

Christine Stabell Benn, MD, PhD, DMSC

Dr. David Livermore

Günter Kampf, MD

Helen Colhoun, DMED, MPH

Jayanta Bhattacharya, MD, PhD (Farewell – Donald Trump appoints Bhattacharya as the choice to lead the NIH)

Jim Buttery, MD

John Joannidis, 1500, DSC

MAGED KAMEL BOULOS, MD, PhD

Marty Makary, MD, MPH, (take a vacation)

Mohammad Ali Mansournia, MD, MPH, PhD

Peter Gøtzsche, MD, DMSC, MSC [co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration]

Dr. Ruth Gil Prieto

Sander Greenland, Drph

Scott Atlas, Maryland

Sergio Recuenco, MD, MPH, DRPH

Dr. Simon Wood

Sunetra Gupta, Ph.D.

Tom Jefferson, MD

It is difficult to find a group of people with more expertise and reputation in the public health world.

So, what are the objections to the new magazine of the new School of Public Health? It's mainly politics

Bipartisan politics in the United States:

Marty Makary is on leave from the Journal's editorial board because he was hired by President Trump to run the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Jayanta Bhattacharyais also took a leave from the editorial board, and President Trump pursued the leadership of the National Institutes of Health.

Realclear Foundation publishes the School of Public Health magazine, a nonprofit magazine subsidiary. Realclear is tagged as a “right-wing news website” in cable works, which mainly means it is not a left-leaning media.

Public Health Politics:

Worse, many board members are signatories to the Great Barrington Declaration, which recommends targeting many government policies and mandates to address the COVID-19-19 pandemic.

Apart from politics?

“Some experts worry that journals linked to the right-wing news site RealClearpolitics could become the scientific mouthpiece of the Trump administration, and that these experts claim to be able to publish suspicious research. ” [ Wired ]

Please note that the “Expert” is not named.

Gigi Gronvall is a very important point of view on scientific and medical research:

“It seems more like a club newsletter than a scientific journal,” said Gigi Gronvall, an immunologist and professor at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

Apart from not being asked to join, Groenval may object to the 4th point of the journal’s four pillars:

“this Journal of School of Public Health There are four pillars that distinguish it:

1. Open access so that all scientists and anyone in the public can read science articles.
2. Open peer reviews and anyone can read the article while reading it; signed by the reviewer.
3. Reward reviewers through remuneration and public recognition.
4. Delete articles to keep the doorsteps, allowing outstanding scientists from the School of Public Health to publish all their research results in a timely and free manner, as well as their relevant peer comments. ”

From the Articles of Association:

In the Journal of the School of Public Health, members of the college may publish any scientific articles related to public health and are specified in the Journal's author guidelines.

…

Any member of the magazine editorial board can invite renowned public health scientists as new members of the college by sending a written invitation to join the college. Nominations can be submitted without prior consultation with the nominated public health scientist and invitees accept will be introduced to the college immediately.

…

College members can nominate renowned public health scientists as new members. Nominations should be sent to the College Committee.

…

The only criterion for membership is the quality and level of public health work they have published. ”

While Gigi Gronvall may feel excluded, all she needs is to do the job well and be nominated by the editorial board or any member of the college itself. Calling their journals “Club Newsletter” is like referring to the Royal Society journal “Philosophical Transactions,” “Litigation A” and “Litigation B” as club newsletters, as people have not been invited to join the Royal Society – the Royal Society that determines its membership . Through very similar procedures. Today, the Royal Society's journals are similar to Science, Nature and Elsevier.

Wired continues with another critic: “Theoretical and evolutionary biologist Carl Bergstrom believes the journal is part of a continuing effort to doubt established scientific consensus. “If you can fantasize about the fantasy saying that there is no opinion. , vaccines and masks are effective ways to control the pandemic, then you can disrupt the concept of scientific consensus, you can create uncertainty, and you can push a specific push agenda forward”. Bergstrom is obviously not interested in the effectiveness of scientific research, only whether they support the previous consensus he likes, while worrying that open peer reviews will not automatically lose the qualification of non-cognitive unsupported papers.

Kurdorf [Martin Kulldorff, PhD, Founding Editor-in-Chief] Tell Wired that the journal will be a place for public discourse and academic freedom. “I think scientists can publish what they think is important science and then they should open up the discussion, not stop people from publishing.”

Cable authors contact many scientists to find negative views, including

“Taylor Dotson, professor at the New Mexico School of Mining and Technology, studies the intersection of science and politics,” he said:

“The worst case scenario is that you start providing journals to populist and anti-establishment people, as well as diaries of people who have also read NPR and The New York Times.”

At least Dotson acknowledged that there was a warning: “These are good steps,” Dosen said. “It's good to try to push the power of large science publishers.” However, the researchers also warn that open research may be more prominent and widely cited in the media, just because they are easier to find than Because they must be more scientifically strict. ” [ Wired ]

Of course, Dotson, like many, failed to point out that just because a paper published one of the more famous journals does not necessarily have to be “must be more scientifically strict.”

Bottom line:

1. In the medical field, in public health, there is a new journal that is widely recommended based on many characteristics of reforming the topic of scientific/academic publication. This is the journal of the School of Public Health.

2. This is completely open access – anyone with internet access is free to read all articles, papers and comments, including comments from all reviewers and answers from the authors.

3. Reviewers were all awarded and won their efforts by publicly naming them.

4. Member of the School of Public Health [pdf of organizing document] Can be published for free “All their research results” Bypass the gatekeepers seen in other journals.

5. The journal’s editorial board consists of some of the most prominent and widely published researchers in the fields of public health and epidemiology.

6. Most of the attack points raised against journals are political: Based on the perceived links of many members to conservative issues, they may have a counter-trend view of public health policies developed during the Kuved pandemic and the Trend Editorial Board Many members are not the appropriate “get along” for researchers.

7. New journals are a good sign that the “atmosphere” may also change in scientific publication.

#####

Author's comments:

The status quo – a deeply rooted science publisher – does not want to give up on its profitable business model. Academic and researchers who support the reputation of consensus perspectives are concerned that good scientific discoveries may invalidate these consensuses.

Violators will not be easy to shout out this new public health effort. The widely recognized quality of its editorial board members will (hopefully) make the journal impeccable.

Wired Articles even attacked a board member for supporting the “lab leak” theory, which was most likely to be recognized by the CIA recently.

Let's try our best to support the new work of open access releases.

Thank you for reading.

#####

Related