2 days ago
HHS Journal Ban Won't Stop Corruption — It'll Make It Worse
Robert F. Kennedy Jr has threatened to bar federal scientists from publishing in top medical journals. This move risks backfiring on two major fronts. First, it will only accelerate private industry's sway over the scientific record. Second, launching new, government-run journals will demand vast resources and years of effort — and still won't earn the credibility of established publications.
With nearly five decades in medical and scientific writing, editing, and publishing — across nonprofit and commercial organizations, legacy print and digital platforms, and both subscription-based and open-access models — I write from experience.
To see the flaws in Kennedy's proposal, we need to understand what works and what doesn't in science publishing. Primary, peer-reviewed medical/scientific literature has evolved and thrived in a culture of self-criticism, through letters columns, corrections, retractions, and open debate. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) , The Lancet , and JAMA remain the gold standards in medical publishing because of their rigorous peer review, global reach, and editorial independence from government or corporate influence.
Here's where RFK Jr's main objection with the current system seems to lie. The Secretary has portrayed medical journals as hopelessly corrupted by industry. Extensive firewalls, guidelines, and rules have been established to govern the relationship of industry to medical journals. They rest largely on honest disclosure with authors, editors, and readers paying attention. Cracks in those barriers are not unknown.
But the solution lies in strengthening these firewalls, not sidelining them. A ban on government employees from submitting to NEJM , The Lancet , JAMA, and other top-tier titles will deliver more power — not less — to pharmaceutical, device, and biotech companies to set the scientific agenda. Far from reducing 'corruption,' such a misguided policy would magnify the role of the very stakeholders RFK Jr decries. And if federal grant support diminishes, the research that is published will become increasingly supported by industry, compounding the mistake.
The notion of creating new government-owned medical journals from scratch is not an absurd idea. But Kennedy's illusion of fast-tracking NIH-affiliated "preeminent journals" that stamp federal‐funded work as unquestionably legitimate is a gargantuan endeavor. Building editorial boards, peer‐review standards, submission platforms, indexation in PubMed, and marketing to researchers worldwide takes years of work from countless individuals and would cost a substantial amount of money.
Even then, a journal's reputation rests on trust and perceived independence. Readers judge not only the science but also the integrity of the editor–owner relationship. The hazard is that the owner (the government) would have to be trusted by the readers, or no one would bother reading these publications. A government 'house organ' would likely be viewed skeptically if the federal government can withdraw or prohibit publications at will.
Banning federal scientists from submitting to journals the administration doesn't like does not cleanse the literature of industry influence — it deepens those ties. And while government-run journals might one day exist, they won't arrive fully baked, credible, or conflict-free. Better to invest in the proven mechanisms of editorial independence, enhanced peer review, and clearer disclosure than in a rushed, state-controlled alternative destined to struggle for trust and impact.
If RFK Jr wants a better list of reforms, here's what I suggest:
Take on predatory publishers and their fake journals, fake authors, and fabricated institutions and references — a threat that existed even before generative chat powered by artificial intelligence (AI). Take aim at rapacious mainstream publishers, whose excess profit margins and subscription price gouging represent a financial drain on researchers, readers, and academic libraries. Crack down on excessively large author fees to have an article considered/reviewed/published. Promote the publication of reproducibility studies. Raise the alarm about the use of AI in peer view and the creation of manuscripts — including the data in them.
These steps aren't as sexy as proclaiming publishing bans for government scientist or launching new journals on whose mastheads you can put your own name. But they have the virtues of solving real problems and not making existing problems worse — which, as a physician, seems like something I've heard before somewhere …
