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.
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).
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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
16 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 59.5 ms ] threadHowever this is not the way to go about fixing it
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.
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