Copyright yahoo
A top journal publisher has been accused of abandoning science in favour of a “social justice agenda”. Nature, which produces several leading science journals, has faced criticism over its position on equality, diversity and inclusion from leading scientists. Prof Anna Krylov, a professor of chemistry at the University of Southern California, shared an open letter online encouraging fellow scientists to boycott Nature until it “recommits to scientific excellence”. She said: “The Nature group has abandoned its mission in favour of advancing a social justice agenda.” She accused it of trying to play identity politics and promote specific demographics instead of focusing on science, which is supposed to be “guided by a commitment to finding objective truth”. The letter was backed by Prof Richard Dawkins, an expert in evolutionary biology, who said on X: “Nature used to be the world’s most prestigious science journal. Now it’s one of many accused of favouring authors because of their identity group rather than the excellence and importance of their science.” Prof Krylov claimed Nature had “institutionalised censorship, implemented policies that have sacrificed merit in favour of identity-based criteria, and injected social engineering”. “The result is that papers published in Nature journals can no longer be regarded as rigorous science,” she added. She was writing in response to an invitation to peer-review a study for a publication in Nature Communications by one of its editors. It is standard practice for journals to require research to be peer-reviewed, which is when experts in the field critically evaluate work to assess its quality, accuracy, and suitability for publication. She said: “I have decided not to engage with journals belonging to the Nature group in any professional capacity in the future because the group has adopted policies and practices that are incompatible with the mission of a scientific publisher.” Inclusion over ‘scientific rigour’ Prof Krylov cited examples of guidelines and policies whereby the publisher appears to prioritise inclusion over “scientific rigour”. For example, she stated that the Springer Nature Diversity Commitment published in 2019 tells editors to “intentionally and proactively reach out to women researchers”, while authors are instructed to suggest reviewers “with diversity in mind.” She added: “I cannot stop but wonder[sic] – was I asked to review the manuscript because of my expertise in the subject matter or because of my reproductive organs?” Prof Krylov also criticised one of the publications, Nature Reviews Psychology, for encouraging authors to practice “citation justice”. She said it was “to social-engineer their manuscript’s bibliography to promote members of favoured identity groups”, and that it was “particularly harmful because it undermines the rigour and reliability of published research”. ‘The integrity of science is compromised’ Prof Krylov, who is an expert in theoretical and computational quantum chemistry, said when references were being selected based upon demographics, that “the integrity of science itself is compromised”. She also said Nature Human Behavior had “published a censorship manifesto… in which they openly declare their intent to censor legitimate research findings that they deem potentially ‘harmful’ to certain groups’”. She said it was “arrogant for editors to presume they have the expertise to make such judgments” and “antithetical to the production of knowledge”. A spokesman for Springer Nature, which published the journals, said: “A citation diversity statement is an optional section that authors may choose to include in their article, review, or book chapter. “Whether the author opts to include one does not affect the evaluation of the content itself. “We believe this option is valuable because it encourages authors to engage with a wider spectrum of relevant research from a broad range of scholars, disciplines, and perspectives; and that this can contribute to a more informed foundation for scholarly work.”
