abcnews.go.com
Controversial COVID-19 Researchers Launch New Open-Access Journal
A new open-access journal, co-founded by researchers who challenged the US COVID-19 response, including Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, aims to disrupt scientific publishing by offering open peer review and paid reviewers; however, it faces significant skepticism due to its editorial board members' controversial past and association with conservative organizations.
- How does the Journal of the Academy of Public Health's business model differ from traditional scientific publishing, and what are the potential consequences of these differences?
- The journal's founders criticize the high profit margins of commercial publishers and allege that universities pay exorbitant fees for publishing their own research. They propose an open-access model with paid reviewers to address these issues, but this model faces criticism due to its potential for bias and the journal's affiliation with organizations seen as having right-wing conservative backing. The journal's selective membership further fuels concerns regarding its impartiality.
- What are the immediate implications of launching a new scientific journal with editorial board members who challenged the mainstream scientific consensus during the COVID-19 pandemic?
- The Journal of the Academy of Public Health, co-founded by researchers who challenged the US COVID-19 response, aims to improve the publishing process through open access and public peer review. The journal's editorial board includes figures who promoted views contradicting mainstream scientific consensus during the pandemic, raising concerns about potential bias. This new journal is met with skepticism within the scientific community.
- What are the long-term implications of this journal's unique approach to scientific publishing, and what challenges might it face in gaining acceptance within the established scientific community?
- The long-term impact of the Journal of the Academy of Public Health remains uncertain. The journal's approach, while aiming for greater transparency and efficiency, raises questions about potential bias and its acceptance within the broader scientific community. Its close ties to individuals known for controversial stances on public health during the pandemic may hinder its credibility and its ability to contribute meaningfully to scientific discourse.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately highlight the controversial backgrounds of the journal founders and editorial board members, emphasizing their past disagreements with the official COVID-19 response. This framing sets a negative tone and primes the reader to view the journal with skepticism. The article's structure consistently reinforces this negative portrayal by placing the criticism before any details about the journal's stated aims. The inclusion of quotes from critics like Carl Bergstrom further solidifies the negative framing, without providing a balanced view.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language such as "challenged the U.S. response to COVID-19," "went against the grain," "stirred controversy," and "doubling down." These terms carry negative connotations and shape the reader's perception of the individuals and the journal. More neutral alternatives could include "offered alternative perspectives on the U.S. response to COVID-19," "held differing views," "received criticism for," and "maintained their position." The use of phrases like "right-wing conservative backers" also carries a partisan connotation.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the controversial backgrounds of the journal's founders and editorial board members, particularly their past challenges to the U.S. COVID-19 response and associations with figures like President Trump. However, it omits details about the journal's actual content, peer-review process, and the quality of research published. The article also doesn't include perspectives from those who support the journal's aims or who have positive experiences with its processes. While acknowledging space constraints, the omission of these counterpoints leaves the reader with a largely negative and potentially incomplete view of the journal.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate as solely between 'good scientists' who can publish freely and the established scientific community that is accused of being driven by profit and biased. This oversimplifies the complexities within scientific publishing and the range of viewpoints within the scientific community. It fails to acknowledge potential benefits of traditional peer review or alternative open-access models beyond this particular journal.
Sustainable Development Goals
The initiative aims to improve the scientific publishing process by implementing open access and public peer review, potentially enhancing the dissemination of research findings and contributing to more equitable access to knowledge. This aligns with SDG 4 (Quality Education) which promotes equitable and inclusive quality education and promotes lifelong learning opportunities for all. The open access aspect directly supports wider access to scientific information, a crucial component of quality education and research.