by Martha Scharping
June 25, 2025
Amid rising political scrutiny and allegations of bias, scientific journals face a crisis of trust that challenges their role as neutral arbiters of research integrity.
Scientific journals have long served as pillars of credibility, offering rigorously reviewed research to guide global progress in medicine, science, and technology. Yet from 2020 to 2025, these institutions have come under increasing strain. Most recently, the U.S. Department of Justice sent inquiries to 15 major science and medical journals, including NEJM and JAMA, citing concerns about political bias, censorship, and fraud. Prominent figures such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya have echoed these critiques, framing journals as ideological gatekeepers rather than neutral platforms.
While some of these claims are politically charged, they also intersect with genuine concerns about transparency, accountability, and market dynamics within scientific publishing. Taken together, they reveal a deeper erosion of trust in the systems designed to ensure research integrity.
Peer-reviewed journals have increasingly become focal points in partisan debate. In April 2025, the Department of Justice sent letters questioning the editorial neutrality of respected journals. NEJM editor Eric Rubin described this as an intimidation tactic, while The Lancet called it an attempt to undermine editorial independence.
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, many journals published editorials critical of federal response policies or endorsing political candidates, prompting backlash. Critics argue that such commentary blurs the line between scientific analysis and political advocacy, while others defend it as a necessary ethical stance during public health emergencies. Regardless of intent, the effect has been a growing perception that science and politics are uncomfortably intertwined.
Beyond political pressure, the industry has faced internal credibility challenges. Between 2023 and 2024, Hindawi—a major open-access publisher under Wiley—retracted more than 8,000 papers due to peer review manipulation and paper mill fraud. This crisis led Wiley to scale back Hindawi's operations and suspend acquisitions in the sector.
Retraction Watch reported that the number of retracted scientific articles rose from 41 in 2000 to over 5,000 in 2024. Approximately two-thirds of these retractions stemmed from misconduct, including falsified data and plagiarized content. Although fraud is not exclusive to open-access publishing, the rapid proliferation of for-profit journals has exposed systemic weaknesses in editorial oversight and peer review.
The pandemic placed extraordinary pressure on scientific publishing, speeding up review timelines and increasing the volume of urgent research. While this accelerated innovation, it also increased the risk of error. Studies were published, retracted, and debated in real time, often before adequate vetting.
Journals that supported lockdowns or vaccine mandates—either explicitly or through selective publication—faced accusations of bias. Researchers like Bhattacharya, co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, found their work excluded from major outlets and later cited this exclusion as evidence of censorship. In this new climate, many scientists hesitate to pursue controversial topics, fearing reputational or professional fallout.
As trust in traditional publishing erodes, new models are emerging. Bhattacharya and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary launched the Journal of the Academy of Public Health, which promotes open peer review and signed commentary. Other efforts explore blockchain-based authentication, reviewer transparency, and post-publication critique as methods to enhance legitimacy.
These innovations show promise, but also raise critical questions. Who oversees these new journals? What safeguards ensure objectivity? Without strong governance, alternative platforms risk becoming echo chambers or ideological counterweights rather than true forums for empirical debate.
Scientific publishing stands at a crossroads. It remains a vital channel for evidence-based progress but is increasingly seen as vulnerable to both politicization and internal dysfunction. Publishers must balance commercial viability with credibility, while researchers and institutions strive to protect the integrity of the knowledge ecosystem.
To rebuild trust and ensure resilience, the industry must:
The post-2020 landscape has exposed systemic cracks. The challenge ahead is to fortify the foundations—not only to protect the scientific record but to reaffirm a collective commitment to truth-seeking in a fractured public sphere.
To explore these topics in greater depth, request access to the latest issue of Education Market Advisor newsletter, the pre-eminent source of business news and analysis for educational publishing and marketing for over 40 years.
About the blogger: Martha Scharping is the Education Analyst and Writer for Simba Information, the leading authority of strategic intelligence for EdTech companies, journal publishers, and other producers of instructional materials for K-12 and higher education.
Provide the following details to subscribe.