Environmental health prospects, which is widely considered as the first environmental health review, have announced that it would arouse the acceptance of new publication studies, because the federal cuts have left its future uncertain.
For over 50 years, the journal has received funding from the National Institutes of Health to examine studies on the health effects of environmental toxins – “chemicals forever” to air pollution – and publishes research for free.
Publishers have made the decision to stop acceptance of studies due to a “lack of confidence” according to which contracts for critical expenses such as copies edition and editorial software would be renewed after their imminent expiration dates, said Joel Kaufman, editor -in -chief of the newspaper.
He refused to comment on the future prospects of publication.
“If the newspaper is indeed lost, it is a huge loss,” said Jonathan Levy, President of the Environmental Health Department at the University of Boston. “This reduces people to have good information that can be used to make good decisions.”
The editor -in -chief of Nejm described the letter as “vaguely threatening”. Tuesday, the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said that she had received such a letter.
Scientific journals have long been the target of senior health officials in the Trump administration.
In a book published last year, Dr. Martin A. Makary, the new Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration, The editorial commissions of the review accused of “Gate-Sheeping” And publish only information that supports a “account of group thought”.
In An interview with the podcast “Dr. Hyman Show »Last yearRobert F. Kennedy Jr., who is now secretary for health and social services, said he was planning to continue medical journals under the anti-corruption federal laws.
“I will find a way to continue unless you translate a plan right now to show how you are going to start publishing real science,” he said.
However, the announcement concerning the researchers with Peh, who stressed that the financing reductions seemed to come into conflict with the declared priorities of the Trump administration.
For example, Mr. Kennedy repeatedly stressed the importance of studying The role of the environment in the cause of chronic diseases. The new administration has also expressed its interest in the transparency and accessibility of the public of scientific journals, an area in which EHP was a pioneer.
EHP was one of the first “open access” journals, allowing anyone to read without subscription. And unlike many other free access journals, which often charge researchers thousands of dollars to publish their work, the federal support of EHP meant that scientists of small universities could publish without worrying about the costs.
“There are several layers of irony here,” said Dr. Levy.
EHP is not the only newspaper taken in the cross fires of the financing cuts at the Ministry of Health and Social Services.
A draft budget for the department, obtained by the New York Times, offers an axis of two journals published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: emerging infectious diseases and prevention of chronic diseases. The two are published free of charge to authors and readers and are among the best journals in their areas.
Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesman, said that “no final decision has been made” on the upcoming budget.
Emerging infectious diseases, published monthly, provides advanced relationships on threats of infectious disease around the world.
He helped shape the preparation and response to epidemics, said Jason Kindrachuk, virologist at the University of Manitoba who published research on Marburg and Mpox viruses in the journal.
The news “is very discouraging,” he said.