The environmental health perspective is widely considered the best environmental health magazine, and it announced that it will suspend acceptance of new research for publication as federal cuts remain uncertain about the future.
For more than 50 years, the journal has received funding from the National Institutes of Health to review research on the health effects of environmental toxins, from “eternal chemicals” to air pollution, and has published research for free.
Joel Kaufman, the journal's top editor, decided to stop accepting research because of the “lack of confidence” of contracting important costs such as copy editing and editing software, and the “lack of confidence” of important costs such as copy editing and editing software being updated.
He declined to comment on the publication's future prospects.
“If the journal is actually lost, it's a huge loss,” Jonathan Levy said. Chairman of the Ministry of Environment and Health at Boston University. “We're reducing the ability for people to have good information that they can use to make good decisions.”
The NEJM editor described the letter as “blushy threats.” On Tuesday, the journal Obstetricians and Gynecologists, published by the American Obstetricians, said they had received such letters.
Science journals have long been the target of the Trump administration's top health authorities.
In a book released last year, Dr. Martin A. McCurry, the new Food and Drug Administration commissioner, denounced the Journal Editorial Board only for information that supports “keeping the gate” and “group thinking tales.”
In an interview with the Dr. Hyman Show podcast last year, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now a secretary to the Department of Health and Human Services, said he plans to indict medical journals under the Federal Anti-Corruption Act.
“Unless you come up with a plan now to start publishing real science, I'm going to find a way to sue you,” he said.
Still, the presentation on EHP has confusing researchers. Researchers noted that funding cuts appear to contradict the priorities the Trump administration has stated.
For example, Kennedy repeatedly emphasizes the importance of studying the role of the environment in causing chronic disease. The new administration has also expressed interest in the transparency and public accessibility of the scientific journals that EHP was a pioneer.
EHP was one of the first “open access” journals and could be read by anyone without a subscription. And unlike many other open access journals, which often charge researchers thousands of dollars to publish their work, EHP's federal aid meant that small university scientists could publish without worrying about fees.
“There are multiple layers of irony here,” Dr. Levy said.
EHP is not the only journal caught up in a crossfire of funding cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The department's draft budget, obtained by The New York Times, proposes two journals published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: prevention of emerging infectious diseases and chronic diseases. Both are available free of charge to authors and readers, and are one of the top journals in the field.
HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon said there was “no final decision” on the upcoming budget.
Released monthly, emerging infectious diseases provide cutting-edge reports on the threat of infectious diseases from around the world.
Jason Kindrachuk, a virologist at the University of Manitoba, who published research on Marburg and the MPOX virus in the journal, said it helped shape preparation and response to the outbreak.
The news is “very discouraged,” he said.
