AJPH and the Threat of Political Interference in Scientific Publishing

Since taking office, the new US administration has issued numerous executive orders (e.g., order 14151 and 14168 of January 20, 2025) that significantly impact public health research. They restrict the scope of federally funded research in areas already understudied and limit public health data collection and availability, among other imposed limitations. Officially, many of these measures aim to eliminate research perceived as promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. In practice, however, if allowed to stand, they may weaken the foundation of governmental and academic research.

These executive orders have direct implications for the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) and the scientific press. In recent weeks, several requests have been made to AJPH mentioning these orders. Officials from federal institutions have requested the withdrawal of articles supported by federal funds, citing concerns that they address politically sensitive topics such as transgender health. Authors have sought to modify accepted or in-press articles by removing their names from the author list. Other requests include modifying specific wording or eliminating sentences after the article has been accepted.

These requests do not stem from scientific concerns about methodological rigor or scientific merit but rather reflect external pressures related to 2025 presidential executive orders. In this editorial, I outline why AJPH has consistently declined requests motivated by political and ideological pressure and explain why doing so is necessary to preserve the integrity of the scientific record.

WHAT CONSTITUTES A PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE?

An accepted article is a scholarly work that has undergone rigorous peer review to ensure its validity and originality. Once accepted, it undergoes additional revisions, copyediting, and production. At this stage, the Journal has added substantial value to the article, ensuring its clarity and scientific integrity.

Thus, a final article is not solely the work of the authors but a vetted scientific contribution in which the Journal plays a crucial role. While AJPH does not necessarily hold the copyright to every article, it has an obligation to maintain the integrity of the published record. This responsibility includes declining requests for any modifications after an article has been accepted except when such modifications are justified by rigorous, state-of-the-art scientific reasoning.

It is also important to distinguish between articles under review and those that have been accepted. While authors may revise their work during the peer review process, once an article has been accepted, it represents a finalized contribution to scientific knowledge and should only be corrected or withdrawn under extraordinary circumstances.

Allowing, after an article has been accepted, name removals or content modifications for ideological or political reasons fundamentally undermines the long-term integrity of the scientific record. The listed authors met authorship criteria at the time of submission, and their names reflect accountability for the work. Accommodating these requests based on shifting political priorities risks setting a dangerous precedent—one in which research findings can be altered retroactively because of ideological pressures rather than scientific integrity.

THE PRECEDENT FOR POLITICALLY MOTIVATED CENSORSHIP

The suppression of scientific research for political reasons is not unprecedented in American history. Examples include McCarthy-era blacklisting of scientists suspected of communist affiliations, which led to academic dismissals and funding cuts; neglect and underfunding of AIDS research in the 1980s, which hindered studies on LGBTQ+ health; government-imposed restrictions on discussing contraception and reproductive health in federally funded public health programs; and censorship of climate change science, notably between 2017 and 2021, when references to climate change were systematically removed from multiple federal agency websites and political interference affected climate research.

These historical instances of suppression of scientific research for political reasons resulted in censored or manipulated research to align with political agendas, stagnation in public health advancements, and inadequate responses to health crises, such as the AIDS epidemic. These historical instances show how small concessions to political pressures can snowball into broader suppression of research, censorship of public health information, and obstructions to scientific progress.

The current situation follows the same fundamental pattern: scientific findings are being challenged not based on evidence but based on ideological considerations. We must therefore consider what actions—however small—are necessary to counter tactics that create a chilling effect on scientific discourse and, ultimately, risk corrupting the integrity of science.

Granting name removals or content modification on a case-by-case basis may turn into a routine concession, ultimately weakening the Journal’s role as an independent arbiter of science.

WHY AJPH MUST REJECT CENSORSHIP

Scientific journals must remain committed to editorial independence and the integrity of the published record. If AJPH were to accommodate politically motivated modifications, it would set a dangerous precedent—one that could be exploited to reshape the scientific record based on ideology rather than evidence, ultimately resulting in harm to populations. The Journal has a duty to ensure that scientific publications remain independent, based on methodological rigor and scientific merit, and are not a product of political expediency.