The US Attorney Is Watching

Yesterday, letters from US Attorneys were delivered to various scientific and scholarly publishers. The letters asked, among other things, whether journals were “partisans in various scientific debates.”

At least three separate non-profit scientific publishers received the letters. Attempts to confirm letters were received by others were met with a telling silence.

The letters were virtually identical (a scan of the actual letter came later):

As United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, I receive frequent requests for information and clarification. I take these requests seriously and act on them with letters like this one you are receiving.

It has been brought to my attention that more and more journals and publications like [insert journal title] are conceding that they are partisans in various scientific debates — that is, they have a position for which they are advocating either due to advertisement (under postal code) or sponsorship (under relevant fraud regulations). The public has certain expectations and you have certain responsibilities.

Would you please answer these questions:

— How do you assess your responsibilities to protect the public from misinformation?
— How do you clearly articulate to the public when you have certain viewpoints that are influenced by your ongoing relations with supporters, funders, advertisers, and others?
— Do you accept articles or essays from competing viewpoints?
— How do you assess the role played by government officials and funding organizations like the National Institutes of Health in the development of submitted articles?
— How do you handle allegations that authors of works in your journals may have misled their readers?

I am also interested to know if publishers, journals, and organizations with which you work are adjusting their method of acceptance of competing viewpoints. Are there new norms being developed and offered?

There are a number of notable aspects to these letters: