At least three medical journals have received letters from the U.S. Department of Justice that questioned their editorial practices and standards, prompting several journals to push back and assert their independence.
British medical journal The Lancet, which did not receive one of the letters, published an editorial describing the inquiries as “harassment” and intimidation, adding that U.S. science was being “violently dismembered” by the Trump administration.
Last week, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, sent a letter to the CHEST Journal, a scientific journal for chest doctors, implying it was partisan and asking a series of questions about the steps it took to include competing viewpoints and protect the public from misinformation.
The letter drew ire from a First Amendment group and some scientists, who raised concerns that inquiries from law enforcement could chill academic freedom and speech. The letter prompted the journal to post a statement saying its publisher, the American College of Chest Physicians, “supports the journal’s editorial independence.”
This week, the New England Journal of Medicine told NBC News it had received a similar letter from the interim U.S. attorney.
In a response to the Justice Department shared with NBC News, Dr. Eric Rubin, the journal’s editor-in-chief, asserted the journal’s rights as an independent publisher.
“We use rigorous peer review and editorial processes to ensure the objectivity and reliability of the research we publish,” Rubin wrote in the letter. “We support the editorial independence of medical journals and their First Amendment rights to free expression. The Journal actively fosters scholarly scientific dialogue and remains steadfast in its commitment to supporting authors, readers, and patients.”
A third journal, Obstetrics and Gynecology, confirmed to NBC News it also received a letter from Martin.
“Obstetrics and Gynecology has editorial independence from ACOG but shares our mission of improving outcomes for all people in need of obstetric and gynecologic care,” a spokesperson for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wrote in an emailed statement. “We are proud of the Journal’s focus on scientific data and patient-centered and respectful, evidence-based care.”
MedPage Today, a medical industry news outlet, first reported the existence of the new DOJ letters.
The Justice Department’s D.C. office did not respond to NBC News requests for comment.
Meanwhile, The Lancet, a British medical journal founded more than 200 years ago, took a more strident tone. The journal, which said it had not received a letter, published a scathing editorial in solidarity with other journals, describing the Justice Department’s letters as “harassment” that comes amid a “wider radical dismantling of the USA’s scientific infrastructure” by the Trump administration.
“This is an obvious ruse to strike fear into journals and impinge on their right to independent editorial oversight. The Lancet stands with CHEST and the other medical journals that are being intimidated by the Trump administration,” the editorial said. “Medical journals should not expect to be spared by the Trump administration’s attack on science, nor should health institutions such as the NIH, the CDC, or academic medical centres.”
Scientific journals publish studies to share new findings and insights with colleagues. Some journals are operated by specialized professional groups; others are operated by publishing houses focused on science. Credible journals ensure studies undergo peer review, in which research receives scrutiny from outside experts to check for errors or poor research practices.
The inquiry into scientific journals comes as the Trump administration has executed funding and personnel cuts to federal science, health and research agencies.
NBC News requested information from several major groups of scientific and medical journals about whether they’d received similar letters from the Justice Department.
Representatives from Science, Elsevier, Nature and JAMA, the medical journal of the American Medical Association, did not respond to requests for comment.
The Wiley publishing company said it was “aware of the letter” from the interim U.S. attorney, but did not elaborate.
“We remain committed to editorial independence, scholarly rigor, and the highest standards of publishing ethics,” a Wiley spokesperson said in a statement. “Our journals evaluate submissions based on (scientific) merit, and we work closely with society partners to ensure a broad range of perspectives can contribute to the advancement of knowledge.”