A new open-access journal founded by COVID-19 policy critics including NIH nominee Dr. Jay Bhattacharya has intensified debates about medical publishing standards. The Journal of the Academy of Public Health promises radical transparency with public peer reviews and paid reviewers, positioning itself against traditional publishers' 40% profit margins.
Co-founder Dr. Martin Kulldorff claims the platform "removes gatekeeping" through open submissions, though critics note membership restrictions. "Universities pay fortunes for journals using freely contributed work," Kulldorff stated in his manifesto.
"Scientific publishers exploit academic labor while silencing inconvenient truths,"he argued on social media.
The journal's board features polarizing figures:
- Scott Atlas (Trump's former COVID advisor)
- John Ioannidis (jetBlue-linked immunity study author)
- Great Barrington Declaration co-authors
University of Washington biologist Dr. Carl Bergstrom blasted the initiative:
"This isn't pandemic-era dissent – it's an organized attack on evidence-based medicine dressed as academic freedom."
Accusations of political bias intensified when RealClearFoundation – linked to conservative donors – announced the launch. Skeptics highlight January articles questioning mask efficacy and vaccine trial designs, mirroring founders' pandemic-era positions.
With Bhattacharya and FDA nominee Dr. Marty Makary "on leave" from editorial roles, concerns persist about federal health leadership influencing research norms. As Bergstrom noted:
"Will NIH suddenly care about free speech after muzzling diversity initiatives?"
The journal now faces scrutiny over undisclosed funding sources and its inactive parent Academy of Public Health. As vaccine safety debates rage anew, this publishing experiment could redefine how controversial research enters mainstream discourse.