U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he may prohibit government scientists from publishing their research in leading medical journals, including The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and JAMA. Kennedy made the remarks during a recent appearance on the “Ultimate Human” podcast, accusing these journals of being “corrupt” and under the sway of pharmaceutical companies.
To be considered for publication in top medical journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, and JAMA, studies must meet a rigorous set of requirements designed to ensure scientific validity, ethical integrity, and relevance.
Manuscripts must present new, unpublished research with robust methodology, appropriate data analysis, and clear relevance to medical science or practice. Submissions undergo a thorough peer review process, and authors are required to disclose any conflicts of interest, follow detailed formatting guidelines, and adhere to ethical standards such as informed consent and patient confidentiality. Many journals also encourage or require data transparency, asking authors to make their data available for review or public access. These journals maintain high rejection rates, often accepting less than 10% of submissions.
Many journals rely heavily on revenue from pharmaceutical advertising, reprint sales, and sponsored supplements, with companies sometimes spending over a million dollars on reprints of favorable studies. Despite these concerns, it is important to recognize that not every article or editorial decision is compromised by industry influence. The submission and review process is regarded as the standard for unbiased, trustworthy research.
As an alternative, Kennedy proposes that HHS create in-house publications, which he claims would “become the preeminent journals, because if you get [NIH] funding, it is anointing you as a good, legitimate scientist”. However, details about how these new journals would be structured, whether they would maintain rigorous peer review, or how they would ensure independence from political influence remain unclear.
The proposal has drawn criticism from public health experts and academic leaders. Dr. Adam Gaffney, a public health researcher and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, warned that “banning NIH-funded researchers from publishing in leading medical journals and requiring them to publish only in journals that carry the RFK Jr seal of approval would delegitimize taxpayer-funded research”. He and others argue that such a move would undermine the credibility and global reach of U.S. scientific research, which relies on rigorous, independent peer review and broad dissemination.
Gaffney emphasized that drug approvals are grounded in rigorous science, and while it is important to guard against undue commercial influence on research, such safeguards are unlikely to be effective given recent cuts to public health and research funding under the Trump administration, as well as Kennedy’s own history of promoting anti-vaccine views.
Forcing government scientists to publish only in government-approved outlets raises concerns about censorship and the politicization of science. It could stifle dissenting voices and limit the diversity of scientific perspectives.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has a documented pattern of citing non-existent or fringe research to support his health policy recommendations and public statements. Most recently, his “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) report, intended to address chronic disease in children, referenced over 500 studies, but several of these studies do not exist, according to multiple investigations. Journalists and researchers found at least seven citations in the report that were fabricated or misattributed, with some authors listed as having written papers they never published.
Kennedy’s reliance on dubious or debunked sources is not new; he has a long history of promoting fringe theories and misinformation, particularly around vaccines and public health. He has previously advanced baseless claims linking vaccines to autism and has shared withdrawn or discredited studies to bolster his arguments, despite overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary.
