Why I no longer engage with Nature publishing group
My response to a recent invitation to review a manuscript for Nature Communications
Dear Dr. Kuttner:
I am writing in response to your invitation to review the manuscript titled “Large circular dichroism in the total photoemission yield of free chiral nanoparticles created by a pure electric dipole effect” submitted for publication in Nature Communications.
Although the topic is within my field of expertise and I would normally welcome the opportunity to contribute to peer review, I must decline. Furthermore, I have decided not to engage with journals belonging to the Nature group in any professional capacity in the future because the group has adopted policies and practices that are incompatible with the mission of a scientific publisher.
Scientific publishers play a key role in the production of knowledge — they are a pillar of what Jonathan Rauch has termed the “the Constitution of Knowledge” (Rauch, 2021). The role of the publisher is to be an epistemic funnel: it accepts claims to truth at one end, but permits only those that withstand organized scrutiny to emerge from the other, a function traditionally performed by a rigorous peer-review and editorial process. This process should be guided by scientific rigor and a commitment to finding objective truth.
Unfortunately, the Nature group has abandoned its mission in favor of advancing a social justice agenda. The group has institutionalized censorship, implemented policies that have sacrificed merit in favor of identity-based criteria, and injected social engineering into its author guidelines and publishing process. The result is that papers published in Nature journals can no longer be regarded as rigorous science.
Three representative examples illustrate this decline:
1. Institutionalized social engineering
The Springer Nature Diversity Commitment (Skipper & Inchcoombe, 2019), which you quoted in your invitation letter, openly pledges to “take action to improve diversity and inclusion in the conferences we organise, and in our commissioned content, the peer review population and editorial boards.” Editors are “asked to intentionally and proactively reach out to women researchers” and authors are instructed to suggest reviewers “with diversity in mind.” In other words, editorial choices and peer review are to be guided not solely by competence but by demographic attributes. I cannot stop but wondering — was I asked to review the manuscript because of my expertise in the subject matter or because of my reproductive organs?
2. Ideological subversion of literature citations
Nature Reviews Psychology (Unsigned, 2025) now encourages authors to practice “citation justice” — that is, to social-engineer their manuscript’s bibliography to promote members of favored identity groups, even if their works lack the requisite merit or relevance. “Citation justice” is particularly harmful because it undermines the rigor and reliability of published research. When references are chosen not for their scientific relevance or quality but to promote the work of preferred identity groups, the integrity of science itself is compromised (Shaw, 2025; Coyne, 2025).
3. Institutionalized censorship
Nature Human Behavior has published a censorship manifesto (Unsigned, 2022) — now widely criticized (see, for example, Rauch, 2022; Winegard, 2022; Krylov & Tanzman, 2023) — in which they openly declare their intent to censor legitimate research findings that they deem potentially “harmful” to certain groups. Not only is it arrogant for editors to presume they have the expertise to make such judgments, the practice is antithetical to the production of knowledge.
Any of these policies, taken alone, would undermine the epistemic standards of scientific publishing as a pillar of the truth-seeking enterprise. Together they represent a profound corruption of purpose. The purpose of science is the pursuit of truth, not the advancement of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
These examples disturbingly reveal that scientific publishing at Nature has become ideologically corrupt. For this reason, as a scientist committed to excellence and the advancement of knowledge, I cannot in good conscience continue to engage with the Nature publishing group.
Should Nature recommit to scientific excellence, I will be happy to revisit my decision. In the meantime, I will encourage my fellow scientists to follow my example and stand up for the integrity of science.
Sincerely,
Anna I. Krylov, USC Associates Chair in Natural Sciences and Professor of Chemistry
October 23, 2025
References:
Coyne, J. (2025), “Citation Justice”: Turning Science into Social Engineering, Why Evolution Is True.
Krylov, A.I. & Tanzman, J. (2023), Critical Social Justice Subverts Scientific Publishing, European Review 31 527.
Rauch, J. (2021), The Constitution of Knowledge. Brookings Institution Press.
Rauch, J. (2022), Nature Human Misbehavior: Politicized Science is Neither Science nor Progress.
Shaw, E. (2025), When “Diverse Citations” Replace Diverse Ideas, Free the Inquiry, Heterodox Academy.
Skipper, M. & Inchcoombe, S. (2019), Announcing a New Diversity Commitment for Springer Nature’s Research Publishing.
Unsigned (2022), Science Must Respect the Dignity and Rights of all Humans. Nature Human Behavior 6 1029.
Unsigned (2025), Citation Diversity Statements, Nature Reviews Psychology 4 617.
Winegard, B. (2022), The Fall of ‘Nature’, Quillette.
Good for you. We need more of this.
“Not only is it arrogant for editors to presume they have the expertise to make such judgments, the practice is antithetical to the production of knowledge.”
I’d say they’re not presuming to be experts, but rather exercising their power over the field to advance their perverted politics. Knowledge and truth is of far less importance than “social justice” to these idiots.
Bravo!
I excused myself from reviewing DOE grant applications a few years ago when they started requiring DEI statements, and sent a letter stating my reasons in clear language.