Science Is Not Ideological

29 April, 2026

Donate Subscribe

Observatorio de Bioética UCV

Voices

13 November, 2025

5 min

Science Is Not Ideological

Scientist Anna Krylov denounces the ideological drift in Springer Nature's publishing process and warns of the loss of rigor in science

The integrity of the scientific publishing process at the Springer Nature publishing group, which includes key publications such as Nature Communications, has been called into question following a complaint by scientist Anna Krylov, a chemistry professor at the University of Southern California. Krylov announced her resignation as a reviewer, arguing that the publisher has institutionalized censorship and adopted ideological biases that sacrifice merit in favor of identity-based criteria, in line with a “social justice agenda.” This editorial policy is manifested in guidelines that, according to the researcher, promote a preference for female researchers, postponing scientific competence, or advise the inclusion of bibliographic citations from members of identity groups without the necessary rigor. From a bioethical perspective, this extension of arbitrary ideological criteria, which stray far from scientific evidence, to the mechanisms for disseminating findings is considered a betrayal of the rigor and the pursuit of truth that should be demanded of the scientific world, thus calling into question the reliability of media outlets that have been considered benchmarks of quality.

In a letter sent to the prestigious Springer Nature publishing group, which publishes journals such as Nature Communications, Nature Reviews Psychology, and Nature Human Behavior, scientist Anna Krylov, a chemistry professor at the University of Southern California, expresses her refusal to continue collaborating with the publisher as a reviewer of scientific articles. She cites the ideological biases, far removed from any scientific rigor, that the aforementioned publishing group has recently exhibited when selecting the articles it decides to publish, as well as the reviewers—expert scientists in the various fields of research related to these articles, whose opinion is fundamental to their acceptance or rejection.

Photo: UHH/CUI, Adler

On October 24, 2025, Krylov explained in his letter the reasons why he had decided to decline the offer to review the manuscript entitled “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. His refusal also extended to future proposals, as long as Nature did not modify its policies for accepting articles and reviewers.

The renowned scientist stated that “regrettably, the Nature group has abandoned its original mission in favor of a social justice agenda. It has institutionalized censorship, implemented policies that sacrifice merit for identity-based criteria, and introduced social manipulation into its author guidelines and publication process. As a result, articles published in Nature journals can no longer be considered rigorous science.”

And he illustrated this with examples referring to other publications of the group, such as the Springer Nature Diversity Commitment (Skipper & Inchcoombe, 2019), which aims to prioritize diversity and inclusion in the conferences that are organized, their contents, the reviewers involved and the editorial committees.

Thus, preference is given to female researchers, prioritizing positive gender discrimination over scientific competence. The researcher wondered whether her selection as a reviewer was based on her scientific competence or simply on her gender.

In his letter, he cites the case of Nature Reviews Psychology, a journal belonging to the same group, which encourages the inclusion of bibliographic citations in manuscripts from members of privileged identity groups, even if their work lacks the necessary merit or relevance. This represents a disregard for the scientific quality required of the sources cited by authors, in order to continue promoting positive discrimination in favor of groups considered to have a privileged identity, according to the journal’s own criteria, of course.

Finally, Krylov denounces the practice of institutionalized censorship by the aforementioned publishing house.

Thus, the journal Nature Human Behavior published a censorship manifesto in which it openly declares its intention to censor legitimate research findings that it considers potentially “harmful” to certain groups.

This censorship, promoted by purely ideological criteria that have nothing to do with the scientific rigor required of a publishing group with the prestige of Nature, seriously casts doubt on the reliability of the scientific dissemination media that have hitherto been considered benchmarks of quality.

Bioethical assessment

Scientific research and publication are mutually dependent and supportive. Perversion in the process, both by researchers and by the media that disseminate their results, can not only invalidate the enormous effort of research groups but also betray the intended recipients of these findings. These recipients will find it easier to access the work of socially privileged groups at the expense of others, even those with potentially more beneficial and far-reaching results for scientific progress.

It should be pointed out that the criteria this particular publisher applies to classify certain groups as preferred social groups that it intends to prioritize in its publishing process are absolutely arbitrary, conditioned by prevailing cultural and power movements, which thus transfer to the scientific world the biases associated with ideologies, which sail far from scientific evidence, to succumb to fashionable social movements, in favor of some and to the detriment of others.

The promotion of minority groups and trends, such as racial, social, gender or political groups, is well known in the fields of politics, film, media or social networks.

Extending positive discrimination in favor of arbitrarily selected groups when publishing findings and scientific research is a betrayal of the rigor and the search for truth that must be demanded of the scientific world, whoever has investigated, whoever has to judge it or whoever has to publish it, who should not yield to anything other than the quality of the work, its general interest and its strict veracity and usefulness.

Julio Tudela. Bioethics Observatory. Catholic University of Valencia

Observatorio de Bioética UCV

El Observatorio de Bioética se encuentra dentro del Instituto Ciencias de la vida de la Universidad Católica de Valencia “San Vicente Mártir” . En el trasfondo de sus publicaciones, se defiende la vida humana desde la fecundación a la muerte natural y la dignidad de la persona, teniendo como objetivo aunar esfuerzos para difundir la cultura de la vida como la define la Evangelium Vitae.