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, 2025). 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.
Simply beautiful.
“This process should be guided by scientific rigor and a commitment to finding objective truth.”
There are Lefties screaming “NAZI!!!!!11!!!” at their computers right now, having read this.
She burnt them baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadddddddddddd if you read her full response.
Oh yeah. She didn’t hold back. Brought receipts too.
And they -deserve- it. #Nature is no better than #ScientificAmerican anymore, another formerly respectable journal turned to parrot-cage liner.
Get Woke go broke, baby. They’re circling the drain.
L – When attempting to engage people in a scientific discussion in the pursuit of truth on a matter of some controversy. I find it helpful to begin with the following question.
: “Is censorship part of the scientific method?”
If they answer no. Then there is a chance of a good discussion leading to a better understanding of the question, at minimum. But hopefully enough agreement on facts; that lead to the hypothesis in question being 1. proven, 2. disproven, or 3. indeterminate, as in requiring more facts or proving the hypothesis is not a scientific question e.i. Not falsifiable, the falsification principle(Karl Popper).
If they are too frightened to answer or endorse censorship. They are not amenable to reason. Most likely, they are ideologically possessed e.i. Paganism, (Cult.) Marxism, et al or may simply be scientifically illiterate. Though, in the case of the Panic-demic, I found some people more easily understood questions of medical ethics than science.
L – “Do I work for the university or Tony Soprano?”
https://hxstem.substack.com/p/do-i-work-for-a-public-university
For anyone asking themselves, what the heck happened to the universities. That is a titter of a title.
What an enjoyable read! 🙂
But…But…But…The Dead Rodent assures me that “Peer Review” is as honest as the day is long, w/ no bias whatsoever!