A Scientist’s Stand Against Ideological Capture – Review of “Why I Cut Ties with Science’s Top Publisher” – Watts Up With That?

In an age when far too many scientists keep their heads down and their concerns to themselves, scientist Anna Krylov has done something refreshing: she has spoken plainly, publicly, and with precision. Her recent article, “Why I Cut Ties with Science’s Top Publisher,” is a clear-eyed examination of how one of the world’s most prestigious scientific publishers, Nature Portfolio, has drifted from the pursuit of truth toward the pursuit of ideology. Her piece is not only courageous—it’s badly needed. At Watts Up With That, we have long argued that once scientific journals begin valuing political narratives over empirical rigor, the entire purpose of scientific publishing is compromised. In a succinct “we told you so” op-ed, Krylov has now offered a firsthand account that illustrates exactly how that corruption unfolds in practice.

Krylov recounts her more than 30 years of publishing, reviewing, and participating at the highest levels of academic science, especially within the Nature family of journals. She once regarded publication there as a professional milestone. But she describes a fundamental shift: editorial instructions urging “citation justice,” review assignments tilted by demographic targets, and editorial policies that openly consider rejecting scientifically valid research if the perceived “harm” outweighs the benefit of publication. As she succinctly notes, choosing which studies to cite “based on who wrote it rather than what it demonstrates is not science—it is propaganda in footnote form.” That line alone captures a problem observers like us have been warning about for years: that the peer-review system is increasingly bending toward ideological performance rather than objective analysis.

She further details Nature Portfolio’s 2019 “diversity commitment,” which explicitly directs editors to “intentionally” seek out authors and reviewers according to identity categories. Krylov recalls receiving a recent request to review a technical manuscript and wondering whether she was selected because of her expertise or her “reproductive organs.” It’s a pointed observation, lightly humorous, but sharply revealing. Once demographic checklists matter more than competence, peer review ceases to be a quality-control mechanism and becomes a quota system adorned with scientific language. This sort of deformation hasn’t been limited to chemistry or psychology; those of us following the publication landscape in climate science have witnessed similar distortions for years, often justified as promoting “consensus” or shielding the public from “misinterpretation.”

Particularly troubling is the 2022 Nature Human Behavior editorial she cites, which declared that scientifically sound research could be rejected if editors deemed its potential societal “harms” too great. As Krylov notes, editors have no special expertise in sociology, politics, or ethics; their expertise is supposed to be in evaluating research quality. Yet once an editorial board decides its mission includes moral guardianship, the literature becomes a curated narrative rather than a transparent record of inquiry. We at WUWT have warned repeatedly that such editorial activism—especially in climate journals—creates a feedback loop that amplifies favored conclusions and suppresses skeptical or inconvenient findings. Krylov has simply documented the same process taking hold across a wider swath of scientific publishing.

Her background gives her warnings unusual gravity. Growing up in the Soviet Union, she understands what “optional” ideological statements become once an institution signals that ideology as a core value. She notes that Nature’s “optional” diversity statements resemble the mandatory political pledges that characterized Soviet scientific life. This isn’t hyperbole. Anyone who has watched the trends in Western academic journals—particularly the climate journals—over the last decade can recognize the pattern: what begins as a nudge becomes a norm, then a requirement. Suddenly, failure to echo political language becomes evidence of professional defect.

What makes Krylov’s article so compelling is that it is grounded in experience, not abstraction. She does not attack particular individuals, nor does she resort to grand narratives. She simply describes how policies that appear benign on their surface—citation balancing, demographic outreach, editorial “harm” screening—accumulate until they reshape the culture of scientific publishing. When journals decide that their job includes upholding ideological priorities, skepticism is no longer welcomed, dissent becomes threatening, and the literature begins to ossify around pre-approved themes. At WUWT, we have long contended that this trend is why climate science has become so resistant to critical scrutiny. Krylov’s account shows that the problem is now broader and more embedded than many realized.

It appears that Nature’s folly is indicative of the peer review system that has lost its way and its integrity in the process.

Near the end of her piece, Krylov emphasizes that restoring scientific integrity cannot be achieved through political decree. Even if universities and agencies scale back DEI initiatives, the fundamental health of the scientific enterprise depends on scientists themselves insisting on objectivity, universal standards, open critique, and the freedom to follow data where it leads. “The pendulum will not swing back on its own; we must push it,” she writes. To anyone who has watched journals drift steadily toward ideological activism, that line rings true. These institutions will not spontaneously correct themselves. They will respond only when scientists—and readers—refuse to play along.

My Final Thought:

Krylov’s decision to sever ties with Nature Portfolio is a rare act of professional integrity, and her explanation of that decision deserves wide attention. Her article confirms what many within the scientific community have whispered privately but hesitated to say publicly: that the world’s most influential journals have begun prioritizing messaging over merit. At WUWT, we have argued for years that climate journals have been moving in this direction; Krylov has now shown that the trend is systemic to science, not isolated to climate science.

In the end, her piece is a hopeful reminder that the scientific enterprise still has defenders willing to speak up. If science is to remain a tool for understanding reality—rather than enforcing political consensus—it will require many more voices like hers. Journals can only drift into ideology when the scientific community allows it. The moment researchers stop accepting ideological filters as the price of publication is the moment those filters begin to lose their power.