- \n
- US government executive orders targeting EDI programmes are prompting federally funded journals to censor demographic data and equity-focused language.<\/li>\n
- Authors and editors are pushing back to ensure data are made available and to maintain the integrity of the scientific record.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/AdobeStock_1601778521.jpeg?resize=1024%2C683&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nFollowing US government executive orders to end federal equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) programmes<\/a> and to only recognise two sexes, The BMJ<\/em><\/a> has emphasised the importance of retaining sex and gender data<\/a> in published research. In an article in Undark<\/a>, Peter Andrey Smith highlights another example of the scientific community pushing back against federal pressure to remove EDI-related data.<\/p>\n
Authors make a stand<\/strong><\/p>\n
Smith describes the case of anthropologist Tamar Antin and co-authors, who faced an unusual request from the federally funded journal Public Health Reports<\/em><\/a> following acceptance of their paper on tobacco use. The editors requested removal of the word \u201cequitably\u201d and demographic data, citing compliance with executive orders. Rather than grant the request, Antin and co-authors withdrew their paper entirely and went public<\/a>. This \u201cact of defiance\u201d was met with widespread support from the scientific community, who argued that removing demographic data doesn\u2019t just affect one paper\u2019s conclusions \u2013 it hampers future studies by denying other scientists the opportunity to reanalyse findings or build on existing research.<\/p>\n
\n
\u201cRemoving demographic data doesn\u2019t just affect one paper\u2019s conclusions \u2013 it hampers future studies by denying other scientists the opportunity to reanalyse findings or build on existing research.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The bigger picture<\/strong><\/p>\n
Smith also shares examples of federally funded researchers requesting:<\/p>\n
- \n
- withdrawal<\/li>\n
- removal of authors from bylines<\/li>\n
- specific wording changes<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
to accepted papers, citing the political landscape. While this affects a minority of submissions directly, maintaining the integrity of the scientific record is paramount<\/a>.<\/p>\n
Looking ahead, the Committee on Publication Ethics\u2019 position statement<\/a> emphasises that publishing decisions and language choices should not be influenced by politics or government policies, and there is no place for retractions to censor the scientific record.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Aspirations_Gerissa-Fowler_1.png?resize=1024%2C125&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n