Publishing Biomedical Research: a rapidly evolving ecosystem.

The advancement of science requires the publication of research results so other scientists may examine, confirm, and build upon them, and the publishing ecosystem that mediates this process has undergone dramatic change over recent decades. This article takes a broad view of the biomedical research publishing system from its origins in the 17th century to the present day. It begins with a story from the author's lab that illustrates a scientist's complex interactions with the publishing system and then reviews the history, growth, and evolution of scientific publishing, including several recent disruptive developments: the digital transformation, the open access (OA) movement, the creation of "predatory journals," and the emergence of preprint archives. Each has influenced scientific peer review and editorial decision-making, two processes critical to the conduct of medical and scientific research and culture. After briefly discussing concerns about the impact of politics on editorial decision-making, the article closes with thoughts on the future evolution of this publishing ecosystem, which will impact the biomedical research ecosystem that depends upon it. Beyond accelerated speed and improved access to publications, the community should prioritize research aimed at further enhancing the quality and impact of published research, the core goal of the scientific enterprise.

The Diversity of Institutions Conducting Biomedical Research.

Biomedical research in the United States has contributed enormously to science and human health and is conducted in several thousand institutions that vary widely in their histories, missions, operations, size, and cultures. Though these institutional differences have important consequences for the research they conduct, the organizational taxonomy of US biomedical research has received scant systematic attention. Consequently, many observers and even participants are surprisingly unaware of important distinguishing attributes of these diverse institutions. This essay provides a high-level taxonomy of the institutional ecosystem of US biomedical research; illustrates key features of the ecosystem through portraits of eight institutions of varying age, size, culture, and missions, each representing a much larger class exhibiting additional diversity; and suggests topics for future research into the research output of institutional types that will be required to develop novel approaches to improving the function of the ecosystem.

Politicizing science funding undermines public trust in science, academic freedom, and the unbiased generation of knowledge.

This commentary documents how federal funding agencies are changing the criteria by which they distribute taxpayer money intended for scientific research. Increasingly, STEMM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine) funding agencies are requiring applicants for funding to include a plan to advance DEI ("Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion") in their proposals and to dedicate a part of the research budget to its implementation. These mandates undermine the academic freedom of researchers and the unbiased generation of knowledge needed for a well-functioning democracy. Maintaining excellence in science is fundamental to the continuation of the U.S. as a global economic leader. Science provides a basis for solving important global challenges such as security, energy, climate, and health. Diverting funding from science into activities unrelated to the production of knowledge undermines science's ability to serve humankind. When funding agencies politicize science by using their power to further a particular ideological agenda, they contribute to public mistrust in science. Hijacking science funding to promote DEI is thus a threat to our society.