Lancet editor-in-chief calls for ‘activist’ journals

[Andy]

But I thought activism was bad???

Academic journals must become more “activist” if they are to survive, seeking to “change the direction of society” rather than “passively waiting” for manuscripts, according to the editor-in-chief of The Lancet.

The medical journal is one of a number of titles now explicitly committed to helping pursue the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which range from eradicating hunger to reducing inequalities, as titles try to carve out a new role in a world where publishing has moved online.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/lancet-editor-chief-calls-activist-journals

 

[Hoopoe]

It's probably only a club for the "good" activists. The ones that don't make anyone important look bad and don't threaten commercial interests.

 

[Adam pwme]

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

Sorry mate but we don't actually need you to survive.
If you want to do PR work the first thing to learn is not to let on right at the beginning Dr Horton.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

What I think we need is activist Andean geese. They have been discriminated against for too long now.

 

[Snowdrop]

Fear is a great motivator for pretending to change.

 

[Wonko]

Isn't the ress supposed to report the 'news', in that they are not supposed to set out to make it?

When the tabloids have been caught doing that people have generally not been amused.

...and I thought that there was a word for news outlets that reported in such a fashion as to try and steer society in the direction they want - propaganda.

 

[Three Chord Monty]

But I thought activism was bad???

Activism is good

The Lancet is good

Psychiatrists are good



GET is good

CBT is good

CFS doctors bad



ME is CFS

ME/CFS Activism is bad

 

[Lucibee]

Horton reinvents the society review journal.

 

[James Morris-Lent]

propaganda

I agree. Sounds like a think-tank with a magazine. He can be my guest if it means a shift to a more sensible overall scientific vetting/publishing paradigm.

 

[Obermann]

I think it would be a big mistake to politicise scientific journals. Scientists will bend their results to fit the political agenda they are pursuing. There will be no checkpoints to scrutinise the political goals or to evaluate the outcome of political programs. I think it is important to separate institutions. Political leaders and policy makers should have to justify and defend their policies in the light of independent scientific research, not shape the research to justify their political goals.

 

[JohnTheJack]

Oh, that's brilliant.