Ever wonder if science itself can become biased? A public health journal is stirring controversy with its recent calls for submissions, drawing sharp criticism for allegedly prioritizing partisan agendas over objective scientific inquiry. Is the pursuit of ‘social justice’ now overshadowing foundational medical ethics?

A prominent public health journal is currently embroiled in a significant controversy, facing accusations of undermining scientific inquiry through what critics describe as “blatantly partisan” calls for submissions. This development has sparked a wider debate about the politicization of medicine and the erosion of objective analysis within scientific publications.

The Boston Congress of Public Health Review, which identifies as a “social justice” health journal, issued a call for its fall 2025 issue, specifically targeting researchers and students “impacted by conservative political policies.” Among the highlighted conservative policies are “abortion bans on health care,” “anti-trans laws on access to gender-affirming care,” and issues related to “LGBTQ+ health” and “anti-climate policies,” clearly signaling a specific ideological direction for its forthcoming content.

While the journal’s parent organization, the Boston Congress of Public Health, states its mission is to “improve health equity and social justice globally through the publication of public health content grounded in the thoughtful evaluation of evidence,” critics argue that its recent actions contradict this commitment. The organization’s focus on evidence-based inquiry appears to be overshadowed by overtly political leanings, raising questions about the true nature of its scientific pursuits and potential ideological bias.

The partisan nature of the call for submissions drew immediate and strong criticism from Do No Harm, a medical watchdog organization dedicated to de-politicizing medicine. According to Kurt Miceli, Medical Director at Do No Harm, the journal’s approach is actively subverting the fundamental principles of scientific investigation, replacing rigorous research with a predetermined political narrative, thereby challenging scientific integrity.

Miceli further elaborated that the Boston Congress of Public Health Review’s “blatantly partisan call for submissions highlights the harmful politicization of medicine.” Rather than prioritizing advancements in public health and the improvement of medical outcomes through objective, evidence-based inquiry, the journal appears to elevate ideological themes such as social justice and health equity, potentially at the expense of impartial analysis, thereby compromising its medical ethics.

Beyond the initial contentious topics, the journal also expressed interest in submissions on highly charged subjects like “sexuality and two-spirited in public health,” “policing, disappearing, and terrorism: deportation in 2025,” and the “impact of white supremacy, nativist policies, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and stigma on migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers.” These themes further reinforce the perception of a journal heavily invested in specific partisan science and social advocacy rather than broad public health research.

Adding to the controversy, the journal explicitly suggests a “criteria checklist” for submissions, encouraging authors to ensure the presence of specific demographic groups. This includes “racial and ethnic minorities,” “LGBTQ+ individuals,” and “individuals in sex work,” among others. This guideline suggests a prescriptive approach to research, potentially biasing studies towards predetermined outcomes and raising further concerns about medical ethics and objective reporting.

Ultimately, critics contend that this focus on identity politics and progressive activism displaces empirical study with ideological narratives. Such a shift, Miceli asserts, “undermines the essential role of a medical journal: to foster fact-based dialogue and improve healthcare through scientific investigation,” leading to a significant public health debate over the very purpose of scientific publications in contemporary society.

The controversy surrounding the journal’s editorial stance underscores a growing concern within the scientific community regarding healthcare politicization. As the line between advocacy and objective research blurs, maintaining scientific integrity becomes paramount for institutions purporting to advance public health and contribute to credible knowledge, preventing ideological bias from compromising critical findings.