WHO withdrew the study on the use of hydroxychloroquine based on a single paper published in The Lancet journal without waiting for verifications ... this example seems to me to be an answer to your question

Good question, I would say it should not. What we as editors should do is whether the research is executed properly, provides new insights and advances current debates. I have worked for Q1 journals like Journal of Business Ethics in which we as subject editors received clear instructions to respect the author´s voice during the review process, and I think this is a good policy. at the same time, I have sometimes the feeling that political viewpoints, but also competing research traditions play a role in more theoretical driven research area´s like my own, philosphy. I personally find this annoying and I try to avoid this myself als editor and reviewer of papers. hope this helps.

Thanks for the replies. I also think that an "editorial line" is necessary but that this should never go against the evidence provided by the data.

At present most journals are so swamped with papers that they are unlikely to even read all the papers. They are probably selecting the ones to read based on the editors preference for the font and layout!!!

Unfortunely, a lot of science is financed with government money and that makes it vunerable to pilitical influence. But medical/scientific evidence shouldn’t be depended on someone’s political conviction. The responsibility for human life and wellbeing must be coming first. It’s an ethical duty, even for persons with questionable morals, to see that acting in this way is irresponsible and defnitely unacceptable. Sometimes politics is like a disease which goes through every facet of life.

Editors should first insure that the questions that submission is addressing is clear and that the method employed is adequate and its weaknesses are noted in the piece. If human subjects are involved, is there evidence of responsible IRB review? If non-animals are subjects, did the research get reviewed for the ethics of their use. Then there are duties to reader: does the work waste readers’ time, e.g., is it on a topic related to the mission of the journal. If research standards are met, it supports the democratic ethos of science to print findings that are either novel or serve the need for replicating or contesting earlier studies. Printing these is a duty of journals worth their salt, unless it is trivial work or more important work is competing for space. it seems to me hat the best way to handle politically objectionable findings is to print an editorial in the same issue or print critiques on a regular basis. This is a long winded way to say that the referees should do a good job assessing the factual claims and the reasoning based on the fact claims, and the moral issues are important enough to be aired. It is not about the editor. It is about the process.

Thank you for your replies :)

In my opinion every “scientific” findings have some implications for policymakers. Science for only scientists is useless. The thing important is that the mission of the journal as well the rules for publication are clear and fair. Editors and publishers should be reciprocally independent, but ultimately publishers choose their editors and vice versa. Thus the “political” orientation of the publishers can affect aims and scope of the journal and as a consequence also the thought of editors.

It is further obvious that editors must take into account the interests of their journal, in terms of quality of publication and implications of the research published for their journal’s editorial policies.

The first evaluation of a submitted paper is at technical level, afterly the evaluation concerns the coherence with the aims of the journal, finally editors should assess the novelty that the paper introduces in the field of study.

However, the most important thing is always the respect of the best practices on publishing ethics and this must be true for both editors and authors. Only in this way the political orientation that all of us have, including researchers, can be morally and ethically acceptable.

Surely we are missing the point. Although Political goals ought to be for the common good, they are all too short term in the pursuit of power. On the other hand, ethical and moral concerns are not arbitrary, not negotiable, they are universal and eternal.

No, it can not. Always and everywhere the science, as knowledge, is cleaned and purified from every political orientation of the editors and scientists yet.

Sciences are not only physics, chemistry or maths, but also public health, social sciences and political sciences. Thus, many “scientific” findings have often practical implications for policymakers. Furthermore, almost all journals are supported or funded by scientific associations and must have editorial policies. Also scientists are living and thinking people. The hot question, in my opinion, is whether both editors and authors do have or don’t have some conflicts of interests to be declared. The issue of ethics rules for publishing is addressed by ICMJE guidelines as well as by other guidelines.

Dear Dr. Matteo Nioi ,

I think that if politics interferes with any action that fails it, and there are many failed experiences that we all witness in most countries of the world when politics interfered, what is the relationship of politics with science and scientific publishing? !!!! Of course this is totally unacceptable.

So, please this link about the Best Practice Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics:

https://authorservices.wiley.com/ethics-guidelines/index.html

In this materialistic world everything is for sale. Journal editors are often influenced by funding agencies. This reflected in many retractions of published articles even in very high impact journals.

Most of the studies on new treatments are funded by pharmaceutical companies.

Such research is more likely to have positive resuts for the new drug than the independent research.

Examples:

1. Article Lessons from the withdrawal of Rofecoxib

2. Article Implications of Pharmaceutical Industry Funding on Clinical Research

3. Article Relationship between drug company funding and outcomes of cl...

4. Article Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: A quali...

Of course money has its weight ... But everything must have a limit... @mu