Earlier this week, a scientist in Russia posted, on Facebook, part of a letter rejecting a manuscript explaining that “the editors of the Journal of Molecular Structure made a decision to ban the manuscripts submitted from Russian institutions.” That move was confirmed by Richard van Noorden of Nature.
Here, in an email he sent to us on Monday when we contacted him but which he learned just today had bounced back, Rui Fausto, the editor in chief of the journal, explains the decision.
First of all, let me say, because there is some misunderstanding circulating in some social media regarding the issue you asked me for information, that the editors of the Journal of Molecular Structure did not decide to implement any sort of ban to articles submitted by Russian authors. This would be something I, or my colleagues, could never accept. Our Russian colleagues, as all our colleagues from all around the world, deserve us maximum respect.
However, it was decided by the editors of the journal to not consider manuscripts authored by scientists working at Russian Institutions, in result of the humanitarian implications emerging from the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation. This position is temporary and shall apply until the refugees (whoever they are, Ukrainians, Russians, or of any other nationality) have conditions to return to their homes, their jobs, and join their families.
I shall stress that there are not here any political judgment (the reasons for the invasion are not the cause of our action), and even less there is any of the other judgments referred to in the Elsevier’s practice of “Fair-play”, explicitly, race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy judgments. In particular, I have to emphasize again that the decision we took does not apply to Russian citizens, but to Russian institutions. It does not apply to Russian scientists working in other countries at all, and they do apply to scientists of other nationalities (whatever they are) working for Russian Institutions. This has been recognized by Elsevier, that has approved the decision of the editors of the journal. A brief statement explaining the position of the journal will soon appear in its webpage, to let all this clear.
Let me, however, provide you with a few more considerations about this issue.
We are also aware of the fact that a temporary action like the one we have decided to take has some implications regarding communication in science and, unfortunately, it applies also to people that are also defending those that are seeing their human rights threatened, being the first scientists working for Russian Institutions or those working in other countries and collaborating with scientists in Russia. But there are values that shall supersede this, and the for now almost one million of women and children that are seeing their houses destroyed, their lives threatened and that had to abandon their motherland deserve our solidarity (as the 7 millions potential refugees expected in result of this war, according to the UN). And also as the Ukrainian and Russian soldiers that are losing their lives.
We can also understand that our colleagues working in Russia feel uncomfortable, but the same applies to those representing Russia in sports (UEFA, FIFA and the Olympic committee have decided that Russian teams and athletics are not allowed to participate in official competitions; the same did the rugby and the basketball international associations), the actors and singers (Eurovision, excluded Russia from the competition, and the biggest movies producers decided not to present new movies in Russia), business men (Japanese semi-conductors manufacturers, for example, decided not to send any more this type of material to Russia; Russia was excluded from the SWIFT system; Mastercard and VISA will not allow transactions involving Russia, etc..), and to the people in general that lives in Russia and that are already feeling the effects of the different types of sanctions decided by entities all around the world. For sure many of these people do not support the action taken by the Russian Government or its consequences. As I mentioned, this is an exceptional situation (it was the first time ever that a nation threatened the world with the possibility of a nuclear holocaust, broadcasting the declaration through TV, alive) and it certainly requires exceptional decisions, even if those go against other precious values that we care so much as those expressed in Elsevier’s “practice on Fair-Play” that I mentioned above.
It is not also, certainly, a decision that we took without our highest sadness and profound disappointment.
In a more personal tone, I shall say that all my life I have been acting to attain the objective of a free exchange of ideas among the scientific community all around the world, as they have been doing the remaining editors of the journal. I am against patenting, state secrets, and so on… against anything that violates human rights and freedom. So you may easily understand my discomfort to have been obliged (by the actual situation in Europe) to take such a decision. In my lab I have co-workers from many different places, including Ukraine and Russia, but also from Africa, South America, India, Iran (Tunisia, Turkey, Brazil, Morocco, Mozambique, Argentina, Canada, Germany, France, Poland, Italy, Belgium, Mexico, Spain, Angola, Cuba, China, Australia, UK, etc…) having different cultures, different religions and political ideologies, on a total nowadays of about 30 people (including students also from many different places), and we are able to work in a happy, productive fantastic scientific and human environment without any sort of preconception of any nature. The scientific school of Russia is of high-level, and I have also published a large amount of papers with my Russian colleagues, working in and outside Russia. It was always a great pleasure to collaborate with them.
Let me insist, the decision is not directed to Russian scientists, who certainly deserve all our best esteem and respect, but to Russian institutions, which support (and are funded by) the Russian Government. Besides, the Russian Academy of Science has not given any official message in support of the innocent victims nor against the violation of the international law by the Russian Government. Moreover, as I also said above, the decision it is a temporary action (hopefully for short time). We defend that human rights have to be respected and protected in any situation. Also, this is a matter of conscience of the editors, and, as mentioned above, not formatted by any political judgement of the situation but only by its humanitarian consequences.
May be I shall also let you know that we have been receiving a large number of messages expressing support to our decision, including from Russian scientists that recognize they should have been doing more to try to stop the ongoing aggression to the Human Rights and realize that their colleagues from Ukraine are at the moment watching their labs bombed and their Libraries being volatized. Also we got contacts from other editors (not just from Elsevier Journals) expressing their intention to go ahead with a similar position.
I am sure you can understand our reasons.
Hopping for a fast stop of the war and for a satisfactory solution for this very unfortunate threatening situation to the human rights and to the world. I hope that peace-loving scientists (and piece-loving people in general; we are not different from anybody else) can stick together again as a global community as fast as possible and that all together, in particular us as scientists and academics, we can contribute to the world development and global friendship among people, being always at the frontline in the defense of the human rights wherever and whenever they are violated.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution by PayPal or by Square, or a monthly tax-deductible donation by Paypal to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
Dear editor
This temporary ban of Russian science publishing appears to me to be a mistake. I have the impression that you are punishing the wrong people for the atrocities of Putin and his clique.
Regards
I could understand such an action from a well-known or a not-so-well-known but highly reputable journal.
Otherwise, it’s a perfect picture for Russian propaganda.
Any reader is welcome to judge which is the case here.
Credit to Nature and van Noorden for raising the issue so it can be discussed.
Could Nature have pulled an “IOC”: i.e, publish Russian scientists sans an institutional affiliation? Or is there a need for an institutional affiliation to insure accountability in the retraction process?
This move is completely counterproductive and punishes the wrong people, that have nothing to do with Putin’s actions. Shame on this journal!
A cynical excuse. Should, in your opinion, scientists from Russia who wrote about abuse of human rights by Putin’s regime, be also banned?
Do you think that the same measure should have been applied against scientists when Saddam entered Kuwait, or when Bush entered Iraq? What about Afghanistan? Or you maybe think that, in those two countries, no labs and libraries were destroyed.
The only difference is that this time in Ukraine aggressor is so strong that, in your opinion, sanctions must cover the whole population, from politicians and individual sportsmen to academic authors. This will definitely harm Russia more, but will Ukraine suffer less?
I also believe to ban Russian scientists from publication is a wrong decision because it punishes the wrong people. How can a Russian scientist who lives in Russia publish publish than under his or her institution? Such decision comes from people which never lived under a totalitarian regime. All who experienced life in the former East bloc will remember how happy we were not to become boycotted as individuals and punished for our governments by Western Institutions and journals. Please consider this and read the Open letter in the following link https://trv-science.ru/2022/02/we-are-against-war/
Ingo Schubert
Will this be a policy applied from now on to all countries that invade another country?
It was not applied in the past, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama…..
This is an outrage. Science became an instrument of propaganda with covid19 and now it is becoming an instrument of war. Neither of these is the point of science. Moreover, if there were any consistency, similar bans would have been enforced each time the USA invaded a country; however, there is no precedent. I am most outraged. Shame on the editors!!!
Dear Dr. Fausto,
Like others in this discussion point out, and like I wrote to you in my e-mail, your action has a false target: Russian institutions will never notice it, while Russian scientists certainly will, and they will be the only party here who suffers. So you will do more harm than good! Fortunately, we don’t see similar actions from more editors.
Best regards,
Alexander Kudryavtsev
The International Science Council supports the principle of universality in science:
“This principle embodies freedom of movement, association, expression and communication for scientists as well as equitable access to data, information and research materials. In pursuing its objectives in respect of the rights and responsibilities of scientists, the International Science Council (ISC) actively upholds this principle, and, in so doing, opposes any discrimination on the basis of such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political stance, gender, sex or age.”
Scientists can support colleagues from Ukraine in other ways, e.g.:
https://council.science/current/news/statements-international-scientific-community-conflict-ukraine/
Just a quick response here. It is a “political” decision which should not have a taken by the editors of the journal. It is not correct. i disagree with this.
Let me be frank and not beat around the bush like some cheap political stunt as protrayed by this journal editor.
This is bullshit. Unprofessional academic behavior. What if the US unilaterally trying to invade a foreign country despite protest from countries in the UN? Would the editor react the same to US academics and institution?
Despite what we see in the mainstream media,this tragedy is not unprovoked. Everyone can find the facts. The russians have been warning about the Nato expansion for months and years. This is the information age Mr editor. You are smart, why do you think we’re stupid to analyze the situation.We are academicians afterall.
I agree that Russian scientists shouldn’t be banned from publishing in academic journals, but that’s regardless of what you think of the Russian gov’t actions. However, Pete amp, you seem to justify the Russian aggression as a “tragedy that is not unprovoked”. So my question to you is: if you thought, like me, that a sovereign country developing affinities to Western democracies, and its democratically elected government reserving the right to decide what military alliances to engage in, is not a casus belli that justifies invasion by its larger neighbor, would you then agree to ban scientists from the aggressing nation from scientific publications?
Cuban missile crisis, and Cuba-Washington is much greater distance than Ukraine-Moscow.
Not to mention that some “other countries”* bombed and invaded number of countries with all kind of arguments, but none of them is based in international law. So, Russia decided to follow tradition of democratic countries.
*US, UK and “associates”.
I agree 100%. Good move, should be enforced by all publishers
Perhaps Mr. Rui Fausto should quit being academician and be a politician instead. He sure sounds like one in his email. Very unprofessional. This sets a precedent in the academia world to pick side based on political view rather than focusing on science and knowledge.
Congratulation mr editor for being a political stooge.
The editor of a scientific journal personally banned the publications of representatives of an entire country. His actions do not fit in the head, and the reasons for this ridiculous decision, obviously, lie in a plane far from science.
There are two key questions:
1) Is the editor entitled to do this? How far does his authority extend? Do scientific journals have the right to impose sanctions that target countries, institutions, and scientists?
The editor should justify his sanctions with references to specific legal norms of the journal’s and Elsevier’s, or to international documents. I suppose that the founding documents of the journal and the publisher say nothing about the possibility of denying publications of scientists from some countries. The editor should also prove why scientists affiliated with Russian institutes should be collectively responsible for the actions of others. What crime, in his opinion, was committed by a particular Russian scientist or even an institute?
I think the editor went far beyond his authority. He did not indicate the specific legal grounds for imposing his sanctions, and overly politizided his scientific journal. He didn’t listen to all points of view.
2) The second question is rhetorical. Does the editor, who is denying his readers of scientific knowledge obtained in a huge country, bear responsibility to the world civilization?
There is so much hypocrisy in this article it made me cringe.
Elsevier got conscience? Who would have thought that? This is the epitome of hypochrisy.
It seems hypocrisy is contagious. Invasions should be condemned, but not our invasions good, your invasions bad. This blanket attack on anything Russian is cultural genocide. Two wrongs do not make a right.
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o535?ijkey=7514a432f45ab96f66d751620211055c2fdc63df&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Russian doctors, nurses, and paramedics demand an end to hostilities in Ukraine
Think…
Does the editor also reject manuscripts from China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc.? If not, why not? Does he support the human rights abuses in those countries?
Last time I checked China, Saudi Arabia, Iran Syria etc. may not be the best countries for human rights but they haven’t invaded another sovereign country without provocation. So what’s your point, exactly?
Saudi Arabia invaded Yemen, genius. Tens of thousands of people have died.
And Syria massacred its own people. China has more than a million people in concentration camps.
Invading Ukraine is heinous but it’s hard to see how it’s so much worse than all that.
Saudi Arabia is part of a 9-country force intervening on the precise and explicit request of internationally recognized Yemen’s president Hadi, genius.
Everything else you cited has nothing to do with invasion of another country.
Therefore, what’s your point, again?
From US, UK and France too?
I think that editor has forgotten what his job is.
Scientific journals were created to spread the knowledge obtained by researchers all over the world, to make it accessible for everyone, to let people bring something new on the base of what was done previously.
And the job of editor is to facilitate communication between authors and reviewers, to coordinate journal’s services, to decide if an article merits publication. Not to decide, who is right and who is wrong in this conflict.
It’s the nonsense – if authors arom Russia obtain really important breakthrough result you will reject it? Will you replace it with non-meaningful article written by Ukrainians not to offend them?
You’re playing with cancel culture and it will let you only to the degradation of science. An ordinary researcher won’t write anything just because he doesn’t know if editor who thinks that he has ultimate truth decide to reject him.
P.S. Did you care about people from Donbass?
Okay, my first comment here was obscure enough. My second one won’t.
So, what if the editor just wanted to drive away unwelcome authors from submitting to the journal, because they have already reserved space for their frequent customers? And what if politics is just a lame excuse?
https://pubpeer.com/publications/381A3D5B82EE0456AFBA70B82BFF3F
https://pubpeer.com/publications/09D2634EA27415A676033460F51BC8
https://pubpeer.com/publications/D96EC1B215F51623B4931C45B061B4
And these were found just upon a cursory look by a non-expert.
Could the reason behind this be that APC fees can’t be paid anymore due to sanctions / financial restrictions? In other words, a financial decision?
I don’t see anyone except the JMS editors here concerned by deaths of innocent people killed by Russian aggressors in Ukraine. Sorry, your problems are nothing in comparison to loss each single life.
Vladimir, I am concerned, no jokes here. This despite I am in Russia and can face consequences for that (though these consequences are nothing in comparison to what people in Ukraine are experiencing).
However, I am also angry because editors of shaky journals use political pretext to make space for publishing entirely made-up stuff.
There are examples of pseudo-research published in this journal, see above. Let me add more, J. Mol. Str. accepted at least 32 products of a “prolific coordination polymer papermill” based in China, see Smut Clyde’s spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bfgWotMOQALFbeqccIkOMLbJODfrBwK-JHQ78zEu2ZQ/edit?usp=sharing
Sorry for harsh language, and be sure I am completely with you. Just please, please, watch out for those who are stealing the discourse for personal gain.
Anger is not an argument. Pseudoscience is a problem, I agree. While that massacre continues, nothing other than human lives makes more sense, and I appreciate everyone and everything crying about that. Let’s discuss all other questions after the war. I sincerely wish you to survive keeping clean hands and soul. It is not easy in your country.
Publish elsewhere, then.
There is no border in science. Therefore, I believe this is unacceptable excuse.
Again, would there be anything wrong “operationally” with an ‘IOC’ type compromise, namely publish Russian authors but without their institutional affiliation? Or is that compromise still perceived as too political?
“Brilliant” move.
Some (name them) countries bought russian oil for 30 years, the income from which was stolen, and kept dirty money in their economy. This corruption destroyed any possible institutions, that could oppose dictatorship. Me and colleagues were trying to oppose that inside Russia, but failed, some had consequences.
However, we seem to be the bad guys in the story?
Thanks a lot. We will publish our research in Chinese journals instead. Even after this whole crisis is over.
It is very interesting to read that “the decision is not directed to Russian scientists, who certainly deserve all our best esteem and respect, but to Russian institutions, which support (and are funded by) the Russian Government”. 99.9% of Russian science is supported by “the Russian Government” starting from 1755 when the Lomonosov Moscow State University was founded. As a Russian scientist I do not understand what “the Russian Government” means. Imperial Russian Government? Or the Soviet one? The vast majority of Russian institutions and universities were established in the USSR. Yes, all of them are still supported by the Government and, yeah, the that is why the higher education is still free. I do have some research experience in the US and I have to say that Argonne National Lab and many leading universities are also supported by the US Government, and the research grants for international visitors are supported by NATO. This used to be okay that scientific area was supported by a government. And now it became a convenient excuse not to consider papers from Russian scientists for publication. And the same with Russian athletes. What has happened to this world???
My personal opinion is that Russian scientists are employees of the Russian government, which funds them and/or their institutions. This is their choice. Many have said that Russian scientists do not support the war, but we can never know to what extent this is true. And even if many are against, only few have voiced their opposition. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if you disagree with something or how angry you are if you do it in silence and take no action. We want to be fair, but how is it fair that while the careers and lives of Russian scientists will go on, our Ukrainian colleagues suffer displacement. lose their loved ones and some die, the latter being especially true for our male colleagues who must pick up arms to fight a senseless war? It was not their choice. It was the choice of the Russian government. The same government that funds and benefits from Russian science.
Europe is always quite “infectably” by racism-like idees…
To ban Russian scientists because of belonging to “Russians”? Our international Colleagues easily understand that the following motivation (citation) is a primitive pretext: “the decision is not directed to Russian scientists, who certainly deserve all our best esteem and respect, but to Russian institutions …”. Moreover, an analogous decision was not the case (for the US and Europe scientists) to the time of the last Afganistan / Syria inversions of the US / Europe. The selective nature of the journal decision clearly justifies my initial statement.
The above journal decision is really “directed to (!) Russian scientists” and has an evident racist character. This is unacceptable personal and institutional behaviour. Additionally this decision will strongly contribute to the attenuation of the Elsevier because of the expected Russian collaboration with the India and China publishing platforms.
This is simply xenophobia. If it was a constant policy, you would have to block all USA papers because of the civilians killed by the US and its proxies after 9/11.
What is hard to swallow, is how much of the bad authoritarian policies of the old USSR the West is now implementing.
People need to see beyond the false dichotomy – that the West or Russia are the good guys. The West does not care about Ukrainian boys that are being sacrificed not for Ukrainian interests, but for Western interests. There are no ‘good countries’ in the world.
Nature used to be a great institution – I’ve come to suspect papers in nature due to the use of endpoint selection that distort data. Now this return to cold war mentality. Sad to see the end of a great institution.