The app for independent voices
Have I ever mentioned how surreal it is to be an Editor-in-Chief of a journal called Vaccine right now?
It’s pretty wild, at least by typical academic journal editorial office standards. Last November, the FDA’s top vaccine regulator forced FDA scientists to withdraw a paper from review because it showed that COVID vaccines work for all ages. Several papers published in Vaccine have been cited selectively by RFK Jr to mislead the public about vaccines. And now Vaccine is in the news for this:
No matter the reason, I will always be grateful for opportunities to emphasize the integrity of our editorial and peer review practices. I am also always glad to invite prospective authors, especially ones who have published in Vaccine before, to submit their work—especially if it contributes to a larger scientific debate or has a major impact on our field, on public health, or on society.
Our journal serves the entire vaccine research community and covers all areas related to vaccination, from basic science to policy to safety to economics to clinical trials. Our community is diverse and there are many areas where opinions diverge or no consensus has been reached. But we are united by one thing: a commitment to following the evidence where it leads, using the scientific method as our guide.
Vaccination is under ideological attack, particularly in the US. Vaccine and health disinformation is ubiquitous and overwhelming, both in the US and abroad. There are many ways we can fight back, but one that we all already embrace as a professional community is with science done to the highest standard. Not the made-up “Gold Standard” but the actual standard: the strength of the evidence, as assessed by expert editorial and peer review. MAHA anti-vax pseudoscience cannot meet this standard. But every paper published in Vaccine must.
I admit to being thrilled that Vaccine is publishing papers that are timely and relevant enough to make the news at Science.
