联邦机构取消订阅Nature等杂志

[jumpingdonut]

全民医保有很多弊端吧？英国的全民医保效率很低，绝症患者可能等到死都排不上看病。服务设施和态度也普遍一般甚至不大好。

美国的医保问题也很大，cost太高，billing混乱不堪，朋友去年做了两次相同的检查，最后价钱差近10倍，其中一家检测机构charge1千多刀最后自付15刀不到，另一家charge 500刀，自付120，同一个医生同样的保险plan

[mondy]

一句话，这届反智的厉害

[chuanjianguo]

nature是顶尖的peer-reviewed journal吧，为啥说垃圾？哪个杂志不是垃圾？这种语言本身就很受反智主义影响吧。

垃圾期刊，比prl差远了！

[wass]

全民医保有很多弊端吧？英国的全民医保效率很低，绝症患者可能等到死都排不上看病。服务设施和态度也普遍一般甚至不大好。

极端的例子有，总体不错

[pplchn]

小事是指5000块钱的咖啡杯，还是取消springer nature期刊订阅？取消期刊订阅主要是摆个姿态吧，看新闻里也说钱不算多，但用意识形态来影响知识界，是粗暴干涉学术自由……

For many federal researchers, the decision to cut ties with Springer Nature is not just about dollars and cents—it’s about access to knowledge. Losing institutional access to premier journals hampers their ability to stay abreast of new discoveries, collaborate across institutions, and publish in high-visibility platforms.

One NIH employee, speaking to Nature on condition of anonymity, described the move as a serious blow to scientific freedom. Without these journals, some researchers worry they are being cut off from the very ecosystem that enables progress in their fields. Others fear that decisions about what science is worth supporting are increasingly being shaped by ideology rather than evidence or professional need.

The mass cancellation of Springer Nature subscriptions appears to reflect more than just financial restraint. It suggests a growing tension between scientific institutions and political leadership—particularly when that leadership casts doubt on the legitimacy of established research outlets.

我又问了AI五角大楼的咖啡杯是不是五千块，AI说不是 ：
No, a standard coffee mug at the Pentagon does not cost $5,000.

However, there was a 2018 congressional inquiry that revealed the U.S. Air Force was spending $1,300 for each reheatable coffee cup used on KC-10 aircraft and replacing them when the handles broke. Senator Chuck Grassley found the Air Force spent $32,000 replacing just 25 of these cups.
While these reheatable cups were significantly more expensive than typical mugs, they were not priced at $5,000.

For reference, a different source indicates that the Pentagon gift shop, Fort America, sells mugs starting at $10.95.

联邦机构订阅什么杂志是一个学术问题，对总统来讲是一件微不足道的小事，总统不应该干预。

[pplchn]

说的是springer nature，不是nature，nature一年就200刀，跟时代周刊差不多，你是学生只要100刀一年，连当年我住的楼房的不是搞科研的退休老头都订nature，来了一楼信箱上一堆nature，看来你肯定没订过

但是springer nature不一样了，整个springer的书籍杂志都免费看，你要买书本来200刀现在一律25刀，我买过无数，只要25刀他妈的这谁买不起啊，比中国一样便宜，所以一年要上千万是正常的

另外，财大气粗的党妈把整个nature都包圆了，凡是中国ip都免费看，比美帝厉害多了

From wikipedia:
"Springer Nature or the Springer Nature Group is a German-British academic publishing company created by the May 2015 merger of Springer Science+Business Media and Holtzbrinck Publishing Group's Nature Publishing Group, Palgrave Macmillan, and Macmillan Education. "

Springer Nature should be the current publisher of Nature.

[cellcycle1]

online 的也没了？

[japamer]

在信息大爆炸时代，很多名牌掉价了。

[jiujianoufu]

正确，这些大牌杂志靠信息垄断，是一种新型腐败。

一篇普通文章，如果你要一份电子拷贝，至少 $30 起步。通过单位订阅每个杂志每年$2000起步。

[alexwlt1024]

找着借口骗钱，一本杂志要2000？ 有几个人看？ 好好查查这兔子洞里面的肮脏勾当

[VladPutin]

垃圾期刊，比prl差远了！

Nature和PRL完全不是一个类型的期刊。Nature大多是有跨学科兴趣的研究， 比如发现了中等质量黑洞，新的RNA作用机制，PRL只发物理通讯文章，质量参差不齐，全错的结果也不少。

[datoumao]

好! 就像VOA每年花百万订阅纽时AP这类左儿报纸纯属浪费

[littlek]

这种事是不可能的，你朋友没有告诉你真话而已。美国的billing是按procedure code来的，code不同价格自然不同。相同的code,你在Mayo Clinic和在Kaiser的价格没有多少区别。

美国的医保问题也很大，cost太高，billing混乱不堪，朋友去年做了两次相同的检查，最后价钱差近10倍，其中一家检测机构charge1千多刀最后自付15刀不到，另一家charge 500刀，自付120，同一个医生同样的保险plan

[ShuiNi]

现在多数是国内的人发，国内又不订，支持取消

都是垃圾

很多人不知道这些期刊的内幕，以为“顶级期刊”就牛掰，其实都是灌水。

[wh]

好! 就像VOA每年花百万订阅纽时AP这类左儿报纸纯属浪费

哎，我前两天灌水时正好看到你灌到15000整数，帮你截了个屏，忘了贴给你看了

[littlek]

你没有读过大学，很多事理解不了很正常，你把Springer的期刊当此你在理发店看的Vogue了

找着借口骗钱，一本杂志要2000？ 有几个人看？ 好好查查这兔子洞里面的肮脏勾当

[VladPutin]

很多人不知道这些期刊的内幕，以为“顶级期刊”就牛掰，其实都是灌水。

文盲灌一个试试

[ReticulumZeta]

看到教育群里说NASA、农业部、能源部等联邦机构都停止订阅Springer Nature旗下的所有科研学术期刊；说川普的一大legacy是sow the seeds of mistrust，让人反智、怀疑科学、觉得主流科研都是左派的大阴谋。

https://techstory.in/federal-scientists ... er-nature/
Federal Scientists Lose Access to Prestigious Journals as Agencies Cut Ties with Springer Nature
Funding concerns and political ideology converge in decisions affecting access to world-class scientific literature
by Harikrishnan A
July 3, 2025


Scientists across several major U.S. federal agencies are losing access to Springer Nature’s suite of highly respected journals including Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious scientific publications. The shift, confirmed in a report by Nature’s independent news team, has raised alarm among researchers who rely on these journals to stay informed, conduct groundbreaking research, and publish peer-reviewed findings.

Springer Nature’s extensive portfolio includes not only Nature but also Scientific American and dozens of journals covering disciplines from climate science to genomics. These resources are essential for government scientists working on everything from pandemic preparedness to space exploration. However, a growing list of federal agencies, including NASA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of Energy (DOE), are pulling the plug on their subscriptions.

Budgetary Cuts and Subscription Cancellations

According to USDA officials, the department decided to cancel all contracts with Springer Nature due to the high cost of subscriptions, arguing that it was not a responsible use of taxpayer dollars. NASA has followed suit, confirming its scientists would also no longer have institutional access. Public federal spending records show that the DOE has likewise ended its financial relationship with the publisher.

These cancellations reflect a broader trend of tightening federal research budgets. Scientific journals can cost institutions tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars annually—an expense some agencies are now questioning. But the concern over budget alone does not tell the full story.

NIH Access Revoked Amid Mixed Signals

Initially, it appeared that the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—the nation’s largest biomedical research funder—would maintain its access to Springer Nature titles. But shortly after inquiries from Nature‘s news division, a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the NIH, clarified that all Springer Nature contracts were either terminated or inactive.

This abrupt shift marked a significant development. HHS did not just cite cost as a reason, but suggested that the agency was unwilling to support what it described as underused or non-essential scientific content. This reasoning has raised eyebrows, particularly among researchers who depend on these journals for high-impact work and up-to-date scientific developments.

A Changing Climate at HHS

The move aligns with the broader views of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a controversial figure known for his skepticism of mainstream science and medicine. Kennedy has openly criticized leading scientific and medical journals, expressing distrust in their editorial integrity and accusing them of being biased toward pharmaceutical interests.

In recent public comments, Kennedy questioned whether federal scientists should continue publishing in mainstream journals like The Lancet, JAMA, and The New England Journal of Medicine. He has suggested the possibility of developing government-controlled alternatives to these journals. While these ideas have not materialized into formal policy, they reflect a shift in how scientific authority is being evaluated at the federal level.

Scientific Community Voices Concern

For many federal researchers, the decision to cut ties with Springer Nature is not just about dollars and cents—it’s about access to knowledge. Losing institutional access to premier journals hampers their ability to stay abreast of new discoveries, collaborate across institutions, and publish in high-visibility platforms.

One NIH employee, speaking to Nature on condition of anonymity, described the move as a serious blow to scientific freedom. Without these journals, some researchers worry they are being cut off from the very ecosystem that enables progress in their fields. Others fear that decisions about what science is worth supporting are increasingly being shaped by ideology rather than evidence or professional need.

A Crossroads for U.S. Science Policy

The mass cancellation of Springer Nature subscriptions appears to reflect more than just financial restraint. It suggests a growing tension between scientific institutions and political leadership—particularly when that leadership casts doubt on the legitimacy of established research outlets.

Critics argue that conflating cost concerns with ideological judgments may damage the scientific process, especially if researchers are discouraged from engaging with widely respected journals. While no formal restrictions on publishing have been announced, the atmosphere of skepticism and distrust could influence how federal scientists approach their work going forward.

This episode also raises broader questions about the role of peer-reviewed science in public policy. In areas like public health, climate change, and technology development, access to credible research is vital. If scientists are expected to operate without the resources and platforms that have traditionally supported their work, the government’s ability to innovate and respond to emerging challenges could be compromised.

目测以后nature影响因子大降

[littlek]

不可能的，美国政府禁止华为，北航这种院校在Science这种美国期刊上发论文，直接的影响是英国的Nature和德国Springer合并，搬家到瑞士这种所谓的中立国去了，也就是说，不用遵守美国政府的禁令了。

你需要先要理解为啥有Springer-Nature的原因，这样你才能理解为啥美国政府准对的是Nature,而不是elsevier

目测以后nature影响因子大降

[alexwlt1024]

你没有读过大学，很多事理解不了很正常，你把Springer的期刊当此你在理发店看的Vogue了

你哪个大学毕业的 一个月2000买一本杂志？ 差生文具多