Hubbry Logo
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of AmericaProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of AmericaMain
Open search
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Community hub
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DisciplineMultidisciplinary
LanguageEnglish
Edited byMay Berenbaum
Publication details
History1915–present
Publisher
FrequencyWeekly
Hybrid, delayed (after 6 months)
9.1 (2024)
Standard abbreviations
ISO 4Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
Indexing
CODENPNASA6
ISSN0027-8424 (print)
1091-6490 (web)
LCCN16010069
JSTOR00278424
OCLC no.43473694
Links

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (often abbreviated PNAS or PNAS USA) is a peer-reviewed multidisciplinary scientific journal. It is the official journal of the National Academy of Sciences, published since 1915, and publishes original research, scientific reviews, commentaries, and letters. According to Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2024 impact factor of 8.9.[1] PNAS is the second most cited scientific journal, with more than 1.9 million cumulative citations from 2008 to 2018.[2] In the past, PNAS has been described variously as "prestigious",[3][4] "renowned"[5] and "high impact".[6]

PNAS is a delayed open-access journal, with an embargo period of six months that can be bypassed for an author fee (hybrid open access). Since September 2017, open access articles are published under a Creative Commons license. Since January 2019, PNAS has been online-only, although print issues are available on demand.

History

[edit]

PNAS was established by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 1914,[note 1][7][8]: 30  with its first issue published in 1915. The NAS itself was founded in 1863 as a private institution, but chartered by the United States Congress, with the goal to "investigate, examine, experiment and report upon any subject of science or art."

Prior to the inception of PNAS, the National Academy of Sciences published three volumes of organizational transactions, consisting mostly of minutes of meetings and annual reports. For much of the journal's history, PNAS published brief first announcements of Academy members' and associates' contributions to research.[9] In December 1995,[10] PNAS opened submissions to all authors without first needing to be sponsored by an NAS member.

Members were allowed to communicate up to two papers from non-members to PNAS every year. The review process for these papers was anonymous in that the identities of the referees were not revealed to the authors. Referees were selected by the NAS member.[9][11][12] PNAS eliminated communicated submissions through NAS members as of July 1, 2010, while continuing to make the final decision on all PNAS papers.[13]

95% of papers are peer reviewed Direct Submissions and 5% are contributed submissions.[14][15][failed verification]

In 2022 NAS established PNAS Nexus, an interdisciplinary open-access journal published by Oxford Academic.[16][17]

American national security concerns

[edit]

In 2003, PNAS issued an editorial stating its policy on publication of sensitive material in the life sciences.[18] PNAS stated that it would "continue to monitor submitted papers for material that may be deemed inappropriate and that could, if published, compromise the public welfare." This statement was in keeping with the efforts of several other journals.[19][20] In 2005 PNAS published an article titled "Analyzing a bioterror attack on the food supply: The case of botulinum toxin in milk",[21] despite objections raised by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.[22] The paper was published with a commentary by the president of the Academy at the time, Bruce Alberts, titled "Modeling attacks on the food supply".[23]

Contributed review concerns

[edit]

The controversial Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, which evolved directly from pseudoscience and now forms the basis for the pseudoarchaeology of Graham Hancock's Ancient Apocalypse, was first published in PNAS using a nonstandard review system, according to a comprehensive refutation by Holliday et al (2023).[24] According to this 2023 review, "Claiming evidence where none exists and providing misleading citations may be accidental, but when conducted repeatedly, it becomes negligent and undermines scientific advancement as well as the credibility of science itself. Also culpable is the failure of the peer review process to prevent such errors of fact from entering the literature. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 'contributed review' system for National Academy members...is at least partially responsible. The 'pal reviews' (as some refer to them) were significantly curtailed in 2010, in part due to the YDIH controversy."

Editors

[edit]

The following people have been editors-in-chief of the journal:

The first managing editor of the journal was mathematician Edwin Bidwell Wilson.

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Proceedings of the of the of America (PNAS) is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary scientific journal published by the (NAS), an elite institution chartered by the U.S. Congress in 1863 to provide independent scientific advice. Established in 1914 with its inaugural issue appearing in 1915, PNAS serves as the NAS's flagship outlet for disseminating original research reports, commentaries, reviews, perspectives, and other scholarly contributions across the biological, physical, and social sciences. Historically, PNAS operated under a dual submission model, allowing NAS members to contribute papers directly while increasingly incorporating external direct submissions since ; today, approximately 75% of its published content derives from the latter, reflecting a shift toward broader peer-reviewed amid over 18,000 annual submissions. The journal releases content continuously online, producing more than 3,500 research papers yearly, with articles becoming freely accessible after a six-month embargo or immediately via open-access options. Its archives, spanning from 1915, attract over 5 million monthly page views, underscoring its role in advancing scientific discourse. PNAS ranks among the world's most-cited multidisciplinary journals, with robust metrics including a high h5-index and widespread indexing for global visibility, though such indicators like impact factors have faced critique for incentivizing quantity over substantive scientific progress. It has featured pivotal studies leading to Nobel-recognized discoveries, yet, like peer-reviewed outlets generally, it contends with retractions stemming from —such as , duplication, and —which account for a majority of scientific withdrawals across journals, highlighting limitations in pre-publication safeguards despite rigorous editorial oversight. This underscores broader systemic challenges in academia, where institutional prestige does not immunize against errors or biases in selection and validation processes.

History

Founding and Early Development (1914–1930s)

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) was established in 1914 by the (NAS), a private institution chartered by in 1863 to advise the federal government on scientific matters. The initiative stemmed from discussions dating back to the NAS's founding, but gained momentum through the efforts of astronomer , elected to the NAS in 1902. Hale, recognizing the need for a dedicated outlet to accelerate the dissemination of American scientific advances amid growing international competition, advocated for the journal in 1912 as a means to publish significant research promptly and elevate U.S. science's global profile. By 1914, Hale had outlined guiding principles emphasizing brief announcements of members' key findings, positioning PNAS as the NAS's official organ for surveying domestic research across disciplines. The inaugural issue appeared on , 1915, as a monthly comprising Volume 1, Number 1, with 17 papers spanning 58 pages. Content covered diverse fields including (e.g., modular invariants), astronomy, chemistry, , , , , and , alongside NAS administrative reports and a roster of 141 members and 40 foreign associates. Under initial Arthur A. Noyes, a and MIT , the journal prioritized rapid turnaround for contributions from NAS members and associates, eschewing formal in favor of members' direct submissions to ensure timeliness. Through the 1920s and into the , PNAS maintained its focus on concise communications, adapting to the NAS's semicentennial reflections in that underscored the need for proactive scientific . Publication volume grew modestly with the academy's membership expansion, mirroring the broadening U.S. scientific enterprise amid industrialization and institutional maturation, though submissions remained exclusive to NAS affiliates to uphold selectivity. By the early , issues like Volume 16 (1930) reflected sustained multidisciplinary output, with the journal serving as a primary venue for preliminary reports that later informed full-length studies elsewhere. This period solidified PNAS's role in fostering unfiltered exchange among elite researchers, free from delays associated with comprehensive processes prevalent in other outlets.

Wartime Adaptations and National Security Considerations

During , the (NAS) adapted by establishing the National Research Council (NRC) on June 19, 1916, at the request of President to mobilize scientific resources for national defense. Chaired by , the NRC coordinated efforts across academia, industry, and government, focusing on urgent needs such as detection devices, countermeasures, optical glass production for military optics, and that evaluated 1.7 million U.S. Army recruits for intelligence and suitability. This institutional expansion addressed the limitations of NAS's small membership (around 150 in 1916) by enlisting thousands of specialists without formal authority or funding, relying instead on voluntary cooperation and persuasion from figures like Robert A. Millikan, who rose to colonel in the Army . While Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), launched in 1914, continued publishing member contributions, wartime priorities redirected much scientific output toward classified or applied NRC projects rather than open academic dissemination, prioritizing over unrestricted sharing. In , NAS and the NRC further adapted by supporting the (NDRC), formed in June 1940, and its successor, the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), established in June 1941 under , NAS engineer Frank B. Jewett's successor as president. These entities administered over 34 contracts with federal agencies, providing advisory and administrative services for advancements in microwave radar, proximity fuses, and feasibility studies for the atomic bomb, with NAS's Washington headquarters repurposed for OSRD divisions. considerations prompted informal but widespread among scientists; prior to U.S. entry in , physicists voluntarily delayed or omitted details from publications on to prevent aiding , a practice extending into the war for Manhattan Project-related work. PNAS reflected this restraint by focusing on non-sensitive topics, such as foundational research in and computing precursors, while avoiding dissemination of potentially exploitable data, thereby upholding principles amid heightened secrecy demands. This balance preserved PNAS's role as a venue for unclassified proceedings, even as NAS's wartime engagements solidified its advisory stature in policy.

Post-War Expansion and Institutional Changes (1940s–1970s)

Following , the United States experienced a surge in federal investment in basic research, exemplified by the establishment of the in 1950, which provided grants that expanded the scientific workforce and research output. This post-war boom contributed to a rapid increase in manuscript submissions to PNAS, mirroring the in overall scientific publications that accelerated from the 1940s onward, with annual growth rates averaging around 4-5% through the mid-20th century. As a result, PNAS adapted by handling greater volumes of multidisciplinary work, particularly in emerging fields like and physics, driven by priorities and institutional support from the (NAS). A key institutional change was the widespread adoption of formal processes in PNAS and similar journals during the late 1940s and , prompted by the overwhelming influx of submissions that strained editorial capacities without systematic external validation. Prior to this, PNAS relied heavily on the "communicated by" , where NAS members endorsed papers based on personal judgment, but the expansion necessitated enlisting external reviewers to assess novelty, rigor, and significance, thereby enhancing quality control amid the of publishing. This shift aligned with broader trends in scientific publishing, where evolved from consultations to a standardized gatekeeping mechanism by the . By the 1960s and 1970s, PNAS underwent further refinements to its editorial framework, including stricter guidelines for brevity and impact to accommodate rising submissions while preserving its role as a rapid-dissemination outlet for academy-affiliated . The NAS's own growth—membership doubling from approximately 300 in 1940 to over 1,000 by 1980—facilitated this, as more members contributed and sponsored papers, though the journal increasingly emphasized empirical contributions over purely theoretical ones in response to the era's emphasis. These changes solidified PNAS's position as a of American scientific communication, though critiques emerged regarding potential biases in the member-driven submission track, which persisted until later reforms.

Shift to Broader Accessibility and Digital Era (1980s–present)

In the late 1980s and 1990s, PNAS began broadening submission accessibility beyond exclusive reliance on () members by introducing the Direct Submission track in 1995, allowing any qualified researcher—member or nonmember—to submit manuscripts without prior sponsorship by an Academy member. This policy shift, implemented under Nicholas R. Cozzarelli, aimed to increase the volume and diversity of contributions while maintaining rigorous , reflecting the journal's adaptation to a growing global . By 2010, PNAS fully phased out the traditional Communicated Submission track (requiring member endorsement), making Direct Submissions the sole pathway and comprising over 95% of accepted papers by 2017. The transition to the digital era accelerated in the late 1990s, with PNAS launching publication in January 1997 as one of the first major scientific journals to do so, enabling faster dissemination and broader reach beyond print subscribers. Articles began appearing before print in January 2000, followed by daily releases starting June 17, 2002, which reduced publication delays to as little as 4–5 weeks post-acceptance and facilitated global access. To enhance and developing-world , PNAS made all content from 1915 onward freely available after a 6-month embargo, with immediate free access granted in over 140 lower-income countries; by , this supported millions of annual downloads. An optional model was introduced in the early 2000s, allowing authors to pay for immediate reader access under licenses, aligning with funder mandates while sustaining operations through subscriptions and fees. By the , PNAS fully embraced digital-only formats, discontinuing print editions in January 2019 to eliminate production constraints and expand content features like longer articles, datasets, and supplements. Innovations such as mandatory Significance Statements (120-word summaries for non-experts) and the 2011 PNAS Plus track for online-exclusive papers further democratized access and encouraged concise, high-impact reporting. These changes correlated with sustained growth in influence, with the journal achieving a 2017 in the top 5% of multidisciplinary journals and over 26 million PDF downloads annually, underscoring the digital pivot's role in amplifying PNAS's reach amid rising global submissions.

Editorial and Publishing Framework

Leadership and Editors-in-Chief

The editorial leadership of Proceedings of the (PNAS) is headed by the , who is appointed by the Council of the () and oversees the journal's , editorial policies, and publication decisions in coordination with associate editors and member editors. The position has evolved to emphasize rigorous selection, with an acceptance rate of approximately 18%, while maintaining the journal's multidisciplinary scope and high . May R. Berenbaum, an and Swanlund Chair of Entomology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has served as since her appointment on October 26, 2018. Under her leadership, PNAS has continued to prioritize empirical advancements across biological, physical, and social sciences, with associate editors including Huda Akil, Angela M. Gronenborn, and Philippa Marrack handling disciplinary oversight. Specialized committees, such as the Statistical and Methodological Review Committee chaired by Adrian Raftery, provide additional governance for methodological rigor. Historically, PNAS has had 15 Editors-in-Chief since its 1914 founding under chemist Arthur A. , who established the initial framework for Academy member contributions. Notable past leaders include Nicholas R. Cozzarelli (1995–2006), who implemented the direct-submission track to broaden accessibility beyond members and launched the online edition in 1997, enhancing global reach. These appointments reflect 's commitment to selecting experts who balance tradition with innovation in scientific publishing.

Submission and Review Tracks

PNAS maintains two distinct submission tracks for manuscripts: Direct Submissions and Member Contributed Submissions. Direct Submissions serve as the primary pathway, accessible to all authors without requiring () membership, and constitute the majority of accepted papers. In this track, manuscripts are initially screened by an member assigned based on one of 31 disciplinary categories, who evaluates suitability for PNAS's multidisciplinary scope. If deemed appropriate, the editor—either an member or a guest expert—selects at least two independent, confidential reviewers in a single-blind process, where reviewer identities remain anonymous to authors. The editor assesses reviews and recommends acceptance, revision, or rejection to the overseeing member, who makes the final decision; a single negative review may suffice for rejection if concurred by the editor. This track enforces a rigorous acceptance rate of approximately 14%. Member Contributed Submissions, exclusive to active NAS members, allow up to two manuscripts per calendar year, provided the member serves as corresponding and has a direct, significant involvement in the work within their expertise. Submissions undergo a tiered process: initial editorial screening for reviewer suitability, followed by from at least two independent experts selected by the member (with names disclosed in a published footnote and conflicts of interest prohibited), and concluding with final evaluation by an Editorial Board member. Unlike Direct Submissions, this track mandates named reviewers and member endorsement, but rejected Direct Submissions cannot be resubmitted as Contributed ones, and members with competing interests must default to the Direct track. Both tracks require disclosure of , availability plans, and conflicts, with full timelines averaging 45 days and within six months of acceptance. Editorial oversight ensures consistency, prioritizing intelligible, high-impact across disciplines.

Peer Review and Editorial Policies

PNAS employs a three-tiered peer review process for all research articles, ensuring rigorous evaluation of scientific merit, originality, methodology, and clarity. In Tier 1, the —composed of () members—conducts an initial screening, declining more than 50% of submissions based on alignment with journal standards and basic feasibility. Tier 2 involves oversight by a Member Editor, typically an NAS scientist in the relevant field, or a Guest Editor for specialized or interdisciplinary topics, who coordinates the external review. Tier 3 requires at least two independent expert s, after which an Editorial Board member makes the final acceptance decision, resulting in an overall acceptance rate of approximately 14%. Submissions occur via two primary tracks: Contributed submissions, limited to NAS members who may submit up to two manuscripts per year in their area of expertise and with a direct, significant involvement in the research, and Direct submissions from non-members or members exceeding their quota. For Contributed submissions, the NAS member serves as the corresponding author, proposes at least two named reviewers, and the process features , with reviewer identities published alongside the article upon acceptance. Direct submissions undergo confidential, single-anonymized , where reviewer identities remain undisclosed. Rejected Direct submissions cannot be resubmitted as Contributed ones, maintaining separation between tracks. Reviewers are selected for their expertise and must provide unbiased, evidence-based feedback on design, replicability, , and conclusions, while adhering to strict —prohibiting discussion, sharing, or use of AI tools on manuscripts without permission. They are expected to complete reviews promptly, disclose any conflicts of interest, and flag ethical issues such as or dual-use research concerns. Editors and reviewers recuse themselves from evaluations where impartiality could be compromised, including financial or personal conflicts. Editorial policies emphasize ethical standards, requiring authors to disclose funding, competing interests, and any AI assistance in writing or analysis (though AI cannot be listed as an author); provide ORCID iDs; and ensure public availability of data, materials, and code post-publication. Studies involving human or animal subjects must include evidence of institutional ethical approval, and authorship is restricted to those with substantial contributions, excluding honorary or gift roles. Violations trigger investigation by the , potentially leading to corrections, retractions, or sanctions in line with guidelines from bodies like the .

Content Scope and Formats

Multidisciplinary Coverage

PNAS publishes original research and scholarly articles across the biological, physical, and social sciences, embodying its role as a flagship multidisciplinary journal of the . This scope enables the dissemination of high-impact findings that often transcend single disciplines, including advancements in , quantum physics, climate modeling, , and interdisciplinary topics such as bioinformatics or environmental policy analysis. The journal's editorial framework supports submissions via direct tracks and member contributions, ensuring representation from diverse fields without restricting to narrow specialties. Annual publication volume exceeds 3,500 research papers, drawn primarily from over 18,000 submissions, covering foundational discoveries and applied innovations. In biological sciences, emphasis falls on , , and ; physical sciences include chemistry, , and astronomy; while social sciences feature empirical studies in , , and . Cross-disciplinary integrations, such as or geophysical modeling of social systems, underscore PNAS's commitment to holistic scientific inquiry, with special features and collections amplifying emergent interfaces like or . This breadth facilitates , as evidenced by citation patterns linking disparate fields, though coverage reflects submission trends and selections prioritizing novelty and rigor over balanced representation of subfields. PNAS's multidisciplinary mandate traces to its founding ethos of advancing national scientific priorities, evolving to accommodate global challenges like pandemics or that demand integrated perspectives.

Types of Published Materials

PNAS publishes a range of materials encompassing original research, invited syntheses, and commentary, with distinctions between unsolicited direct submissions open to all researchers and contributed submissions limited to National Academy of Sciences (NAS) members. Research Reports, the primary format for unsolicited original research, present results of exceptional importance and typically span 6 pages (approximately 4,000 words, 50 references, and 4 figures/tables), though up to 12 pages are permitted; these may also be contributed by NAS members who played a significant role in the work, with a limit of two per member annually. Brief Reports offer concise accounts of observations with immediate impact or conceptual advances, limited to 3 pages (about 1,600 words and 15 references), and require immediate open access. Invited formats emphasize synthesis and expert insight, including Perspectives that address critical scientific problems with novel viewpoints (up to 10 pages) and Commentaries that highlight noteworthy articles. Colloquium Papers derive from -sponsored colloquia and report on discussed topics, while Inaugural Articles allow newly elected members to introduce their research. Special Features comprise curated collections on significant themes, undergoing rigorous review. Non-research materials include Opinions, which are unsolicited succinct essays (1,500–2,000 words) on timely topics offering novel arguments, reviewed by experts; Letters to the Editor, brief comments (500 words) on recent PNAS articles, often paired with author responses; and Front Matter, editor-assigned magazine-style science narratives by journalists. These formats support PNAS's multidisciplinary scope across biological, physical, and social sciences, with over 3,500 papers published annually alongside reviews and commentaries.

Scientific Impact and Metrics

Citation and Influence Indicators

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) exhibits substantial citation influence, with a 2024 Journal of 9.1, ranking it 14th among 135 journals in the Multidisciplinary Sciences category per Clarivate's . This figure derives from the average citations per article published in 2022 and 2023, received in 2024, underscoring PNAS's role in disseminating high-impact research across biological, physical, and social sciences. The journal's five-year of 10.6 further highlights enduring citation accrual, excluding self-cites at 8.9 for the standard metric. PNAS ranks prominently in Metrics, achieving an h5-index of 268 for articles published between 2020 and 2024, where each of the top 268 papers garnered at least 268 citations, and the h5-median reaches 366. This positions PNAS 6th in and Medical Sciences (General) and 7th overall in Health and Medical Sciences categories, reflecting robust recent productivity and visibility. Analyses of journal influence, such as scores, consistently identify PNAS among the top trio—alongside and —for overall sway in scientific citations, driven by its multidisciplinary scope and volume of over 2,800 articles annually. Cumulative citations exceed 734,000 as of 2024 updates. Beyond aggregate metrics, PNAS tracks article-level indicators including Attention Scores, which aggregate mentions in news, policy documents, blogs, and to gauge non-academic reach, available via the journal's platform for all publications. These complement citation counts from databases like and , where PNAS articles frequently appear in highly cited compilations, though metrics like for the journal as an entity are less standardized than for authors. Such indicators affirm PNAS's centrality in advancing empirical knowledge, with immediacy index at 2.0 signaling rapid post-publication engagement.

Notable Contributions to Knowledge

PNAS has published numerous papers that advanced fundamental understanding in , physics, and other fields, often by National Academy of Sciences members leveraging direct submission tracks. These contributions include early insights into genetic mechanisms and protein synthesis, which reshaped . For instance, Barbara McClintock's 1950 paper detailed mutable loci in , providing evidence for transposable elements that insert and excise from chromosomes, thereby regulating and generating beyond point mutations. This work, initially met with skepticism, demonstrated causal roles for mobile DNA in development and evolution, earning McClintock the 1983 in or . A pivotal advance in deciphering the came from Marshall W. Nirenberg and J. Heinrich Matthaei's 1961 experiment, which used a cell-free E. coli system with synthetic polyuridylic acid (poly-U) to direct incorporation of into polypeptide chains, establishing that the triplet UUU specifies . This breakthrough initiated systematic codon assignments, revealing the non-overlapping, degenerate nature of the code and enabling subsequent mappings of all 64 codons. Nirenberg's efforts, building on this PNAS publication, culminated in the 1968 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine shared with and Robert W. Holley. In , William Moffitt and J. T. Yang's 1956 analysis of in polypeptides introduced methods to quantify alpha-helical content in proteins, linking spectroscopic data to secondary structure and facilitating studies. Garnering over 3,000 citations, this contributed to causal models of and function. Earlier, and Walter Baade's 1934 paper linked cosmic rays to supernovae explosions, predicting compact remnants like neutron stars as energy sources, presaging modern on and . These examples underscore PNAS's role in disseminating empirical findings that drove paradigm shifts, though selection via member contributions may have prioritized insider perspectives over broader novelty.

Controversies and Critiques

Criticisms of Member-Privileged Submissions

The Contributed Submission track in Proceedings of the (PNAS) permits members of the () to submit manuscripts where they nominate up to six reviewers, with the member handling initial communication and revisions before editorial oversight. This process, intended to leverage members' expertise for efficient review, has faced scrutiny for potentially compromising rigor due to the member's influence over reviewer selection and the track's historically high acceptance rates. Empirical analyses reveal systematic differences in impact between Contributed and Direct submissions. A 2009 study of PNAS papers from 2000–2007 found that articles authored and Contributed by members received significantly fewer citations than Direct submissions, even after controlling for field, year, and author characteristics, suggesting lower average scientific influence. Similarly, a 2024 analysis of over 46,000 PNAS articles from 2007–2020 confirmed that Contributed papers undergo shorter review times—averaging 1.5 months less than Direct submissions—and exhibit lower normalized citation scores in most fields, particularly physical sciences and , though differences were marginal in social and biological sciences. Critics argue this track enables insufficient peer scrutiny, as members may select sympathetic reviewers from their networks, fostering perceptions of or reduced standards. A 2014 Nature report highlighted a 98% acceptance rate for Contributed submissions versus 18% for tracks, prompting PNAS to tighten policies in 2010 by mandating associate editor screening prior to member review, which narrowed but did not eliminate citation gaps. These reforms addressed concerns over quality dilution, yet Contributed papers continue to represent about 10–15% of PNAS output, with ongoing debates about whether the track prioritizes member prestige over merit-based evaluation.

Editorial Decisions and Post-Publication Corrections

The editorial decision process at PNAS involves initial screening, followed by for suitable submissions, with final approval required from an member. For direct submissions, decisions after full review average 40 days, while contributory submissions via academy members undergo similar scrutiny but have historically raised concerns about potential favoritism in selection. Critics have argued that this dual-track system can lead to inconsistent rigor, as evidenced by higher retraction rates in member-nominated papers compared to direct submissions in analyses of PNAS outputs. In one case, a 2022 retraction of a paper co-authored by Jane Lubchenco, then a official, prompted PNAS to impose a lifetime ban on her, highlighting enforcement of accountability for failures during the review phase. Post-publication corrections at PNAS include errata for minor errors, for substantive inaccuracies, and retractions for pervasive flaws, unsubstantiated data, or , all at the editors' discretion following author requests or external flags like comments. The journal's policy emphasizes transparency, stating that papers will not be corrected or retracted without of issues, and competing interests may trigger errata even post-publication. A 2012 PNAS analysis of 2,047 retractions across journals (including its own) attributed 67.4% to —43.4% or suspected , 14.2% , and 9.8% —underscoring systemic challenges in initial editorial gatekeeping that necessitate robust correction mechanisms. Notable examples illustrate application of these policies amid scrutiny. In January 2025, a 2006 paper received an extensive correction for multiple image duplications identified via , which was later escalated to full retraction in May 2025 after further review, demonstrating how post-publication scrutiny can override initial decisions. Similarly, a 2016 PNAS article on cell experiments was corrected in 2017 for "clumsy but genuine errors" in handling, as acknowledged in the , without retraction. These cases reflect PNAS's commitment to amendments but also expose delays or escalations in addressing flaws, with external watchdogs like often accelerating resolutions. In August 2024, PNAS mandated a correction to a paper following concerns raised by researcher Hazan, despite pushback from authors including , who disputed the need via legal threats, affirming the journal's authority in enforcing post-publication integrity.

Debates on Ideological Influence in Publishing

In recent years, debates have intensified over whether ideological considerations, particularly those aligned with progressive social values predominant in academic institutions, influence editorial and peer-review decisions at Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), especially in fields like social, behavioral, and intersecting with policy. Critics argue that the journal's association with the (NAS), an elite body reflecting broader academia's left-leaning skew—where surveys indicate liberals outnumber conservatives by ratios exceeding 10:1 in social sciences—may prioritize conformity to prevailing orthodoxies over empirical rigor, leading to selective acceptance of papers supporting certain narratives while scrutinizing or rejecting heterodox ones. For instance, PNAS has faced accusations of amplifying research on topics like structural or gender stereotypes that align with egalitarian assumptions, while studies challenging innate group differences, such as in cognitive abilities or sex-based biological variances, encounter heightened resistance despite methodological soundness. A focal point emerged in 2024 with the publication of an opinion piece by evolutionary biologist W. Ford Doolittle, asserting that politicizing science by tethering it to transient social values undermines its pursuit of objective truth and risks "weaponizing" findings for ideological ends. Doolittle warned that such influences could suppress research yielding socially undesirable outcomes, citing examples like biased funding toward studies on systemic inequities and potential hesitancy on inherited traits like IQ disparities across populations. This stance directly contradicted positions from NAS President , who, co-authoring with President Michael Crow, advocated for science to be explicitly shaped by and public-good imperatives, implying constraints on inquiry that diverge from prevailing moral frameworks. The juxtaposition highlighted internal tensions at PNAS, where policies ostensibly emphasize multidisciplinary impact but may implicitly favor "prosocial" alignments, as evidenced by a 2023 PNAS study revealing scientists' willingness to censor peers' work under motives of benevolence and self-protection to avert perceived harms—mechanisms critics link to ideological gatekeeping rather than . Politically charged cases, such as the publication and subsequent correction of a PNAS paper on hydroxychloroquine's inefficacy for treatment, further fueled discussions on external ideological pressures infiltrating publishing. The paper, initially retracted amid data errors but republished after revisions, became a flashpoint in public debates influenced by partisan divides, with proponents of the treatment (often aligned with conservative figures like former President Trump) accusing journals like PNAS of rushed or biased handling to counter politically inconvenient repurposing claims. Similarly, PNAS's track record in sex differences research—publishing findings on brain mosaicism minimizing binary distinctions alongside acknowledgments of "hotly debated" variances—has drawn critique for potentially downplaying evolutionary or hormonal causal factors in favor of nurture-heavy interpretations that resonate with gender equity agendas. These episodes underscore broader concerns that PNAS's dual submission tracks (member-nominated vs. direct) exacerbate biases, as member privileges may entrench establishment views, prompting calls for transparent ideological diversity in editorial boards to mitigate systemic skews documented in peer-review favoritism toward prestige over novelty.

References

  1. https://www.nasonline.org/about-the-nas/history/
  2. https://www.pnas.org/about
  3. https://www.nasonline.org/publications/proceedings-of-the-national-academy-of-sciences/
  4. https://phys.org/journals/proceedings-of-the-national-academy-of-sciences/
  5. https://www.pnas.org/about/article-journal-metrics
  6. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1509912112
  7. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1212247109
  8. https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-journal/pnas-retractions/
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6338832/
  10. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1821201116
  11. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1405552111
  12. https://archive.org/details/sim_proceedings-of-the-national-academy-of-sciences-usa_1930_16_contents
  13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK217871/
  14. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1406109111
  15. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31695.html
  16. https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/narrative
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2909426/
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4077050/
  19. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2302593120
  20. https://doi.org/10.1087/2009202
  21. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.01222-15
  22. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0909515106
  23. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0730842100
  24. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.162350099
  25. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0800528105
  26. https://www.pnas.org/about/editorial-board
  27. https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2018/10/entomologist-may-r-berenbaum-of-the-university-of-illinois-at-urbana-champaign-named-pnas-editor-in-chief
  28. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0602531103
  29. https://www.pnas.org/author-center/editorial-and-journal-policies
  30. https://www.pnas.org/author-center/member-contributed-submissions
  31. https://www.pnas.org/author-center
  32. https://www.pnas.org/reviewer
  33. https://www.pnas.org/about/topics-collections-article-types
  34. https://www.pnas.org/author-center/submitting-your-manuscript
  35. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0903307106
  36. https://www.bioxbio.com/journal/P-NATL-ACAD-SCI-USA
  37. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.36.6.344
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1063197/
  39. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1215482109
  40. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1404819111
  41. https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v10p247y1987.pdf
  42. https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~burrows/papers/pnas201422666_7rt2gl.pdf
  43. https://retractionwatch.com/2016/01/15/fast-tracked-pnas-papers-are-cited-less-often-but-gap-is-shrinking/
  44. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0008092
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2778996/
  46. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-024-05115-y
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382632591_Through_the_secret_gate_a_study_of_member-contributed_submissions_in_PNAS
  48. https://raphazlab.wordpress.com/2016/01/19/opening-up-peer-review-the-peculiar-case-of-pnas-contributed-papers/
  49. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/01/14/pnas-tighter-editorial-policy-improves-nas-papers/
  50. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1417688111
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1088396/
  52. https://retractionwatch.com/2022/08/16/white-house-official-banned-from-publishing-in-pnas-following-retraction/
  53. https://www.pnas.org/author-center/after-acceptance
  54. https://retractionwatch.com/2025/05/23/genentech-authors-flip-pnas-study-from-corrected-to-retracted-following-retraction-watch-coverage/
  55. https://retractionwatch.com/2025/02/25/exclusive-extensive-correction-genentech-pnas-update/
  56. https://retractionwatch.com/2017/06/01/clumsy-genuine-errors-prompt-pnas-correction/
  57. https://raphazlab.wordpress.com/2024/08/20/legal-threat-against-me-a-correction-at-pnas-a-follow-up-at-retraction-watch-and-pieces-in-chemistry-world-science-and-at-the-in-the-pipeline-blog/
  58. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301642120
  59. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0809921106
  60. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1919091117
  61. https://issues.org/trust-science-democracy-misinformation-mcnutt-crow/
  62. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2012328117
  63. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1707323114
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.