Environmental Health Perspectives Journal Faces Transition amid Funding Challenges
When Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), a highly respected scientific journal, ceased operations at the beginning of December 2022, it raised significant concerns within the research community. This decision came shortly after the journal announced in April that it would stop accepting new submissions due to funding limitations at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which both finance and operate EHP. Recent reports indicate that the journal is preparing to transfer to a new, non-governmental publisher in the near future.
A Shift in Operational Model
EHP is undergoing a transition aimed at creating a more streamlined operational framework. The NIH stated that this new model will help maintain the journal’s reputation for publishing impactful research. The journal’s website was taken offline in early December after the contracts that supported it expired in November. Fortunately, no content was lost during this period. All previously published articles are securely archived through the LOCKSS Program, ensuring that they will be accessible again once the transition is finalized.
Pioneering Open Access Publication
For over 20 years, EHP has stood as a model for open-access publishing in the environmental health sciences. It has followed a diamond open-access model, meaning that authors incur no article processing fees, and all articles are freely available to the public. This approach has made EHP a cornerstone within the fields of experimental toxicology, epidemiology, and exposure science.
Concerns from the Research Community
Experts within the field remain apprehensive about the journal’s future. Jamie DeWitt, an environmental and molecular toxicologist at Oregon State University, expressed her concerns regarding the impact of this transition. She emphasized EHP’s status as a leading journal in environmental health and toxicological research. DeWitt noted, “Its articles often cover emerging and current issues relevant to both public and environmental health.” One key advantage of EHP’s previous affiliation with NIEHS was that the editor-in-chief was an active researcher within the field, promoting an engaged and informed oversight of the journal.
Potential Challenges with External Publishing
DeWitt raised concerns about what this transition might mean under a new publisher. While reputable publishers exist, many manage multiple journals, which could dilute the attention and focus EHP previously enjoyed. “I don’t know what this will mean, but it certainly won’t be the same,” she said. Whether the change will lead to improvements or challenges remains uncertain.
Importance of EHP in Environmental Health Research
Furthermore, Sven Jordt from the Duke University School of Medicine emphasized EHP’s historical importance in publishing impactful research, including groundbreaking studies on per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. He pointed out that the journal not only hosted vital analytical chemistry research but also played a significant role in elevating public awareness on critical issues. The uncertainty surrounding the journal’s fate is a source of worry for many in the field.
Jordt articulated the gravity of the situation: “It’s obviously highly concerning. This is the leading environmental health journal and has been pioneering publication in this field since the 1970s.” He also highlighted the potential financial implications of transitioning to a commercial publisher. If the new publisher implements article processing fees, it could hinder accessibility for many authors.
What Lies Ahead
The transition to a new publisher is expected to take several months. This timeframe will likely involve establishing a new web repository and assembling an editorial board, as well as securing reviewers. As the research community awaits further developments, the future of EHP remains a critical topic of discussion, exemplifying the multifaceted challenges faced in academic publishing, funding, and accessibility in the sciences.
