The Journals That Lent Science’s Authority to a Blacklist
An open letter to Springer Nature, ACM, Sage, and The BMJ, exposing discrepancies between their published claims and editorial correction policies—with highlighted policy-versus-passage exhibits and a demand for stronger scientific accountability and the issuance of formal corrections
This investigation is part of a broader effort to establish accountability for the use of misinformation designations against identifiable Americans.
In September 2026, we launched Restore the First, a national citizens’ coalition bringing together 20 organizations and eight independent media outlets to address censorship, government accountability, and enforceable protections for First Amendment rights.
The coalition was convened by six Americans named in the original “Disinformation Dozen” report. Our work now extends beyond the conduct of government agencies and technology platforms to a question of scientific accountability: what happens when published research perpetuates inaccurate or unsupported allegations against the very people targeted for censorship?
We are calling on scientific publishers to examine the documented discrepancies, correct consequential errors, and strengthen their correction policies so that no individual is denied an impartial review because of their views or reputation.
The institutions that claim authority to identify misinformation must themselves be accountable for the accuracy of their claims.
The Organization Behind the Blacklist Now Faces Federal Scrutiny
In a striking development, Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate—the organization responsible for the original “Disinformation Dozen” campaign—is now the subject of U.S. government deportation proceedings.
In September 2026, a federal district court dismissed his lawsuit challenging the government’s actions, and Ahmed appealed.
Although these immigration proceedings do not constitute a judicial finding that CCDH’s research was false, they place renewed scrutiny on an organization whose allegations helped shape media coverage, government pressure, and subsequent academic publications.
The question for scientific publishers is unavoidable: Did they independently scrutinize CCDH’s evidence before lending their institutional authority to allegations against identifiable Americans?
The credibility of a scientific claim must rest on its evidence—not on the influence or perceived authority of the organization promoting it.
Ahmed v. Rubio — Federal appellate docket
To the editorial leadership and research-integrity offices of ACM, Springer Nature, Sage, and BMJ:
I am asking you to review specific claims associated with the Disinformation Dozen report and adopt a stronger correction policy for consequential statements about identifiable people.
This is not a request that you agree with my views on medicine, public policy, or freedom of expression. It is a demand that the statements you publish be supported by the evidence you cite—and that material errors be addressed through a timely, impartial, visible process.
A person should not have to win an argument about their entire worldview before a journal will correct an inaccurate statement about them.
CCDH’s original report named me among the people it recommended removing from social media platforms. Its recommendations extended to associated organizations and backup accounts. The intended consequences were explicit, not incidental. [1]
On March 24, 2021, the New York Attorney General’s office repeated a 65 percent assertion in a coalition call for stronger platform enforcement. That documents a connection between the claim and demands affecting public communication.
It does not establish that this report caused every later restriction. [2]
Where accusations may be used to justify exclusion, reputational injury, or official intervention, accuracy is not an optional refinement.
The policy versus the published passage
These cases are not interchangeable. Some raise direct source-accuracy questions; others require clarification of context or inference. The requested remedy must follow the evidence, not a predetermined verdict.
How to read the exhibits: The panels below reproduce short, checked excerpts with emphasis added. They are typeset source excerpts, not screenshots of the original websites. Each has direct source links.
The commentary is an editorial assessment, not a court finding of defamation or a publisher’s misconduct determination.
1. ACM: the category became broader
The 2022 WebSci abstract describes the estimate as applying to pandemic misinformation generally, while the underlying report concerns the narrower category of anti-vaccine material. The broader wording is confirmed in the authors’ institutional repository. [6]
The request: identify evidence for the broader category or correct the abstract and every affected passage. ACM’s policy provides a framework for correcting the scholarly record without automatically retracting otherwise useful research. [3] [4]
Current publisher notices remain incompletely verified. The repository establishes the wording; it does not, by itself, establish what ACM has done in response to a complaint. [5]
2. Springer Nature: the qualification requires an answer
The Telegram paper uses a lower-bound formulation where CCDH’s relevant heading uses an upper-limit formulation. That is an attribution concern requiring a specific explanation, not a reason to dismiss the paper’s entire Telegram analysis. [8]
The request: explain the basis for the stronger wording or revise it, preserving the original measurement’s limits. The journal’s own significant-error provision is directly relevant. [7]
There is an important qualification: CCDH also states the percentage without the upper-limit wording elsewhere. The assessment must address the full report, not just one heading.
Its Facebook method begins with 483 linked content items from 30 groups and examines their circulation; a large circulation count is not automatically a representative sample of an entire information environment. [1]
3. Sage / INQUIRY: concentration is not movement size
The article repeats the percentage as an established finding, then infers that the movement’s core is relatively small. Concentration of circulation among a few sources does not, by itself, establish the number of participants in a movement. [10]
The request: review the factual scope separately from the inference. Correct or clarify an overgeneralized premise; substantiate, revise, or allow a published challenge to the interpretation. Sage’s policy distinguishes significant factual errors from changes that would undermine the work’s overall validity. [9]
The absence of an established data-fabrication allegation does not dispose of a source-accuracy complaint. Honest error can still require a visible remedy.
4. The BMJ: attribution does not eliminate context
The BMJ article attributes the estimate to CCDH. That matters: this is not a claim that the authors invented the number. The question is whether the presentation adequately conveys the selection and measurement limits.
The excerpt below was checked against an author-uploaded copy; the current publisher notice history remains incompletely verified. [12] [13]
The request: assess whether the wording could reasonably be read as a broadly representative finding and clarify the sampling context where needed. The BMJ’s policy does not impose a time limit for reporting errors, so publication age is not, by itself, an answer to this request. [11]
This is a contextual-accuracy review, not the same source-scope problem as the ACM abstract. The journal also provides a rapid-response channel; a reader response and a formal correction are different outcomes. [19]
The Precedent Is Already Established: Major Publishers Have Corrected the Record
The scientific journals being called upon to act are not being asked to establish an unprecedented standard. Other major publishers have already revisited their coverage of the same “Disinformation Dozen” allegations.
In 2024, following challenges to the underlying report, several prominent media organizations added qualifications or updates to their original publications.
The Independent — August 7, 2024
The newspaper updated its March 26, 2021 article, Study names 12 most dangerous anti-vaxxers in America, acknowledging Meta’s subsequent objections to the CCDH study’s findings and methodology.
Forbes — August 17, 2024
Steven Salzberg’s article, De-platform The Disinformation Dozen, was updated to address Meta’s objections and CCDH’s response. The original article had advocated removing the designated individuals from social media platforms.
The Guardian — September 17, 2024
The Guardian added a footnote to its July 17, 2021 article, Majority of Covid misinformation came from 12 people, report finds, acknowledging Facebook’s published dispute with CCDH’s methodology and findings.
Read the article and its September 2024 footnote
McGill University
GreenMedInfo’s October 2024 account also documents McGill University’s addition of a pinned comment to an associated educational video acknowledging Meta’s methodological challenge. That reported change should be distinguished from a formal correction to a peer-reviewed paper.
Read GreenMedInfo’s correction chronology
These actions were not universal retractions or admissions that every original allegation was false. They were, however, meaningful acknowledgments that the public record required additional context.
This raises an uncomfortable question for the scientific publishing establishment: if major news organizations can revisit consequential claims arising from the CCDH report, why should scientific journals be less accountable for accurately representing the same evidence?
Indeed, the obligation is especially important when inaccuracies are preserved in scholarly databases, cited by subsequent researchers, and potentially incorporated into public policy.
The distinction is between correcting the record and defending institutional prestige.
Springer Nature, ACM, Sage, and The BMJ each maintain editorial mechanisms intended to protect the accuracy of their publications. We are asking them to use those mechanisms to review the specific discrepancies documented in this investigation—and explain their decisions publicly.
The precedents exist. The correction standards exist. The disputed passages have been identified.
Now the publishers must answer.
See more here sayerji.com