Claims of Editorial Decisions Over Merit

BUFFALO, NY – February 16, 2026 – A new #commentary was #published in Volume 17 of Oncotarget on February 6, 2026, titled “Censorship in science: How publishing decisions could have shaped the perceived “general consensus” on COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy.” In this commentary, led by Panagis Polykretis of the “Allineare Sanità e Salute” Foundation and the Independent Medical Scientific Commission (CMSi) in Milan, along with colleagues, the authors document a two-year effort to publish a case report and literature review that raised concerns about possible links between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and rare blood cancers. They argue that editorial decisions, rather than scientific merit, prevented the paper from being published, raising broader questions about transparency and bias in scientific publishing. The commentary outlines the submission history of a previously written case report describing a woman who developed acute lymphoblastic leukemia shortly after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Alongside the case, the original paper reviewed existing studies and regulatory findings related to hematological malignancies. Despite relying on published evidence and maintaining a cautious tone, the manuscript was rejected 16 times before eventually appearing in Oncotarget. According to the authors, most journals rejected the manuscript without external peer review. Three journals allowed it to proceed through peer review, and one journal accepted the paper twice before withdrawing its decision both times. The authors argue that such cancelations, particularly after positive peer review, suggest a pattern of editorial censorship that prioritizes conformity over open scientific debate. The commentary highlights examples of reviewer feedback and editorial statements that, according to the authors, misrepresented the content of the original case report. One rejection asserted that mRNA vaccines cannot cause cancer because they do not integrate into human DNA. The authors respond that this position is overly narrow and overlooks the complex, multifactorial nature of cancer development. They also cite peer-reviewed evidence of DNA contamination in vaccine samples and call for a more balanced and open discussion of these findings. Rather than claiming definitive proof of vaccine-related harm, the authors emphasize the importance of allowing controversial topics to be examined and discussed based on evidence. They argue that suppressing disagreement, even when grounded in published science, can influence public understanding and create the appearance of scientific consensus where meaningful disagreement exists. “This case raises serious concerns: if scientifically sound dissenting research faces systematic exclusion, the resulting literature becomes selectively curated, artificially constructing ‘consensus’ while marginalizing legitimate scientific discourse.” The events described in the commentary raise concerns not only about a single case report but also about broader trends in academic publishing. If journal decisions are influenced by public health messaging rather than scientific reasoning, the authors argue that the scientific literature risks becoming selectively curated. They conclude by calling for institutional reform to ensure that editorial processes remain fair, evidence-based, and open to legitimate scientific debate. DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28829 Correspondence to - Panagis Polykretis - panagis.polykretis@gmail.com Introduction video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=255yn3sgx-0 To learn more about Oncotarget, please visit https://www.oncotarget.com. MEDIA@IMPACTJOURNALS.COM