This week, US attorneys for the District of Columbia will be reaching out to the editors of a scientific journal for chest doctors. They are implying that the journal may have a partisan bias and are asking a series of questions regarding how publications protect against misinformation, potential influences from competing perspectives, and funders and advertisers.

In a letter from US lawyer Ed Martin, it is stated, “It has come to my attention that magazines and publications like the Chest Journal may declare themselves as partisans in various scientific debates. You have a certain responsibility.”

This letter has sparked concern among revision groups and some scientists who worry about potential threats to academic and scientific freedom.

JT Morris, a senior supervising lawyer at the Foundation for Personal Rights and Expression (Fire), remarked, “It is highly unusual to see a US attorney from Columbia sending letters to publications in Illinois inquiring about editorial practices, especially those of medical journals. It appears to be an act of government officials targeting a publication due to disagreements with its content.”

Fire, a non-profit civil liberty group, criticized Martin for allegedly threatening speakers critical of the government’s efficiency department.

Scientific journals play a crucial role in the advancement of scientific knowledge and provide a platform for researchers to share new discoveries with their peers. Trusted scientific journals undergo a peer review process where submissions are scrutinized by external researchers to ensure accuracy and validity of the content.

The Trump administration has made significant cuts in funding and staffing for federal science and healthcare institutions, raising concerns that research topics may be targeted based on political considerations. These actions have raised suspicion among scientists regarding potential government influence in independent journals.

The District of Columbia’s US Attorney’s Office did not respond to requests from NBC News for comments or additional information regarding the letters they are sending.

The letter was originally shared online by Dr. Eric Reinhart, a Chicago-based clinician, political anthropologist, and social psychiatrist, who described the letter as “blackmail” and labeled it as “fascist tactics.”

Laura Dimasi, a communications specialist at the American College of Chest Physicians, publishers of Chest Journal, confirmed that they have received the letter shared by Reinhart.

Dimasi stated, “The content was posted online without our knowledge. Lawyers are currently reviewing the letter for further action.”

The American College of Chest Physicians is an organization of experts with around 22,000 members specializing in lung, critical care, and sleep medicine. Their website provides more information about the organization.

According to a Publication Website Statement, Chest Journal upholds strict peer review criteria to ensure scientific rigor.

Reinhart explained that he shared the letter online to bring together editors of science journals and the broader scientific community to resist government pressures on publishers.

NBC News reached out to former editors of science journals to inquire if they had ever received similar letters from the Department of Justice regarding their publishing practices, but none reported receiving such letters.

Jeremy Berg, a former editor of the Science Family of Journals, interpreted the letter as a signal of scrutiny.

Michael Eisen, a former editor of the biomedical journal Elife, viewed the letter as part of a broader attack by the Trump administration on academia, universities, and science.

Berg and Eisen expressed uncertainties about the intentions behind the letter, with Eisen highlighting that the Department of Justice’s involvement in editorial matters is unprecedented and raises concerns about undue influence.

There is uncertainty among scientists about the implications of the letter and whether it signifies a broader investigation into scientific journals. NBC News reached out to other scientific publications, and representatives from PLOS, the US Academy of Sciences, and the New England Journal of Medicine reported no similar investigations had taken place.

Representatives of Science, Nature, and Jama, the medical journals of the American Medical Association, did not respond to requests for comments.