Ah yes, because the best way to get groups to not spout misleading rhetoric is to unabashedly bias the publications in the other direction. Giving validity to

Ah yes, because the best way to get groups to not spout misleading rhetoric is to unabashedly bias the publications in the other direction. Giving validity to the claim that a particular perspective is being actively suppressed historically works out great in reducing that viewpoint... Maybe they'd be better off restricting publishing to studies reproducing earlier results or meta-analysis, encouraging more rigorous standards without legitimately adding a bias. But if this is genuinely about reducing racist or sexist misappropriation of research to legitimize those views, this is exactly the sort of measure that is going to backfire by giving the broad lack of supporting evidence for those positions a legitimate claim of explicit censorship. It no longer matters if there are barely any reproducible results supporting their views, as pointing out that asymmetry is rendered an argument from silence in the face of active censorship. This is a bad idea coming from a good place.