August also seems politics free, though I'm too lazy to check five issues to see if it's 99%
Spending time in academia and reading articles in a field you know something about makes it clear they are quite far from science.
So when you said "publish science" you meant what shows up in academic journals, while when the other person said "publish science" they were thinking of an article written primarily for the purpose of engagement. The same idea probably wasn't being referenced.
Sadly, it falls on academia's shoulders to understand this problem (that before a layman sees anything "sciency" it's filtered through people who need to get an emotional reaction to drive engagement, and that defines the public perception of science) and put the work into ameliorating it. Sadly, it's a conflict of interest that probably helps procuring funds.
Softer science like social science or psychology seems easy to politicize though. "Studies show that people need <my favorite policy> to truly be mentally healthy"
Mechanics / Electromagnetics / Thermodynamics / Kinetics / Inorganic Chemistry / Electrochemistry / Analytical Chemistry / Earth Sciences / Anatomy / Botany / Biology / Zoology / Neurobiology / Marine Biology / Embryology / Ecology / Palaeontology / Genetics / Cell Biology / Ethology / Astronomy / Meteorology / Geology / Atmospheric Sciences / Glaciology / Climatology / Structural Geology
Most psychology papers are also fairly difficult to politicise. Like, try to politicise this: https://www.pnas.org/eprint/WREBM4QSJCM8MUAMJXEH/full
Okay!
"human learnability of abstract network representations"
Which humans? Did they test it works equally well for all races and genders and body shapes, or is their model of human learning biased to work best for buff white men and is inferior for everyone else?
What's in the abstract network representations, are they truly neutral, or are we just helping humans to learn from biased data that will make them subconsciously more racist/sexist/heightist?
I think the real factor here is whether or not a large cohort of people find inconvenience in what the scientists of a given field are saying
Imagine how political geology was when it was the major proof against the world being created in 4004 BC.
Go tell it to a young-earth creationist.
Try psychology, sociology, medicine, climatology and the things in this direction. I probably agree with the broad thrust if the politics in those fields and that isn't the point!
re: hard sciences, the scientific community's refusal to accept the covid lab leak hypothesis stands out IMHO. School shutdowns/mask mandates for pre-k and public schools is another politicalized issue.