Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists

The word “prosocial” is enough of a neologism that it is missing in my autocorrect. Merriam-Webster thinks it means “intended to help or benefit another person or group”.

The word “prosocial” is never defined, or much less used, in the body of the text, only in the title and abstract. The Reader is left unable to understand how, or even whether, the cited studies meet the criteria to be “prosocial”. One person’s “prosocial” act, say eugenics, might be another person’s strongly antisocial act.

So we are left with a paper that resolves to “scientist-censors profess they are/were intending to do good”. This is, at best, a PR release or an apologist tract, not a scientific study.