A former emeritus professor who has been called “one of the most unapologetic and raw ‘scientific’ racists operating today” has had one of his papers subjected to an expression of concern.
Richard Lynn, who was stripped of his emeritus status at Ulster University last year after students there protested his views, published “Reflections on Sixty-Eight Years of Research on Race and Intelligence” in the MDPI journal Psych on April 24 of this year, after originally submitting it on April 1.
However, just four months later, the journal published an expression of concern about the paper. It begins with a seemingly innocuous premise, that the article is misclassified:
We note that the article was originally published as an Editorial; however, the author is not affiliated with the publisher and the views are not intended to represent those of the journal Psych or the publisher MDPI. The article type has therefore been changed to Opinion.
Then the editors dig into the content:
We wish to highlight the following points that could lead to the biased interpretation of the research covered by :
1. There was no discussion of the correlation and causation, most notably between IQ and GDP. This has been an area of substantial discussion in the field, but this point is not sufficiently mentioned. Given the paper’s overall content, we believe this topic should have been given more prominence.
2. Support is given in the article to several quotations expressing extreme views not widely considered as being supported by current research results. The people making these statements are clearly characterized as ‘victims’. While the author may sincerely hold such a point of view, we do not agree that a scientific journal is the correct place to express such opinions.
3. The mainstream acceptance of the body of research presented has been over-stated. While there are a significant number of scholars who support the research, the topic remains controversial and not accepted by a large proportion of the research community.
We have re-evaluated the paper with the assistance of scholars in the field, the editor who accepted the paper for publication, and the author. Given that the author has a high profile in the field, we believe that  has value in providing an insight into the author’s own opinion of his research and the field as a whole. However, we recommend against using it as established fact, and that statements made in the article should be treated with skepticism.
The content of the paper covers a topic that is highly controversial and we acknowledge that the author has made contributions to the field over many years. As a publisher, MDPI does not wish to deliberately avoid controversial topics, but we believe that they should be presented in a scientific and balanced way.
MDPI remains committed to the addition of only high-quality and scientific research and discussion to the literature, and we are reviewing the process that led to the publication of .
Lynn told Retraction Watch that he does not agree with the expression of concern. He said he would ask a colleague to send a rebuttal, but we have yet to receive it. [See update at end of post.]
We asked Angela Saini, author of the recently published Superior: The Return of Race Science, for her take:
While it is to be welcomed that the editors are finally calling out poor scholarship from a psychologist such as Richard Lynn, who had his emeritus title withdrawn by his former university just last year for expressing racist and sexist views – following a lifetime of publishing in the notoriously pseudoscientific Mankind Quarterly, co-founded by Nazi race scientists after the war – one had to wonder how a paper of obviously poor quality and making such spurious assertions managed to get published in the first place. What must the peer review process at Psych be like that nobody thought to question the wisdom of publishing a paper like this?
Saini pointed out that
another paper in the same journal defends the work of notorious scientific racists, Arthur Jensen and Philippe Rushton, claiming there is ancient evidence that intelligence varies with climate. The quality of peer review and editorial standards in minor journals such as these needs to come under greater scrutiny, especially in the Internet age when it’s difficult for lay people to know which source of information is more trustworthy than another.
This is of course not the first time that observers have wondered how “race science” has survived peer review.
Update, 1300 UTC, 8/12/19: Gerard R. Fuerst, a research fellow at the Ulster Institute for Social Research, which Lynn founded, passed along this message from Lynn:
I do not agree with the points raised in the expression of concern. I was asked to write a reflection paper, which I did. Given the request, the concern mentioned do not make much sense. Specifically,
1) I discussed correlation and variance explained because most of my research focuses on such analyses. If the editors wanted discussion of the research on causality, conducted by others, they should have specifically solicited this.
2) I note that James Watson and others have been victims of political correctness. Numerous other prominent scientists have made similar points in books, journal articles, science blog posts, and interviews. The editors apparently feel that it is inappropriate to make this point in a reflection piece solicited by a journal. They are, of course, free to decide what is appropriate for their journal, but I don’t see that I did anything untoward here.
3) The editors claim that my research is “not accepted by a large portion of the research community.” This may be the case; however, my claim was that my national IQ estimates are now “mainstream” (or no longer fringe) among Intelligence researchers, which is true.
That said, I think these concerns largely resulted from a reasonable misunderstanding regarding the point of the reflection piece. Moreover, I think that it is noteworthy that the editorial board remains committed to publishing quality research, even on politically controversial topics.
Hat tip: Rolf Degen
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.