Editors in chief past and present apologize for publishing article that “feed[s] into racist narratives”

The previous and current editors in chief of a psychology journal have apologized for publishing an article about which one of them writes, “in retrospect I can certainly see that their article does feed into racist narratives.”

Earlier this month, we reported that the authors of “Declines in Religiosity Predict Increases in Violent Crime—but Not Among Countries With Relatively High Average IQ,” first published in January in Psychological Science, had requested its retraction because they realized they had not vetted the research behind the paper well enough before submitting.

In a retraction notice dated yesterday, the journal’s current editor in chief, Patricia Bauer, writes that the article “has been retracted at the request of the authors:”

Clark and colleagues requested that this article be retracted out of concern that some of the measures used in the research were invalid. Specifically, they note that the National IQ data used in their analyses, largely based on Lynn and Vanhanen’s (2012) compilation, are plagued by lack of representativeness of the samples, questionable support for some of the measures, an excess of researcher degrees of freedom, and concern about the vulnerability of the data to bias. They also noted that the cross-national homicide data used in the research are unreliable, given that many countries included in the data set provided no actual data on homicides that had occurred. Instead, in these countries, homicide rates were estimated on the basis of other variables that may or may not be closely related to homicide rates. Importantly, some of the variables used to create the estimates were confounded with variables of interest in the research. When the authors reanalyzed the data without the imputed values, the reported effects were no longer apparent.

In the conclusion of their request for retraction, the authors reflected that although articles with certain types of errors may still be helpful to have in the literature, they do not believe theirs falls into that category. They explicitly expressed concern that leaving the article in the literature could “prolong the use of Lynn & Vanhanen’s cross-national IQ measures.”

As Editor of Psychological Science, I have decided to honor the authors’ request and retract this article. I hope that this action on the part of the authors and the journal will encourage all researchers to exercise extreme care in selection and use of the data sets on which they base their analyses, conclusions, and interpretations. Critiques of Lynn and Vanhanen’s (2012) National IQ data were available in the literature prior to the publication of Clark et al. (2020). It is unfortunate that these critiques were not consulted, thereby potentially avoiding publication and the necessity for retraction.

That last paragraph raises questions about the review process for the paper. In an editorial also dated June 26, Bauer describes that process, which she “vigorously” defends. But, she writes:

Does my finding that the review process for this now-retracted article conformed to the policies and procedures established for review in the journal, and that the authors defended the measures on which they relied, mean that the process of review was without fault? No, that is not what I am saying. As social scientists, we have a responsibility to be sensitive to the political, social, and cultural issues raised by our work. We have a responsibility to clearly distinguish between the measures we use and the theoretical constructs those measures are intended to assess.

Bauer says that the journal,

In the case of potentially controversial articles such as the now-retracted article by Clark and colleagues, we will arrange for an invited “Further Reflections” article (or articles) that will be published along with the target article. 

Bauer writes that she has also 

invited two “Data Brief” articles on topics central to the now-retracted article, namely, homicide rates as a proxy for violence (which in turn was used as a proxy for morality) and national IQ measures. 

Bauer continues:

I close with an apology to the field and the broader society for any harm to which we contributed by publishing research without sufficient sensitivity. In the present case, I vigorously defend the editorial process to which the article in question was subjected. I also reaffirm our commitment to publishing the highest quality science we can and to not refraining from publishing articles on sensitive political, social, and cultural issues. I further commit to acting in better accord with our obligation to consider the societal impact of the work that we publish.

Stephen Lindsay, the editor in chief of the journal at the time the paper was submitted and reviewed, detailed the peer review process for the paper in a post earlier this week, noting that a senior editor, Jamin Halberstadt, “wisely recruited four reviewers for the Clark et al. manuscript (including one recommended by the corresponding author and one Jamin selected based on particularly strong statistical expertise).” Lindsay continues:

Judging from their CVs, all four reviewers are eminently qualified to assess this research. All four reviewers provided substantive assessments of the initial submission. The reviews and his own reading of the manuscript led Jamin to invite a revision in a multi-page action letter (more than 3,000 words including the reviews). The authors made extensive revisions, detailed in a 17-page cover letter accompanying the R1 version. 

Jamin sent the R1 version to the same four reviewers. Each of them again came through with a review. Three of the four reviewers recommended acceptance. The remaining reviewer recommended rejection based on reservations as to the use of homicide as the index of violence. Jamin invited a second revision, and the authors again made substantive revisions, including some addressing the use of homicide to index violence. Jamin and I conferred about the R2 version, and agreed that it would be good to ask the authors to temper some of their conclusions. Jamin was satisfied with their response and accepted the R3 version (I don’t recall if I checked on it). 

Jamin’s handling of this manuscript was extremely careful and thorough. Three of four expert reviewers unambiguously recommended acceptance. The one dissenting reviewer’s concerns focused exclusively on the homicide measure, and the authors provided a counter argument to those concerns. It would be extraordinary for an editor to reject a manuscript with such positive reviews.

However, Lindsay admits that, as Columbia’s Andrew Gelman suggested in a blog post about the paper, that he was “too clueless to have understood its political implications.”

I saw the Clark et al. submission as likely to be controversial, but race did not enter into my concern. It seems stupid now that others have pointed it out, but race did not cross my mind. I thought that the author’s thesis would be controversial due to nationalistic/cultural concerns (as in northern versus southern Europeans) and failed to consider its implications for racial issues. I take little comfort in the fact that I am not the only one with such blinders, but will nonetheless note that Action Editor Jamin Halberstadt, too, reports that the racial implications of this manuscript did not occur to him. None of the reviewers mentioned race. Again, this is not an excuse. It is an admission.

Lindsay also writes:

I apologize for three shortcomings on my part, briefly enumerated here and elaborated upon below. First, I deeply regret that I failed to think about the racial implications of the manuscript. Second, I am sorry that I did not require revisions to correct problems with the writing such as blurred distinctions between psychological constructs versus measures and speculations/extrapolations far removed from the data. Third, I wish I had done more to investigate the validity of the measures. The second and third failings follow from the first – If I had apprehended the racial implications of the manuscript, I believe I would have handled it with greater care.

Update, 1630 UTC, 7/18/20: Before this post was published, we had asked Bauer to expand on her final paragraph: At what stage do you think this problem should have been caught? Is it the authors’ responsibility? The peer reviewers’? The editors’? She responded on July 16:

I am very sorry—I have looked in my sent messages and do not see a reply to your inquiry. My apologies.

In answer to your question—the answer is “all of the above” (or below, as the case may be). Authors have the responsibility to be informed about the data and analytic approaches they use. Peer reviewers have the responsibility to be thorough. And editors have the responsibility to select appropriate reviewers, weigh the reviews, make their own independent evaluation, and act accordingly.

I specifically left the text ambiguous because I wanted all of us to read ourselves into the charge. By your question, it seems my approached worked! (though perhaps was not as effective as I might like)

Again, my sincere apologies for the delay in my reply.

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, 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 [email protected].