The authors of three papers about abortion Sage retracted earlier this year have sued the publisher, alleging the company pulled the articles “for pretextual and discriminatory reasons.”
In February, Sage retracted three articles from Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology “because of undeclared conflicts of interest and after expert reviewers found that the studies demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor that invalidates or renders unreliable the authors’ conclusions,” according to the publisher’s statement at the time. Sage also removed the paper’s lead author from the editorial board of the journal.
A federal judge cited two of the articles last year in his decision to suspend approval of mifepristone, a drug used in medical abortions.
Sage’s actions “violated California contract, tort, and civil rights law,” according to the lawsuit, filed Thursday in California’s Ventura County Superior Court. The authors also allege the retractions have caused “enormous and incalculable harm” to their professional reputations, and “they are now being treated as pariahs.”
Their lawsuit seeks to compel Sage to enter arbitration of their claims, as required by the publishing agreements the authors signed with the company.
Lawyers for the authors claim Sage has “engaged in a months-long campaign of cat-and-mouse negotiations apparently designed to delay arbitration and pressure the Authors into waiving their discovery rights as a condition of arbitrating.”
Sage declined to comment on the pending litigation.
James Studnicki, the lead author of the three papers, previously told Retraction Watch the retractions were “a blatant attempt to discredit excellent research which is incongruent with a preferred abortion narrative.” When we asked Studnicki, also vice president and director of data analytics at the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute, for comment on the suit, and what he and his coauthors hoped to gain from arbitration, he referred us to the “Demand for Arbitration” attached as Exhibit J to the petition.
In that document, the authors allege Sage “did not articulate any scientific basis or legitimate editorial policy for retracting the Articles,” and thus breached its publishing agreements in doing so.
The retractions “were also an act of invidious discrimination,” the authors allege, as the publisher “applied inconsistent retraction standards to the Authors based on Sage’s perception of the Authors’ pro-life affiliations,” in violation of California’s anti-discrimination law.
The demand for arbitration states the authors are entitled to monetary relief for the harm to their reputations. “[T]he only way to make the Authors whole is to grant injunctive relief requiring Sage to comply with the plain terms of its Agreements by rescinding its retractions,” the suit states.
Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology, is no longer accepting new submissions, according to its website. A Sage spokesperson did not immediately answer our query about when and why the journal closed submissions.
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].
Seems like a poor use of money. Maybe they hope acting like victims will help with fundraising.