Exclusive: Editor resigns as publisher blocks criticism of decision to retract paper on gender dysphoria

Springer Nature has halted an accepted paper criticizing the publishing giant’s controversial retraction last year of an article that surveyed parents of children with gender dysphoria, leading an associate editor to resign, Retraction Watch has learned.

According to emails we obtained, the blocked paper was slated to appear as a commentary in a special issue of Springer Nature’s Current Psychology that aimed “to stimulate discussion of all aspects of the ‘unpublication’ of scientific articles.”

“This is the only time I’ve had an accepted paper overruled in 4 years” as an associate editor at this journal, Christopher Ferguson of Stetson University in Florida, one of two guest editors of the special issue, told us by email.

Ferguson resigned from Current Psychology’s editorial board on August 29, a decision he said “pretty much sums up my feelings” about the publisher’s handling of the manuscript.

The aborted commentary, a draft of which Retraction Watch has seen, excoriated Springer Nature for pulling the article “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,” which was published in March 2023 in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. 

As we explained last year in a story preceding the much-criticized paper’s retraction:

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) is, the article stated, a “controversial theory” that “common cultural beliefs, values, and preoccupations cause some adolescents (especially female adolescents) to attribute their social problems, feelings, and mental health issues to gender dysphoria,” and that “youth with ROGD falsely believe that they are transgender,” in part due to social influences.  

In the canceled commentary, which contained several instances of opinion and conjecture, Michael Bailey, a psychology professor at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., and a coauthor of the 2023 paper, argued that retractions are “increasingly a vehicle for scientific censorship.” He laid out the details of how his work was withdrawn and speculated about the publisher’s motivations.

“I was critical of Springer Nature, because I believed its decision to retract my 2023 article was made for ideological rather than ethical reasons,” Bailey told us by email. “Furthermore, I criticized other actions by Springer Nature and its journals, such as Nature Human Behaviour, which deemphasize scientific integrity for the sake of identity politics. This recent experience does nothing to dampen that criticism.”

Bailey described himself in the commentary as “tenured, thick-skinned, and annoyed by present trends in academia away from academic freedom and towards identity politics.” Other academics have made similar points in the past, highlighting the risks to democracy when activists attack scientists over research they find politically unacceptable.

According to the author, Ferguson had invited him to contribute to the special issue on retractions in Current Psychology in June 2023. Bailey submitted his paper two months later. In October, editor-in-chief of the journal Richard Ferraro told Bailey by email that two of three reviewers had recommended acceptance, but noted that “the Reject review aligns with my thoughts to an extent” and asked for a revision.

Bailey replied that he would not make the changes suggested by Ferraro, but was “willing to consider very specific modifications” that Ferguson had recommended. On December 18, Ferguson wrote to Bailey, in part:

This is a tricky issue and I know you (and I) want you to have your chance to get on the record with this. I also think this is an important message to get into the public. Although it’s true you could publish this in [the Journal of Open Inquiry in Behavioral Science, a title published by the Society for Open Inquiry in Behavioral Science, which Bailey co-founded in 2021], I think there are some advantages of you publishing this with Springer/Nature, not the least of which is that it weakens censorship efforts by tackling it directly at the source. Put bluntly, perhaps, I see value in publishing a criticism of Springer/Nature’s censorship in Springer/Nature.

(The retracted paper was since republished in the Journal of Open Inquiry in Behavioral Science, drawing flak from the LGBTQ community.)

Bailey said he submitted a revision of his manuscript on March 27 and that it was accepted on May 21. In July, however, the paper had still not been published, and Bailey asked Ferguson for an update.

“Well it’s done and scheduled for the special issue, so there’s no plan (that I know of) to squish it,” Ferguson responded, adding that the paper had been “switched to a ‘commentary.’”

Ferguson added: “Do I suspect they feel a bit embarrassed by your article…maybe…but they seem to have done the ‘right’ thing.”

Then, on August 29, Bailey received an email from Ferraro, one of the journal’s two editors-in-chief:

Dear author,

You have submitted a manuscript to a special issue in Current Psychology, Retractions and Their Discontents. The guest editors had in principle accepted your manuscript and based on their recommendation, we also provisionally accepted your manuscript. As the Editors-in-Chief of Current Psychology, the final responsibility for the content of the journal, including its special issues, lies with us. 

Upon further review and after careful consideration following conversations with the Springer Nature Research Integrity Group, we have decided not to proceed with the publication of your manuscript. What you have submitted appears to be an opinion piece, rather than an original research article and therefore not suitable for publication. We have therefore rescinded the accept decision.

Best regards,

F. Richard Ferraro

Lauren S. Seifert

Co-Editors-in-Chief of Current Psychology 

Ferguson said he was informed of the decision to withdraw the acceptance of the commentary that same day.

“Apparently some kind of ‘Integrity Group’ at Springer got a hold of it, decided to squash it, and used the excuse that this was because it was an opinion piece (of course there are zillions of opinion pieces in all manner of psychology journals including, I am sure, many others Springer publishes),” he told us. “So I think it was this Integrity Group that [prompted the retraction], pretty much supervening all the actual scholars involved.”

Teresa Krauss, Publishing Director at Springer Nature, told us:

Springer Nature expects all submitted manuscripts – whether original research, commentaries, or editorials – to contain factual and accurate information as part of our commitment to maintaining the validity of the scientific record. Journal editors can contact the Springer Nature Research Integrity Group for advice on any manuscript under consideration. In this instance, RIG was consulted due to concerns about the accuracy of some statements in the manuscript.

After examination of these concerns, the Editors were advised that they may want to review the manuscript again. After further careful consideration, they took the editorial decision to rescind the initial acceptance decision.

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].