APS and Potentially Biased Editorial Experience

[DynamicDidactic]

December 2, 2022 APS Statement

APS is aware of the significant concerns shared by Steven O. Roberts about racist and biased editorial practices at Perspectives on Psychological Science. We take these concerns seriously. We support editorial independence but also editorial integrity. Our goal is to publish and widely disseminate the best quality psychological science research. This is only possible if we work aggressively to ensure our publications use best editorial practices. We are working to build an equitable organization that promotes the development and application of high-quality science that informs solutions to the complex and persistent problems of racism, intolerance, discrimination, and bias. In the coming days and weeks, we will make every effort to address the concerns raised by Dr. Roberts and others, engaging with our journal editors, our Publications Committee, our Diversity and Inclusion Committee, our Board, and our Members to make appropriate changes to our policies and practices.

Link to the pre-print of a paper about this experience:

https://psyarxiv.com/xk4yu?utm_source=APS+Emails&utm_campaign=870ff5fea9-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_12_06_12_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-870ff5fea9-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Very interesting, make sure you read the annotations as well.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Very interesting, make sure you read the annotations as well.

This promises to be a good read and I hope that it is published and that it sets off a back-and-forth respectful but explicit debate in the APS journals and in the field at large which is long overdue.

By the way, sociopolitical critiques of the scientific process are not new, but perhaps this will involve a new angle or two. Feyerabend's work in the philosophy of science was critical of the practical aspects of how science is conducted (from largely a feminist perspective if I remember correctly and made some good points).

It is long past time that these controversies be addressed explicitly and out in the open.

Fallibility is the hallmark of science and vigorous debate tackling current controversies does not reveal a pathology or sickness within the scientific enterprise but, rather, its health.

A 'science' within which there are no controversies or within which it is considered 'taboo' to address controversies is no science at all.

We are about to see the APS folks have their 'hands forced,' so to speak, on the topic of where they stand on definitional isses relating to what actually constitutes 'psychological science' vs 'ideological actvism.'

My prediction is that, ultimately, they will shrink from the controversy--on the whole-- and accept foundational revisions to the concept of 'psychological science' and, indeed, fundamental principles of the philosophy of science that allowed the natural sciences (physics, chemistry, and biology/medicine) to shake off the yokes of astrology, alchemy, and shamanism to profoundly improve human society in the 20th century. For a nice run of its history, psychology tried, as a field, to emulate these efforts and made great though imperfect progress. I fear that time is coming to an end but only time will tell. It will be interesting.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Interesting paper, including the Appendix with all the timelines and correspondence. I am struck by a few things:
-Fielding (the editor), did not seem to have a well defined plan for how everything would play out in terms of who would get to comment on things and when. Roberts rightfully requests a more detailed description of who will get first and last comments, and- I think- proposes a reasonable model of such things (from the BBS model). Not having an a-priori framework for how a debate should be formatted is a huge issue, IMHO, and Fielding doesn't seem to think its a big deal that Hommels might get the first and last word. I'm also not sure that Fielding correctly labeled what he intended to take place as a "debate" or "forum".
-I think it was problematic that an editor forwarded a manuscript to a non-reviewer for comments and then presented the ensuing criticisms to the author with the instruction "he's not a reveiwer so you don't need to respond to all his critiques"
-One of the participants in a "forum" on diversity uses the analogy of "whites=horses, non-whites=mules"(!) Regardless of the intent, come on dude!
-Roberts chooses to include a very on point quote from Toni Morrison on how one major purpose of racism is distraction. Roberts et al. publish a study objectively showing publication trends and patterns of behaivor of Journal editors (including clearly different use of racial identifiers in titles when subjects are non-white vs. white), which then leads to Roberst having to take time to deal with all this other stuff not related to the central topic of his teams original publication (at least partly while on sabbatical). Yeah- you can say he didn't have to participate, but Fielding was going to go ahead with the "forum" without him.
-This whole process- especially the behaviors of Fielding and Hommels- seems to demonstrate that you can't separate science from ideology. Roberts et al. engaged in what appeared to be appropriate scientific behavior, yet received criticisms (which Roberts accurately describes as ad hominem) for being ideologically based or even "activist" in nature.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Of course there is more:

‘I Am the Victim’: A Journal Editor Is Under Fire After a Diversity Debate Is Derailed

A contributor to a forthcoming diversity debate in “Perspectives on Psychological Science” says the editor is “unable to edit the journal without bias.” The editor says the situation is “almost surreal.”

www.chronicle.com

 

[Ollie123]

Disclaimer: Definitely did not have time to do more than glance through the paper.

To me, the most damning part is actually the ordering/# of the responses, but it really depends how this was structured. If the original Hommel article was truly a critique of Roberts original work....Roberts should receive the final word. If this was conceived as a distinct debate that just included reference to the original article by Roberts, it would be normal for Hommel to receive the final word. I suspect the former was the case. If so, that is very poor judgment on behalf of the editor.

To me, it is exceedingly beyond petty to care about your paper being shared outside the purview of official review in this context. This is a debate, there is no new data being presented and no one is going to steal anyone's patent or scoop you. For f's sake, you posted it to Psyarxv which effectively would have achieved the same thing so get over yourself. Sure, would have been great to make this process more explicit up front but I view this as <really> not a big deal.

I'm willing to cut the editor some slack as I think he's in his first year. I don't know his prior editorial experience but unless he's done this before its basically a learn-as-you-go thing. I think immediately canning him is premature, despite the fact that I think he - at a minimum - showed some very poor judgment here.

 

[WisNeuro]

Disclaimer: Definitely did not have time to do more than glance through the paper.

To me, the most damning part is actually the ordering/# of the responses, but it really depends how this was structured. If the original Hommel article was truly a critique of Roberts original work....Roberts should receive the final word. If this was conceived as a distinct debate that just included reference to the original article by Roberts, it would be normal for Hommel to receive the final word. I suspect the former was the case. If so, that is very poor judgment on behalf of the editor.

To me, it is exceedingly beyond petty to care about your paper being shared outside the purview of official review in this context. This is a debate, there is no new data being presented and no one is going to steal anyone's patent or scoop you. For f's sake, you posted it to Psyarxv which effectively would have achieved the same thing so get over yourself. Sure, would have been great to make this process more explicit up front but I view this as <really> not a big deal.

I'm willing to cut the editor some slack as I think he's in his first year. I don't know his prior editorial experience but unless he's done this before its basically a learn-as-you-go thing. I think immediately canning him is premature, despite the fact that I think he - at a minimum - showed some very poor judgment here.

I think there are a couple issues at play. As you say, one is procedural. What is the intent of the invited responses, and how are "final words" handled depending on that intent. Ideally, that would be figured out up front, so all parties know what to expect and how to plan. And two, is the substance of the critiques themselves. Obviously, we only have one of the papers here and some quotes and paraphrasing from others, so it's hard to know what was exactly said until those others are released, if they ever are. Roberts brings up some good points, and has some points that are somewhat contradictory, and at times hypocritical. We'll see if we get to read the full story at some point. But, my money's on the editor being canned. The mob must be placated.

 

[Ollie123]

Oh, he already was canned. One of the top links if you google it (I was checking hoping to find a briefer summary of what happened).

 

[futureapppsy2]

I haven't had a chance to read this stuff in depth, but I wrote an invited commentary for a top medical journal about 10 years ago (as a grad student, somehow), and they sent my commentary to original authors for review before publishing it. Otoh, I wrote one for an APA journal about four years ago, and I don't think the original authors saw it before print. I'm not sure why letting the original authors see it would be a big deal, ngl.

 

[WisNeuro]

Oh, he already was canned. One of the top links if you google it (I was checking hoping to find a briefer summary of what happened).

Ah I see that. Read a few things. Also, apparently the mule horse thing was a reference to Fiddler on the Roof.

 

[ClinicalABA]

... I'm not sure why letting the original authors see it would be a big deal, ngl.

but editor did more than just share it with original author as an FYI. Fiedler refers to Hommels as an "informant" and that he used him as a quality control consultant. Fiedler then sent Roberts a list of Hommel's criticisms, saying that he (Roberts) "didn't need to reply to all of them." Seems like more than just a courtesy sharing of the paper, especially since both Roberts and Hommel were to be participants in this "debate." Also, regardless of whether or not this type of sharing occurs regularly, most people wouldn't have a problem with it, it wasn't research or methodolog that could be asconded with by a competing lab, etc., it does say on the manuscript submission form from the journal that the submission is "for review only," which would imply that it would be disseminated only to formal reviewers. At best, It's just another instance of Fielding not really doing a good job of framing the "rules" of this debate/forum he wanted to set up. At worst, it's him stacking the deck against Robert's. Realistically, it's problably somewhere in the middle. Regardless, it does seem to stray from the proscribed editorial policy.

 

[ClinicalABA]

... Also, apparently the mule horse thing was a reference to Fiddler on the Roof.

Yep, it's from Fiddler, but that don't make it ok. I still maintain it's a very poor choice of an analogy, if it not intended to be inflammatory. Roberts identifies himself as multi-racial, and is talking about multi-racial issues. Historically the term mullato (which has the same roots as mule) was use to refer to muliti-racial individuals, and is now widely considered to be pejorative. If you are going to engage in a "debate" on this topic, you probably should be more careful with your choice of examples/analogies. Roberts gives the guy the benefit of the doubt about intent, but c'mon!

 

[WisNeuro]

Yep, it's from Fiddler, but that don't make it ok. I still maintain it's a very poor choice of an analogy, if it not intended to be inflammatory. Roberts identifies himself as multi-racial, and is talking about multi-racial issues. Historically the term mullato (which has the same roots as mule) was use to refer to muliti-racial individuals, and is now widely considered to be pejorative. If you are going to engage in a "debate" on this topic, you probably should be more careful with your choice of examples/analogies. Roberts gives the guy the benefit of the doubt about intent, but c'mon!

Probably a poor choice of words, but I disagree about being given the benefit of the doubt in that passage. Roberts says he gives him the benefit of the doubt, and then proceeds to do anything but.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Probably a poor choice of words, but I disagree about being given the benefit of the doubt in that passage. Roberts says he gives him the benefit of the doubt, and then proceeds to do anything but.

And in that manner, Roberts was more understanding and nicer than I would have been! When i first read the analogy- before seing Robert's comments on it- I was pretty shocked that he went there.

 

[Shiori]

My reading of it was that he assumed it wasn't purposeful, but still thoroughly explained why it was a strange example to use and incredibly inappropriate given the context.

 

[PsyDr]

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Probably a poor choice of words, but I disagree about being given the benefit of the doubt in that passage. Roberts says he gives him the benefit of the doubt, and then proceeds to do anything but.

I REALLY hope the public gets to read ALL the documents so that we may be able to read them for ourselves and form our own judgments about them. We're adults and can form our own opinions. We do not need to be told what we're supposed to think about them nor have them characterized or interpreted for us without even being granted access to what was ACTUALLY written. Publish everything and let people make up their own minds. For instance, claims that what was written was 'racist' (vs just being pointed or trenchant criticism) need to be evaluated in light of what was *actually written* and not someone's characterization of what was actually written.

 

[ClinicalABA]

It can be an uncomfortable topic, for sure, and semi-anonymous internet boards have historically shown to be really bad place for discussion of said topics, but as Roberts says in his article:

"…if we are to deepen and expand the conceptual reach of our science, and to evolve our science into one that is truly objective and generalizable, we must open ourselves to ideologies other than our own, and to examining our own ideologies. Because if we assume that we have no ideology, or that our own ideology can see everything across all space and time, our entire science will be colored by that ideology, and not only we will be unable to see that there are more colors in the world than just one, we might even become hostile toward any efforts to suggest that we are wrong."

 

[boomshakalaka]

That was very interesting to read.

I did find some levity and irony in the senior, white Editor, having to reference he was on a “mini-bike tour in the Bavarian pre-alps.” Read the room, dude.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Oh, he already was canned. One of the top links if you google it (I was checking hoping to find a briefer summary of what happened).

APS Board of Directors Accepts Resignation of Perspectives on Psychological Science Editor-in-Chief


Today, December 6, 2022, at 9:35 a.m. ET (2:35 p.m. UTC), at the request of the APS Board of Directors, Klaus Fiedler, Editor-in-Chief of Perspectives on Psychological Science, submitted his resignation, which has been accepted.

APS’s commitment to scientific psychology and upholding the integrity of our journals remains steadfast.

The APS Board of Directors, committees, and staff are gathering information that will inform next steps for strengthening psychological science and our editorial processes, while combating biases and promoting a more equitable science.

APS Members and the psychological science community at large will play a crucial role in moving forward.

 

[WisNeuro]

It can be an uncomfortable topic, for sure, and semi-anonymous internet boards have historically shown to be really bad place for discussion of said topics, but as Roberts says in his article:

"…if we are to deepen and expand the conceptual reach of our science, and to evolve our science into one that is truly objective and generalizable, we must open ourselves to ideologies other than our own, and to examining our own ideologies. Because if we assume that we have no ideology, or that our own ideology can see everything across all space and time, our entire science will be colored by that ideology, and not only we will be unable to see that there are more colors in the world than just one, we might even become hostile toward any efforts to suggest that we are wrong."

On this I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[WisNeuro]

That was very interesting to read.

I did find some levity and irony in the senior, white Editor, having to reference he was on a “mini-bike tour in the Bavarian pre-alps.” Read the room, dude.

Dude was just trying to build rapport with what he is essentially doing in his off time in his general backyard.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Since the editor is a non-American (or Canadian), I wonder if that made a difference and he is not attuned to the significance of the issue discussed.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

On this I agree wholeheartedly.

I thought--with respect to the philosophy of science--we had largely AGREED upon an 'ideology' or at least an epistemology.

Things like the importance of operationalization of scientific constructs (e.g., one must be able to specify the methods used to assess or measure a construct).

Or, like the verifiability criterion of meaningfulness which is a philosophical doctrine fundamental to the school of Logical Positivism holding that a statement is meaningful only if it is either empirically verifiable or else tautological (i.e., such that its truth arises entirely from the meanings of its terms).

Or, philosophically or ideologically speaking, that all theories or perspectives are 'fair game' targets for logical and/or empirical critique (even vigorous critique)...that's how we improve our knowledge of the world--via open vigorous debate.

Or, that we should not only invite criticism of our position (and theories) but we should--further--even seek to falsify our own theories (to the extent that empirical investigation would render our theories vulnerable to potential refutation.

I thought we agreed on these ideological presuppositions and that they represented the edifice of 'psychological science.'

To the extent that people reject these ideological presuppositions then...I mean...fair enough, but...

We're no longer really playing the 'science' game then are we?

 

[WisNeuro]

Since the editor is a non-American (or Canadian), I wonder if that made a difference and he is not attuned to the significance of the issue discussed.

I believe that he is faculty at Heidelberg.

 

[PsyDr]

It can be an uncomfortable topic, for sure, and semi-anonymous internet boards have historically shown to be really bad place for discussion of said topics, but as Roberts says in his article:

"…if we are to deepen and expand the conceptual reach of our science, and to evolve our science into one that is truly objective and generalizable, we must open ourselves to ideologies other than our own, and to examining our own ideologies. Because if we assume that we have no ideology, or that our own ideology can see everything across all space and time, our entire science will be colored by that ideology, and not only we will be unable to see that there are more colors in the world than just one, we might even become hostile toward any efforts to suggest that we are wrong."

You’re saying that like Roberts opinions have any special standing. I don’t accept that proposition anymore than the proposition that my opinion is more important than Roberts.

I’m biologically oriented for a reason. Tumors and head injuries don’t care about politics. But I’ll go toe to toe with anyone on a hard life.

 

[boomshakalaka]

Dude was just trying to build rapport with what he is essentially doing in his off time in his general backyard.

Fair enough, I can’t fault that. That reminds me, I must polish the hull before the upcoming regatta.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

You’re saying that like Roberts opinions have any special standing. I don’t accept that proposition anymore than the proposition that my opinion is more important than Roberts.

I’m biologically oriented for a reason. Tumors and head injuries don’t care about politics. But I’ll go toe to toe with anyone on a hard life.

I mean...Paul Feyerabend's critiques of 'mainstream' philosophy of science and logical positivism, in particular, are already out there.

And, to an extent, it all boils down to which ideological presuppositions one group believes is representative of a 'scientific' worldview/practices and which other ideological presuppositions some opposing group believes is more representative of a distinctively different or novel 'scientific' worldview or practices.

If some people want more methodological/logical and empirical rigor and 'classic' philosophy of science (a.k.a., roughly speaking, logical empiricism and its corollaries) rather than an emphasis on social justice ideologies...then they bug out of mainstream APA journals and found something like the Association for Psychological Science (APS) and its journals.

When the social justice ideology folks or principles and ideals (ideology?) migrate into APS, I guess those people migrate elsewhere to found a different organization.

We also need to consider the fact that it's hardly newsworthy if any particular adherent of an ideology A (say, psychodynamic theory) submits an article which is a broadside against ideology B (say, cognitive-behavioral theory/therapy) where the journal in question has a history of being heavily slanted toward ideology B...that when an article critical of CBT gets submitted to a mainstream CBT journal by a psychodynamic theorist, the author of that article may feel 'ganged up' on in terms of the onslaught of critique. If someone dared to submit an article squarely and vigorously critical of social justice ideology to a mainstream journal that espoused social justice perspectives...would we think it newsworthy if that author found himself 'ganged up on' by the editorial board?

I'm not familiar with the 'rules of the game' or 'policies and procedures' governing editorial practices so I don't know how aberrant, immoral/unethical, or 'out of bounds' this particular editor's actions actually were in relation to that standard. However, if he clearly broke the rules or behaved indisputably unethically (in a way that other journal editors, say, who manage journals in the DEI literature would never behave and have never behaved) then, fine...fire him. Off with his head. Hold him accountable.

 

[borne_before]

Does Roberts not understand sample size and generalizability? The purpose of science is make generalizations...

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

It can be an uncomfortable topic, for sure, and semi-anonymous internet boards have historically shown to be really bad place for discussion of said topics, but as Roberts says in his article:

"…if we are to deepen and expand the conceptual reach of our science, and to evolve our science into one that is truly objective and generalizable, we must open ourselves to ideologies other than our own, and to examining our own ideologies. Because if we assume that we have no ideology, or that our own ideology can see everything across all space and time, our entire science will be colored by that ideology, and not only we will be unable to see that there are more colors in the world than just one, we might even become hostile toward any efforts to suggest that we are wrong."

Well...I mean...

This is supposed to be the cool thing about the scientific process, namely,

Person A puts their arguments (or their paper, critique, or rebuttal) out to the public through literally publishing these...and...

Person B puts their arguments (or their paper, critique, or rebuttal) out to the public through literally publishing these...and...

wait for it...

the public (including one's professional peers) reads and contemplates all the arguments and...I mean REALLY hold on to your hat for this one...

They (are you ready for this) make up their own minds on who 'won' the arguments or whose position they find the more convincing.

Publish everything.

If Roberts felt 'ganged up on or outnumbered' then devote the next issue to five articles written articulating his position and only one defending the opposing position. Problem solved.

Instead, we have all this drama and persecution/firing of the editor which (as I stated earlier) may have been called for if he so brazenly broke the rules as editor (that all the other editors at all the other journals always faithfully follow [right? maybe they do, I don't know])...and, if he's guilty, then fire him.

But I cannot be the only one who is frustrated at all this discussion being about these papers that we haven't even been able to read yet.

Stop firing people and start publishing the papers already so I can make up my own mind about the arguments. I don't need to be 'protected' from their content. If, in fact, the authors were 'behaving badly,' then publish what they wrote so that they can be duly shamed, imprisoned, or flogged in the public square.

Publish everything and let us decide. We're not children who need to be 'protected' from controversial speech or arguments.

 

[PsyDr]

Fair enough, I can’t fault that. That reminds me, I must polish the hull before the upcoming regatta.

It’s not regatta season, silly. The J112s are already out. It’s vail season, or St. Moritz if you’re a d!ck about it .

I mean...Paul Feyerabend's critiques of 'mainstream' philosophy of science and logical positivism, in particular, are already out there.

And, to an extent, it all boils down to which ideological presuppositions one group believes is representative of a 'scientific' worldview/practices and which other ideological presuppositions some opposing group believes is more representative of a distinctively different or novel 'scientific' worldview or practices.

If some people want more methodological/logical and empirical rigor and 'classic' philosophy of science (a.k.a., roughly speaking, logical empiricism and its corollaries) rather than an emphasis on social justice ideologies...then they bug out of mainstream APA journals and found something like the Association for Psychological Science (APS) and its journals.

When the social justice ideology folks or principles and ideals (ideology?) migrate into APS, I guess those people migrate elsewhere to found a different organization.

We also need to consider the fact that it's hardly newsworthy if any particular adherent of an ideology A (say, psychodynamic theory) submits an article which is a broadside against ideology B (say, cognitive-behavioral theory/therapy) where the journal in question has a history of being heavily slanted toward ideology B...that when an article critical of CBT gets submitted to a mainstream CBT journal by a psychodynamic theorist, the author of that article may feel 'ganged up' on in terms of the onslaught of critique. If someone dared to submit an article squarely and vigorously critical of social justice ideology to a mainstream journal that espoused social justice perspectives...would we think it newsworthy if that author found himself 'ganged up on' by the editorial board?

I'm not familiar with the 'rules of the game' or 'policies and procedures' governing editorial practices so I don't know how aberrant, immoral/unethical, or 'out of bounds' this particular editor's actions actually were in relation to that standard. However, if he clearly broke the rules or behaved indisputably unethically (in a way that other journal editors, say, who manage journals in the DEI literature would never behave and have never behaved) then, fine...fire him. Off with his head. Hold him accountable.

1) these editors, and I’d argue most academics, seem like @-holes.
2) so does the author. I love the fact that he/she calls the editors out on that. but I’m not choosing any of them as my therapist.
3) any professional who discusses “race” immediately loses my respect. It tells me that they don’t understand the existence of multiple ethnicities, which have scientific bases. Instead they’re using social constructs that have zero scientific support. Han is different than Eiugur. Ebo is different than Hutu. There are very scientific issues associated with those ethnic lines You go far enough down that line, I’m positively biased towards one of those groups. Otherwise I think you’re ill informed, and using political proxies for your own political beliefs.

 

[futureapppsy2]

One of the issues here is the question of how much a journal (a private entity) should platform potentially harmful work. For example, there's a famous series of ABA articles about using ABA to (quite literally) beat the feminity (and thus, it's heavily implied, the homosexuality) out of male children. The fact that those articles are published in the flagship ABA journal has been used to both support conversion therapy and to argue against ABA as a field (especially as one of the co-authors of those articles, Lovaas, was a grandfather of using ABA to treat autism and initially relied on physical punishment for that as well).

I don't think articles should be retracted because people don't like the conclusions--it makes me cringe to see that happen, and IMO, it goes against scientific process and dialogue--but I can see why an editor would be wary of publishing something they think could promote real harm to people.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

One of the issues here is the question of how much a journal (a private entity) should platform potentially harmful work. For example, there's a famous series of ABA articles about using ABA to (quite literally) beat the feminity (and thus, it's heavily implied, the homosexuality) out of male children. The fact that those articles are published in the flagship ABA journal has been used to both support conversion therapy and to argue against ABA as a field (especially as one of the co-authors of those articles, Lovaas, was a grandfather of using ABA to treat autism and initially relied on physical punishment for that as well).

I don't think articles should be retracted because people don't like the conclusions--it makes me cringe to see that happen, and IMO, it goes against scientific process and dialogue--but I can see why an editor would be wary of publishing something they think could promote real harm to people.

Well...I mean...maybe they don't have to publish them in their journal (since obviously people (who probably haven't even read the papers in question) are so opposed to what (they believe) is in them.

But why not make them available to the public (outside of their publication in a 'prestigious' journal)?

Are these arguments (which we haven't even seen yet) so diabolically bewitching and powerful in their evil that we shouldn't allow them on the internet? I mean...now I'm really intrigued.

It is impossible to have science without controversy.

B.F. Skinner, Aaron Beck, and their ilk were absolutely hated for their dangerous ideas for a good long while before they became mainstream.

Thank God they were never censored for fear of their 'dangerous' ideas.

People don't need to be protected from ideas.

People need to be protected from the people who would 'protect' them from ideas. Especially if they are adults who can 'protect' themselves.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Well...I mean...maybe they don't have to publish them in their journal (since obviously people (who probably haven't even read the papers in question) are so opposed to what (they believe) is in them.

But why not make them available to the public (outside of their publication in a 'prestigious' journal)?

Are these arguments (which we haven't even seen yet) so diabolically bewitching and powerful in their evil that we shouldn't allow them on the internet? I mean...now I'm really intrigued.

It is impossible to have science without controversy.

B.F. Skinner, Aaron Beck, and their ilk were absolutely hated for their dangerous ideas for a good long while before they became mainstream.

Thank God they were never censored for fear of their 'dangerous' ideas.

Maybe I misread this in the situation (I just skimmed, so that's entirely possible), but I think that the "forum" in question was indeed a series of commentaries to be published in the journal.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Maybe I misread this in the situation (I just skimmed, so that's entirely possible), but I think that the "forum" in question was indeed a series of commentaries to be published in the journal.

Hopefully.

But I wouldn't bet on it.

I mean more than 1000 psychologists and students signed a petition to fire the editor who 'allowed' those people to put pen to paper.

And the folks in charge of the journal immediately sacked the editor in question.

Anyone want to place bets on whether or not those papers will actually end up being published, unedited, unabridged, and in full?

Nah...too much potential for 'bad publicity.' To 'dangerous' to do so. 'Harmful,' in fact.

Okay...Devil's Advocate time. You all ready?

Okay, so let's assume that the journal (and board) are (were?) actually intending to publish the 'forum' (i.e., Roberts' paper along with the other rebuttals/ critiques). Ask yourself why Roberts would independently (and pre-emptively) make his paper 'public' prior to the publication of the series of articles?

Would it be overly cynical of someone to observe that--regardless of Roberts' intent (or stated intent)--the likely practical result will be the suppression of those opposing papers? I mean, we're apparently predisposed to characterizing those papers (sight unseen) as having potential to 'promote real harm to people,' for example. And the editor overseeing the process has been summarily fired.

It will be interesting to see if the full series is ever published. My money is on not.

I think that it is far more likely that Roberts' paper will be published, front-and-center, to be followed by several invited essays on how 'right' (and righteous) Roberts' positions are and how 'wrong' (and despicable) the opposing papers (which will never see the light of day) were and how horribly dangerous it would have been to follow through with the original plan of publishing them. I mean, this is 'real progress' for 'science.'

LOL

R.I.P. 'science'

 

[NeuroTrope]

Random selection assumes your sample has a distribution that mirrors its population which is rarely achievable. Random assignment as we know is usually impossible to implement outside of treatment designs. So it's all quasi-experimental muck anyway. Look at the initial COVID studies in 2020 to see how that pans out.

 

[ClinicalABA]

One of the issues here is the question of how much a journal (a private entity) should platform potentially harmful work. For example, there's a famous series of ABA articles about using ABA to (quite literally) beat the feminity (and thus, it's heavily implied, the homosexuality) out of male children. The fact that those articles are published in the flagship ABA journal has been used to both support conversion therapy and to argue against ABA as a field (especially as one of the co-authors of those articles, Lovaas, was a grandfather of using ABA to treat autism and initially relied on physical punishment for that as well).

I don't think articles should be retracted because people don't like the conclusions--it makes me cringe to see that happen, and IMO, it goes against scientific process and dialogue--but I can see why an editor would be wary of publishing something they think could promote real harm to people.

Retracted? Probably not. Criticized/annotated in light of societal changes? Probabably.

Fields change. ABAI just released an policy statement a few weeks ago regarding contingent electric shock (CES). The topic was put to a membership vote, and the ultimate position now is that we don't consider CES to be an acceptable part of the field and it should not be used under any circumstances. That will be the position moving forward, but we can't go back and pretend like the researd on CES never happened.

 

[borne_before]

I’m so frustrated by the over quoting and lack of concise arguments. Someone will get a doctorate in this episode some day. Personally, I don’t this this episode added anything of utility and will do anything to help humans out.

 

[borne_before]

Retracted? Probably not. Criticized/annotated in light of societal changes? Probabably.

Fields change. ABAI just released a policy statement a few weeks ago regarding contingent electric shock (CES). The topic was put to a membership vote, and the ultimate position now is that we don't consider CES to be an acceptable part of the field and it should not be used under any circumstances. That will be the position moving forward, but we can't go back and pretend like the researd on CES never happened.

So now CES just gets to be used by less qualified people? When will time out be outlawed?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Interesting paper, including the Appendix with all the timelines and correspondence. I am struck by a few things:
-Fielding (the editor), did not seem to have a well defined plan for how everything would play out in terms of who would get to comment on things and when. Roberts rightfully requests a more detailed description of who will get first and last comments, and- I think- proposes a reasonable model of such things (from the BBS model). Not having an a-priori framework for how a debate should be formatted is a huge issue, IMHO, and Fielding doesn't seem to think its a big deal that Hommels might get the first and last word. I'm also not sure that Fielding correctly labeled what he intended to take place as a "debate" or "forum".
-I think it was problematic that an editor forwarded a manuscript to a non-reviewer for comments and then presented the ensuing criticisms to the author with the instruction "he's not a reveiwer so you don't need to respond to all his critiques"
-One of the participants in a "forum" on diversity uses the analogy of "whites=horses, non-whites=mules"(!) Regardless of the intent, come on dude!
-Roberts chooses to include a very on point quote from Toni Morrison on how one major purpose of racism is distraction. Roberts et al. publish a study objectively showing publication trends and patterns of behaivor of Journal editors (including clearly different use of racial identifiers in titles when subjects are non-white vs. white), which then leads to Roberst having to take time to deal with all this other stuff not related to the central topic of his teams original publication (at least partly while on sabbatical). Yeah- you can say he didn't have to participate, but Fielding was going to go ahead with the "forum" without him.
-This whole process- especially the behaviors of Fielding and Hommels- seems to demonstrate that you can't separate science from ideology. Roberts et al. engaged in what appeared to be appropriate scientific behavior, yet received criticisms (which Roberts accurately describes as ad hominem) for being ideologically based or even "activist" in nature.

I actually agree with you here. I think it makes sense to give Roberts the opportunity to 'rebut' the responses. For one thing, it seems only fair that he be able to respond. For another, it certainly makes for a better 'exchange.'

 

[ClinicalABA]

...

R.I.P. 'science'

I hardly think that is Roberts conclusion or goal (he actually appears to be a decent scientist). He published an pretty in depth review article with some objective finding regarding publication trends and editorial practices. He was then invited to participate in this "debate." He pointed out some concerns with the whole debate/forum procedures, withdrew his participation, and then was asked again to participate. It seems to me that he is on the side of promoting a more accurate view of science, including the limitations and applicability of research that was done on a very specific population (white, primarily american and european), but primarily white (and male) researchers, with publication decisions made by primrarily white (and male editors). This research is presented as being representative of the entire humna condition, yet when studies involve a non-white population they tend to be cited as being specific to that population. He doesn't seem to argue against the scientific process, methods, or rigor, but more about the assumed external validity. He is then accused of being a radical and trying to insert ideology into the discussion as dominant to the scientific method.

 

[ClinicalABA]

So now CES just gets to be used by less qualified people? When will time out be outlawed?

Strawman- CES is only currently being used by a single program in the country, and I know of no demand for it to be used elsewhere. They will likely continue to use it too, as they have never seemed to be too concerned with what the rest of us think.

ETA- I'd argue that the use of Time Out by people who can't articulate what the time out is from SHOULD be outlawed. Otherwise, it should just be avoided as it isn't really a great procedure and it's very difficult to implement correctly.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I hardly think that is Roberts conclusion or goal (he actually appears to be a decent scientist). He published an pretty in depth review article with some objective finding regarding publication trends and editorial practices. He was then invited to participate in this "debate." He pointed out some concerns with the whole debate/forum procedures, withdrew his participation, and then was asked again to participate. It seems to me that he is on the side of promoting a more accurate view of science, including the limitations and applicability of research that was done on a very specific population (white, primarily american and european), but primarily white (and male) researchers, with publication decisions made by primrarily white (and male editors). This research is presented as being representative of the entire humna condition, yet when studies involve a non-white population they tend to be cited as being specific to that population. He doesn't seem to argue against the scientific process, methods, or rigor, but more about the assumed external validity. He is then accused of being a radical and trying to insert ideology into the discussion as dominant to the scientific method.

But...

Wouldn't it be better to just, you know...actually be able to read the debate?

Isn't that the ostensible point of even having a journal/forum in the first place?

 

[ClinicalABA]

But...

Wouldn't it be better to just, you know...actually be able to read the debate?

Isn't that the ostensible point of even having a journal/forum in the first place?

If it's an actual debate, with clear structure and rules. This was not that. Roberts pointed that out (and still seemed willing to participate if reasonable format- which he suggested based on existing models from similar journals- was proposed. In this case, prior to the debate, the moderator (editor) pre-identified one of the participants as a "quality control consultant" and sought his feedback on presumably private (or reviewer only) conversations/submissions from another participant.

I'm not accusing Fiedler of being a racist, discriminatory, etc.- It's not my place to do so nor am I informed or qualified to do so. I do think he played this all wrong, created an inequitable debate format, and engage in some editorial practices (i.e., providing a manuscript to a non-disinterested non-reviewer for critique and forwarding said critique to the the author to "respond or not" to the criticisms). Should he lose his editorial position over that? Again, I'm not qualified or informed enough to answer that, either.

 

[borne_before]

Strawman- CES is only currently being used by a single program in the country, and I know of no demand for it to be used elsewhere. They will likely continue to use it too, as they have never seemed to be too concerned with what the rest of us think.

ETA- I'd argue that the use of Time Out by people who can't articulate what the time out is from SHOULD be outlawed. Otherwise, it should just be avoided as it isn't really a great procedure and it's very difficult to implement correctly.

We talking about time out or CES? Time it super easily implemented. I like Barkley’s procedure and use it weekly with pretty good success. However, the first three t/o can be quite prolonged. Kinda reminds of putting a saddle on a horse that has been out to pasture all winter. Just gotta prep the parents. Of course we only do this after four or five weeks of positive interventions.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

If it's an actual debate, with clear structure and rules. This was not that. Roberts pointed that out (and still seemed willing to participate if reasonable format- which he suggested based on existing models from similar journals- was proposed. In this case, prior to the debate, the moderator (editor) pre-identified one of the participants as a "quality control consultant" and sought his feedback on presumably private (or reviewer only) conversations/submissions from another participant.

I'm not accusing Fiedler of being a racist, discriminatory, etc.- It's not my place to do so nor am I informed or qualified to do so. I do think he played this all wrong, created an inequitable debate format, and engage in some editorial practices (i.e., providing a manuscript to a non-disinterested non-reviewer for critique and forwarding said critique to the the author to "respond or not" to the criticisms). Should he lose his editorial position over that? Again, I'm not qualified or informed enough to answer that, either.

Fair enough. I still prefer to see the arguments and be able to decide for myself what the nature of the back and forth actually was.

And, since right now all we have is one side of the 'debate' published (Roberts' paper--along with all of his accusations of 'racism' etc. toward his opponents in the debate), I'd say that the current state-of-affairs is quite a 'one-sided' debate with only his 'side' having a public voice.

I'm not sure why the authors of the other papers haven't followed suit and gone ahead and published their papers in the same way outside the journal and to the public forum (internet) at large. I would guess (and this is only a guess) that there are some restrictions (ethical? associated with the process of submitting one's paper to a journal?) to 'pre-publishing' your paper before the journal to which you've submitted your paper has had the opportunity to publish it (along with accompanying dissenting opinions/pieces)?

So, I guess the assertion is that--had the journal actually in time gone on to publish all the papers--it would have been an 'unfair' and 'unreasonable format' and so Roberts took the initiative to 'self-publish' his thoughts to the world along with accusations against the other participants to pre-empt this 'unfair' debate situation. To which I say, fair enough. Take the next issue in the same journal (or 20 issues of 20 other topically-related journals) to publish, in a 2-to-1 ratio, more 'pro-Roberts' position papers than the opposing position. But for criminy's sake, let's just have an open discussion/debate on these important topics. I'm really getting frustrated with the personalized attacks and going after people's jobs and livelihoods, all the hyper-emotional huffing, puffing, and harrumphing--all the focus on interpersonal drama rather than the points at issue themselves. This entire episode serves as a living testament to the concerns that people are having about these things becoming more about ideology and activism rather than the scientific process itself and the subject matter and associated debates about how to interpret empirical science.

To be clear, if--after careful analysis--Roberts was subjected to unfair (and unprecedented) mistreatment by this editor and this editorial process--then good for him for standing up for himself. I support that 100%. Doing a quick Google search on the editor it appears that he had a good deal of editorial experience. If the way he handled this situation represented a unique and unfair departure from his (or his journal's) usual and customary practices then I agree that his behavior should be scrutinized and consequated. Like others have stated, I don't know if it's a zero-tolerance immediate firing sort of 'offense' but that's another issue. In the end, let both sides be heard (ultimately). Let the referee throw the penalty flag, let the booth do their review/scrutiny of the tape, let the penalty be decided upon and enforced...but set the ball on the 30 yard line and let the game continue. Don't shut down the game, turn off the lights, ban the team from ever playing football again, and call it a day for 'justice' and for 'science.' Let's be 'self-correcting' and move on.

And if people want to say that 'science isn't even science' and want to offer a 'different' or distinctive set of 'scientific' principles (to go along with their new re-definition of 'science and scientific practice' then, again, fair enough). Found your own journal of 'Gnu-science' or something and make those arguments. But can we please just let people speak 'pro- and con' with respect to their arguments without all this censorship and firing of people? It has an immense chilling effect on thought and speech that shuts down the scientific process. Can we find a solution in which everyone can have a voice? If not, again, we're in no way doing 'science.'

 

[futureapppsy2]

Strawman- CES is only currently being used by a single program in the country, and I know of no demand for it to be used elsewhere. They will likely continue to use it too, as they have never seemed to be too concerned with what the rest of us think.

ETA- I'd argue that the use of Time Out by people who can't articulate what the time out is from SHOULD be outlawed. Otherwise, it should just be avoided as it isn't really a great procedure and it's very difficult to implement correctly.

OMG, the amount of time Time Out ends up actually reinforcing the target behavior far outstrips the times it actually works as a the intended punishment, IME.

 

[borne_before]

I'm also

OMG, the amount of time Time Out ends up actually reinforcing the target behavior far outstrips the times it actually works as a the intended punishment, IME.

Yeah for t/o to work time in has to be more reinforcing - t/o works best when its about compliance. But Barkley's t/o procedure is pretty effective in reducing oppositional behaviors. I like it because it also gets parents to strategically think about demands being placed on the kid. I do think it's also a great way to expose kids to uncomfortable emotions and helps them build a tolerance.

I do think that CES can have a place in the behavioral modification toolbox - but I wish instead of banning it, we'd develop a clear pathway for its use along a continuum of care - one when all potentially meaningful, feasible, reasonable, alternatives have been exhausted and its use has been carefully considered with loved ones in light of the severity of specific dangerous/destructive behavior and clear oversight. Much like is done with various medical interventions. The major issues with CES are its history and inappropriate use. But, we can't just exist in a world where we think that (strawman alert) "let's just DRO/DRI the hell outta person engaging in SIB with 24/7 round the clock care and to the point that they're drugged into stupor with metabolic disease and early death" will work. I'm not sure how that ever became more acceptable than CES and both are horrible. I'm not anti psychopharmacology, but when we remove potentially useful tools, we must consider what will be done in reality - and our people with developmental disabilities are already drugged to hell. Every critique of CES can be applied to developmental disability psychiatry, in which early death is also inhumane. JRC is very popular among parents and I think the field needs to consider why or risk losing face.

I'm curious as where the activist wing will strike next after CES.

 

[borne_before]

I'm kind of annoyed by the lack separation of process and content in this discussion.

Here's my summary of the process:

1. Roberts publishes a paper
2. Editor Fielder offers Roberts to review a response to his paper by Hommel, but Robert's (good for him for attempting to have a boundary!) declines because he is sabbatical.
3. Editor Fielder moves forward and Editor Fielder, in the same issue, accepts the three peer reviewers critiques for publication (Jussim, Stanovish, Strobe) but those are accepted outside of peer review
4. Fielder kisses the reviewers bottoms in discussions with Roberts
5. Roberts gets drawn into the debate, despite attempting to set a boundary.
6. Roberts replies that feels like it's a bit of a dog pile (probably is) but emails a commentary to Editor Fielder
7. Breaking the assumption that Robert's reply to the dog pile will not be restricted, Fielder has Hommel "check on the factual consistencies" pf Roberts before hsi response is accepted for publication.
8. It is not clear if Jussim, Stanovich, and Strobe also faced such scrutiny - probably not.
9. Roberts withdraws commentary - feeling like the dog pile and lopsided scrutiny is uncool.
10. Fielder asks Roberts to reconsider.
11. Roberts sends him the manuscript we are reading
12. Robert uploads the manuscript to make it publically clear he tried "in good faith"
13. Roberts then goes into the content of the dog pile and his rebuttal

Did I miss anything?

• First, I think that Fielder should have been canned for not waiting for Roberts sabbatical to done to continue the debate. The civil thing would have been "Oh crap dude, my bad, I'm hoping to have a debate on this in the forum as I feel like the reviewers made some dope points, but you're on sabbatical and this can wait until you come back. I hope you enjoy your sabbatical and it's helpful you, yourcareer, productive and the field." None of this is life and death.
• Second, I wish Roberts would have held his boundary - but the dude was getting dog piled on and felt the need to fight back. I get it.
• Next, an editor should try, at the very best, to be neutral. Verbally jerking off the three reviewers and letting them publish destroyed that.
• And that's before we get into the racial content and racial identity of the above.
• Basically, Fielder did everything in his power to prove Roberts correct. He def hijacked the signal in a certain direction and injected some bias into a supposedly bias-free field.
• This process summary helped me check my reflexive yuck against race/identity of authors discussions on science.

 

[WisNeuro]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the critiques were ever published.