On the peer review process that got the now retracted Clark et al. paper published.
Here's an excellent thread.
I'm also reading the then-editor's apology letter. I have some questions. 1/
Here's an excellent thread.
I'm also reading the then-editor's apology letter. I have some questions. 1/
Steve Lindsay: "First, I deeply regret that I failed to think about the racial implications of the manuscript." 3/
"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." 4/
"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." 5/
Here is the abstract from Clark et al.'s now retracted paper. The abstract with which it got published by Steve Lindsay.
How do the racial implications of the manuscript not jump out at someone highly trained in social science?
6/
How do the racial implications of the manuscript not jump out at someone highly trained in social science?
6/
I don't think it's just me, the racist implications of the paper nearly assault me when I read that. They are that clear.
How do these implications pass by a journal editor, for months and through much correspondence?
What is wrong with training and discourse in psychology? 7/
How do these implications pass by a journal editor, for months and through much correspondence?
What is wrong with training and discourse in psychology? 7/
I appreciate this honesty.
"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."
8/
"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."
8/
"[I] 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." 9/
Yes. Very much so.
"But the combination of an extremely fraught social issue, methodological weaknesses, and problems in the writing makes for a toxic mess. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." 10/
"But the combination of an extremely fraught social issue, methodological weaknesses, and problems in the writing makes for a toxic mess. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." 10/
Let's backtrack from this end point of the apology--Clark et al.'s paper is a toxic mess of racist claims, weak method, and bad writing--to the #peerreview process.
Here's part of the collective effort that went into publishing what is now retracted. 11/
Here's part of the collective effort that went into publishing what is now retracted. 11/
All that effort, time, thought. Of 6 highly trained people. And still a racist, toxic mess at the end.
Wouldn't it have been better to hear the alarm bells that were ringing from the start and do the seemingly bold but actually ordinary thing of sending a desk-rejection.
12/
Wouldn't it have been better to hear the alarm bells that were ringing from the start and do the seemingly bold but actually ordinary thing of sending a desk-rejection.
12/
@threadreaderapp unroll
