User login
Ivermectin–COVID-19 study retracted; authors blame file mix-up
The paper, “Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon,” appeared in the journal Viruses in May. According to the abstract: “A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 100 asymptomatic Lebanese subjects that have tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Fifty patients received standard preventive treatment, mainly supplements, and the experimental group received a single dose (according to body weight) of ivermectin, in addition to the same supplements the control group received.”
Results results results … and: “Ivermectin appears to be efficacious in providing clinical benefits in a randomized treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions. However, larger-scale trials are warranted for this conclusion to be further cemented.”
However, in early October, the BBC reported — in a larger piece about the concerns about ivermectin-Covid-19 research — that the study “was found to have blocks of details of 11 patients that had been copied and pasted repeatedly – suggesting many of the trial’s apparent patients didn’t really exist.”
The study’s authors told the BBC that the ‘original set of data was rigged, sabotaged or mistakenly entered in the final file’ and that they have submitted a retraction to the scientific journal which published it.
That’s not quite what the retraction notice states: “The journal retracts the article, Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon [ 1 ], cited above. Following publication, the authors contacted the editorial office regarding an error between files used for the statistical analysis. Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that confirmed the error reported by the authors.
This retraction was approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal. The authors agreed to this retraction.”
Ali Samaha, of Lebanese University in Beirut, and the lead author of the study, told us: “It was brought to our attention that we have used wrong file for our paper. We informed immediately the journal and we have run investigations. After revising the raw data we realised that a file that was used to train a research assistant was sent by mistake for analysis. Re-analysing the original data , the conclusions of the paper remained valid. For our transparency we asked for retraction.”
About that BBC report? Samaha said: “The BBC article was generated before the report of independent reviewers who confirmed an innocent mistake by using wrong file.”
Samaha added that he and his colleagues are now considering whether to resubmit the paper.
The article has been cited four times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science — including in this meta-analysis published in June in the American Journal of Therapeutics , which concluded that: “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”
That article was a social media darling, receiving more than 45,000 tweets and pickups in 90 news outlets, according to Altmetrics, which ranks it No. 7 among all papers published at that time.
A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.
The paper, “Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon,” appeared in the journal Viruses in May. According to the abstract: “A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 100 asymptomatic Lebanese subjects that have tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Fifty patients received standard preventive treatment, mainly supplements, and the experimental group received a single dose (according to body weight) of ivermectin, in addition to the same supplements the control group received.”
Results results results … and: “Ivermectin appears to be efficacious in providing clinical benefits in a randomized treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions. However, larger-scale trials are warranted for this conclusion to be further cemented.”
However, in early October, the BBC reported — in a larger piece about the concerns about ivermectin-Covid-19 research — that the study “was found to have blocks of details of 11 patients that had been copied and pasted repeatedly – suggesting many of the trial’s apparent patients didn’t really exist.”
The study’s authors told the BBC that the ‘original set of data was rigged, sabotaged or mistakenly entered in the final file’ and that they have submitted a retraction to the scientific journal which published it.
That’s not quite what the retraction notice states: “The journal retracts the article, Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon [ 1 ], cited above. Following publication, the authors contacted the editorial office regarding an error between files used for the statistical analysis. Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that confirmed the error reported by the authors.
This retraction was approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal. The authors agreed to this retraction.”
Ali Samaha, of Lebanese University in Beirut, and the lead author of the study, told us: “It was brought to our attention that we have used wrong file for our paper. We informed immediately the journal and we have run investigations. After revising the raw data we realised that a file that was used to train a research assistant was sent by mistake for analysis. Re-analysing the original data , the conclusions of the paper remained valid. For our transparency we asked for retraction.”
About that BBC report? Samaha said: “The BBC article was generated before the report of independent reviewers who confirmed an innocent mistake by using wrong file.”
Samaha added that he and his colleagues are now considering whether to resubmit the paper.
The article has been cited four times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science — including in this meta-analysis published in June in the American Journal of Therapeutics , which concluded that: “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”
That article was a social media darling, receiving more than 45,000 tweets and pickups in 90 news outlets, according to Altmetrics, which ranks it No. 7 among all papers published at that time.
A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.
The paper, “Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon,” appeared in the journal Viruses in May. According to the abstract: “A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 100 asymptomatic Lebanese subjects that have tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Fifty patients received standard preventive treatment, mainly supplements, and the experimental group received a single dose (according to body weight) of ivermectin, in addition to the same supplements the control group received.”
Results results results … and: “Ivermectin appears to be efficacious in providing clinical benefits in a randomized treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions. However, larger-scale trials are warranted for this conclusion to be further cemented.”
However, in early October, the BBC reported — in a larger piece about the concerns about ivermectin-Covid-19 research — that the study “was found to have blocks of details of 11 patients that had been copied and pasted repeatedly – suggesting many of the trial’s apparent patients didn’t really exist.”
The study’s authors told the BBC that the ‘original set of data was rigged, sabotaged or mistakenly entered in the final file’ and that they have submitted a retraction to the scientific journal which published it.
That’s not quite what the retraction notice states: “The journal retracts the article, Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon [ 1 ], cited above. Following publication, the authors contacted the editorial office regarding an error between files used for the statistical analysis. Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that confirmed the error reported by the authors.
This retraction was approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal. The authors agreed to this retraction.”
Ali Samaha, of Lebanese University in Beirut, and the lead author of the study, told us: “It was brought to our attention that we have used wrong file for our paper. We informed immediately the journal and we have run investigations. After revising the raw data we realised that a file that was used to train a research assistant was sent by mistake for analysis. Re-analysing the original data , the conclusions of the paper remained valid. For our transparency we asked for retraction.”
About that BBC report? Samaha said: “The BBC article was generated before the report of independent reviewers who confirmed an innocent mistake by using wrong file.”
Samaha added that he and his colleagues are now considering whether to resubmit the paper.
The article has been cited four times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science — including in this meta-analysis published in June in the American Journal of Therapeutics , which concluded that: “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”
That article was a social media darling, receiving more than 45,000 tweets and pickups in 90 news outlets, according to Altmetrics, which ranks it No. 7 among all papers published at that time.
A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.
Paper linking COVID-19 vaccines to myocarditis is temporarily removed without explanation
The article, “A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products,” was published in Current Problems in Cardiology, an Elsevier journal, on October 1.
It was co-authored by Jessica Rose and Peter McCullough, whose affiliations are listed as the Public Health Policy Initiative at the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge — a group that has been critical of vaccines and of the response to COVID-19 and has funded one study that was retracted earlier this year — and Texas A&M’s Baylor Dallas campus. [See update at the end of the post.]
Last month, Baylor Scott & White obtained a restraining order against McCullough — whom Medscape says “has promoted the use of therapies seen as unproven for the treatment of COVID-19 and has questioned the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines” — for continuing to refer to an affiliation with the health care institution despite a separation agreement. “Since the Baylor suit, the Texas A&M College of Medicine, and the Texas Christian University (TCU) and University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) School of Medicine have both removed McCullough from their faculties,” Medscape reported at the time.
Here are some highlights of the now temporarily retracted paper’s claims:
Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12-15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group. In addition, a 5-fold increase in myocarditis rate was observed subsequent to dose 2 as opposed to dose 1 in 15-year-old males.
While several studies have used the VAERS database and other similar datasets around the world to estimate rates of side effects from COVID-19 vaccines, the approach has been roundly criticized and has led to at least one retraction. VAERS itself includes caution against doing so. (Another paper about myocarditis cases linked to COVID-19 vaccines has been retracted for a serious math error.)
Here’s the notice:
The Publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated.
The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy .
Rose, the corresponding author of the paper, told Retraction Watch that the publisher had “applied the ‘temporary withdrawal’ label to the paper without informing us.” The publisher, Rose said, “claimed that since ‘it wasn’t an invited paper’ that they were reconsidering publishing it and hence the ‘temporary withdrawal.’”
She said the move was “unheard of” and that Elsevier was “breaching the contract we signed – all fees have been paid for gorgeous color graphics.”
Elsevier has temporarily removed more than 100 papers since 2005, by our count. The papers are often reinstated without any mention of why the paper was removed.
Hector Ventura, the editor of the journal, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Update, 10/17/21, 1850 UTC: Rose tells us that the correct affiliations — now noted on the temporarily retracted version — are the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge’s Public Health Policy Initiative (PHPI) for her, and the Truth for Health Foundation in Tucson, Ariz. for McCullough. The foundation describes it mission as:
To provide truthful, balanced, medically sound, research-based information and cutting edge updates on prevention and treatment of common medical conditions, including COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, that affect health, quality of life and longevity.
To present faith-based integrated approaches to medical treatment, health and healing services that encompass all dimensions making us human: physical, psychological/emotional, spiritual, social and environmental.
The paper was submitted before McCullough’s departure from Baylor, Rose said.
A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.
The article, “A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products,” was published in Current Problems in Cardiology, an Elsevier journal, on October 1.
It was co-authored by Jessica Rose and Peter McCullough, whose affiliations are listed as the Public Health Policy Initiative at the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge — a group that has been critical of vaccines and of the response to COVID-19 and has funded one study that was retracted earlier this year — and Texas A&M’s Baylor Dallas campus. [See update at the end of the post.]
Last month, Baylor Scott & White obtained a restraining order against McCullough — whom Medscape says “has promoted the use of therapies seen as unproven for the treatment of COVID-19 and has questioned the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines” — for continuing to refer to an affiliation with the health care institution despite a separation agreement. “Since the Baylor suit, the Texas A&M College of Medicine, and the Texas Christian University (TCU) and University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) School of Medicine have both removed McCullough from their faculties,” Medscape reported at the time.
Here are some highlights of the now temporarily retracted paper’s claims:
Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12-15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group. In addition, a 5-fold increase in myocarditis rate was observed subsequent to dose 2 as opposed to dose 1 in 15-year-old males.
While several studies have used the VAERS database and other similar datasets around the world to estimate rates of side effects from COVID-19 vaccines, the approach has been roundly criticized and has led to at least one retraction. VAERS itself includes caution against doing so. (Another paper about myocarditis cases linked to COVID-19 vaccines has been retracted for a serious math error.)
Here’s the notice:
The Publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated.
The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy .
Rose, the corresponding author of the paper, told Retraction Watch that the publisher had “applied the ‘temporary withdrawal’ label to the paper without informing us.” The publisher, Rose said, “claimed that since ‘it wasn’t an invited paper’ that they were reconsidering publishing it and hence the ‘temporary withdrawal.’”
She said the move was “unheard of” and that Elsevier was “breaching the contract we signed – all fees have been paid for gorgeous color graphics.”
Elsevier has temporarily removed more than 100 papers since 2005, by our count. The papers are often reinstated without any mention of why the paper was removed.
Hector Ventura, the editor of the journal, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Update, 10/17/21, 1850 UTC: Rose tells us that the correct affiliations — now noted on the temporarily retracted version — are the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge’s Public Health Policy Initiative (PHPI) for her, and the Truth for Health Foundation in Tucson, Ariz. for McCullough. The foundation describes it mission as:
To provide truthful, balanced, medically sound, research-based information and cutting edge updates on prevention and treatment of common medical conditions, including COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, that affect health, quality of life and longevity.
To present faith-based integrated approaches to medical treatment, health and healing services that encompass all dimensions making us human: physical, psychological/emotional, spiritual, social and environmental.
The paper was submitted before McCullough’s departure from Baylor, Rose said.
A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.
The article, “A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products,” was published in Current Problems in Cardiology, an Elsevier journal, on October 1.
It was co-authored by Jessica Rose and Peter McCullough, whose affiliations are listed as the Public Health Policy Initiative at the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge — a group that has been critical of vaccines and of the response to COVID-19 and has funded one study that was retracted earlier this year — and Texas A&M’s Baylor Dallas campus. [See update at the end of the post.]
Last month, Baylor Scott & White obtained a restraining order against McCullough — whom Medscape says “has promoted the use of therapies seen as unproven for the treatment of COVID-19 and has questioned the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines” — for continuing to refer to an affiliation with the health care institution despite a separation agreement. “Since the Baylor suit, the Texas A&M College of Medicine, and the Texas Christian University (TCU) and University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC) School of Medicine have both removed McCullough from their faculties,” Medscape reported at the time.
Here are some highlights of the now temporarily retracted paper’s claims:
Within 8 weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12-15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group. In addition, a 5-fold increase in myocarditis rate was observed subsequent to dose 2 as opposed to dose 1 in 15-year-old males.
While several studies have used the VAERS database and other similar datasets around the world to estimate rates of side effects from COVID-19 vaccines, the approach has been roundly criticized and has led to at least one retraction. VAERS itself includes caution against doing so. (Another paper about myocarditis cases linked to COVID-19 vaccines has been retracted for a serious math error.)
Here’s the notice:
The Publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated.
The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy .
Rose, the corresponding author of the paper, told Retraction Watch that the publisher had “applied the ‘temporary withdrawal’ label to the paper without informing us.” The publisher, Rose said, “claimed that since ‘it wasn’t an invited paper’ that they were reconsidering publishing it and hence the ‘temporary withdrawal.’”
She said the move was “unheard of” and that Elsevier was “breaching the contract we signed – all fees have been paid for gorgeous color graphics.”
Elsevier has temporarily removed more than 100 papers since 2005, by our count. The papers are often reinstated without any mention of why the paper was removed.
Hector Ventura, the editor of the journal, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Update, 10/17/21, 1850 UTC: Rose tells us that the correct affiliations — now noted on the temporarily retracted version — are the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge’s Public Health Policy Initiative (PHPI) for her, and the Truth for Health Foundation in Tucson, Ariz. for McCullough. The foundation describes it mission as:
To provide truthful, balanced, medically sound, research-based information and cutting edge updates on prevention and treatment of common medical conditions, including COVID-19 and other infectious diseases, that affect health, quality of life and longevity.
To present faith-based integrated approaches to medical treatment, health and healing services that encompass all dimensions making us human: physical, psychological/emotional, spiritual, social and environmental.
The paper was submitted before McCullough’s departure from Baylor, Rose said.
A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.
Journal retracts more articles for being ‘unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda’
Eight months after a psychology journal retracted a pair of articles that were “unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda,” the publication has pulled three more papers – all at least a quarter century old – for the same reason.
All five papers were written by J. Philippe Rushton, formerly of the University of Western Ontario, who died in 2012. As we wrote in December 2020, Rushton published dubious studies that promoted tropes of white supremacy, including that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites and that:
East Asians and their descendants average a larger brain size, greater intelligence, more sexual restraint, slower rates of maturation, and greater law abidingness and social organization than do Europeans and their descendants, who average higher scores on these dimensions than Africans and their descendants.
Here’s the new notice, whose language mirrors that of the earlier retraction statement:
The following articles have been retracted from Psychological Reports:
Rushton, J. P. (1987). An Evolutionary Theory of Health, Longevity, and Personality: Sociobiology and r/K Reproductive Strategies . Psychological Reports, 60, 539-49.
Rushton, J. P. (1992). Contributions to the History of Psychology: XC. Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits (with Reference to Oriental-White-Black Differences): The 1989 AAAS Paper . Psychological Reports, 71, 811-21.
Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race and Crime: International Data 1989-1990 . Psychological Reports, 76, 207-312.
This retraction is following a review that found that the research was unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda. Specifically, these publications authored by Philippe Rushton on the subject of intelligence and race have been rejected based on the following findings:
A better understanding of the human genome (Yudell et al., 2016)
An inappropriately applied ecological theory that explains differences between species’ reproductive strategies to humans (Allen et al., 1992 ; Anderson, 1991)
A misuse of population genetic measures and misconceptions about heritability (Bailey, 1997)
Ignoring alternative explanations or evidence that did not support the racist theories being presented (Cain & Vanderwolf, 1990)
Rushton’s findings have not been replicated (Peregrine, Ember, & Ember, 2003)
Together, the papers have been cited 48 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. At the time of this writing, none of the original abstracts include a link to the retraction notice.
When we wrote about the Rushton case last year, we received a copy of an email from the journal saying that it would be retracting Rushton’s 1992 paper, “Contributions to the History of Psychology: XC. Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits” along with the other two articles. That didn’t happen at the time.
We asked Cory Scherer, the editor of Psychological Reports, about the eight-month gap between retractions. He told us:
I got an email from a researcher who brought these articles to our attention and when I read them I moved fast on the first retraction and the rest were found when that retraction was already written and in press. I didn’t want to add them to the original retraction until I did my due diligence about the second set found.
Our search of the journal’s website turned up eight articles in total by Rushton in the journal, of which three remain unretracted. Mr. Scherer said he has created a committee to review the remnant papers to see if they require retraction.
Eight months after a psychology journal retracted a pair of articles that were “unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda,” the publication has pulled three more papers – all at least a quarter century old – for the same reason.
All five papers were written by J. Philippe Rushton, formerly of the University of Western Ontario, who died in 2012. As we wrote in December 2020, Rushton published dubious studies that promoted tropes of white supremacy, including that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites and that:
East Asians and their descendants average a larger brain size, greater intelligence, more sexual restraint, slower rates of maturation, and greater law abidingness and social organization than do Europeans and their descendants, who average higher scores on these dimensions than Africans and their descendants.
Here’s the new notice, whose language mirrors that of the earlier retraction statement:
The following articles have been retracted from Psychological Reports:
Rushton, J. P. (1987). An Evolutionary Theory of Health, Longevity, and Personality: Sociobiology and r/K Reproductive Strategies . Psychological Reports, 60, 539-49.
Rushton, J. P. (1992). Contributions to the History of Psychology: XC. Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits (with Reference to Oriental-White-Black Differences): The 1989 AAAS Paper . Psychological Reports, 71, 811-21.
Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race and Crime: International Data 1989-1990 . Psychological Reports, 76, 207-312.
This retraction is following a review that found that the research was unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda. Specifically, these publications authored by Philippe Rushton on the subject of intelligence and race have been rejected based on the following findings:
A better understanding of the human genome (Yudell et al., 2016)
An inappropriately applied ecological theory that explains differences between species’ reproductive strategies to humans (Allen et al., 1992 ; Anderson, 1991)
A misuse of population genetic measures and misconceptions about heritability (Bailey, 1997)
Ignoring alternative explanations or evidence that did not support the racist theories being presented (Cain & Vanderwolf, 1990)
Rushton’s findings have not been replicated (Peregrine, Ember, & Ember, 2003)
Together, the papers have been cited 48 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. At the time of this writing, none of the original abstracts include a link to the retraction notice.
When we wrote about the Rushton case last year, we received a copy of an email from the journal saying that it would be retracting Rushton’s 1992 paper, “Contributions to the History of Psychology: XC. Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits” along with the other two articles. That didn’t happen at the time.
We asked Cory Scherer, the editor of Psychological Reports, about the eight-month gap between retractions. He told us:
I got an email from a researcher who brought these articles to our attention and when I read them I moved fast on the first retraction and the rest were found when that retraction was already written and in press. I didn’t want to add them to the original retraction until I did my due diligence about the second set found.
Our search of the journal’s website turned up eight articles in total by Rushton in the journal, of which three remain unretracted. Mr. Scherer said he has created a committee to review the remnant papers to see if they require retraction.
Eight months after a psychology journal retracted a pair of articles that were “unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda,” the publication has pulled three more papers – all at least a quarter century old – for the same reason.
All five papers were written by J. Philippe Rushton, formerly of the University of Western Ontario, who died in 2012. As we wrote in December 2020, Rushton published dubious studies that promoted tropes of white supremacy, including that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites and that:
East Asians and their descendants average a larger brain size, greater intelligence, more sexual restraint, slower rates of maturation, and greater law abidingness and social organization than do Europeans and their descendants, who average higher scores on these dimensions than Africans and their descendants.
Here’s the new notice, whose language mirrors that of the earlier retraction statement:
The following articles have been retracted from Psychological Reports:
Rushton, J. P. (1987). An Evolutionary Theory of Health, Longevity, and Personality: Sociobiology and r/K Reproductive Strategies . Psychological Reports, 60, 539-49.
Rushton, J. P. (1992). Contributions to the History of Psychology: XC. Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits (with Reference to Oriental-White-Black Differences): The 1989 AAAS Paper . Psychological Reports, 71, 811-21.
Rushton, J. P. (1995). Race and Crime: International Data 1989-1990 . Psychological Reports, 76, 207-312.
This retraction is following a review that found that the research was unethical, scientifically flawed, and based on racist ideas and agenda. Specifically, these publications authored by Philippe Rushton on the subject of intelligence and race have been rejected based on the following findings:
A better understanding of the human genome (Yudell et al., 2016)
An inappropriately applied ecological theory that explains differences between species’ reproductive strategies to humans (Allen et al., 1992 ; Anderson, 1991)
A misuse of population genetic measures and misconceptions about heritability (Bailey, 1997)
Ignoring alternative explanations or evidence that did not support the racist theories being presented (Cain & Vanderwolf, 1990)
Rushton’s findings have not been replicated (Peregrine, Ember, & Ember, 2003)
Together, the papers have been cited 48 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. At the time of this writing, none of the original abstracts include a link to the retraction notice.
When we wrote about the Rushton case last year, we received a copy of an email from the journal saying that it would be retracting Rushton’s 1992 paper, “Contributions to the History of Psychology: XC. Evolutionary Biology and Heritable Traits” along with the other two articles. That didn’t happen at the time.
We asked Cory Scherer, the editor of Psychological Reports, about the eight-month gap between retractions. He told us:
I got an email from a researcher who brought these articles to our attention and when I read them I moved fast on the first retraction and the rest were found when that retraction was already written and in press. I didn’t want to add them to the original retraction until I did my due diligence about the second set found.
Our search of the journal’s website turned up eight articles in total by Rushton in the journal, of which three remain unretracted. Mr. Scherer said he has created a committee to review the remnant papers to see if they require retraction.