A Tale of Censorship in Research
Child psychiatrist Michael S. Scheeringa shares his story of peer review gone wrong and its implications for scientific research
By Michael S. Scheeringa, M.D.
What Happened
The journal Psychological Assessment, a journal of the American Psychological Association (APA), asked me to peer review a manuscript on the validity of a set of psychological measures for an indigenous population. On May 16, 2023, I submitted my review to the journal. On June 1, I received an email from the handling editor notifying me that the manuscript was being rejected but asked that I consider revising my review before it was forwarded to the authors.
“[P]sychology (and psychiatry and social work) is a self-selected faction with liberal views, and the field lacks a balance of ideological heterogeneity”
The editor explained that she had a concern that some of my comments were not phrased in the correct ways about indigenous people. She was “loath to give the impression that we are skeptical about the ongoing systemic inequities experienced by Indigenous people.” I could either revise my review to delete any disagreement with the authors’ belief that the sample of indigenous people in this study had both suffered and been negatively impacted by systemic inequities, or the editor would be happy to simply delete entirely six of my twenty-seven concerns, the latter being “the most efficient approach.”
The following day, I replied that I was not willing to revise my review. I explained that the authors had made many claims in the manuscript that were their beliefs or claims unsupported by evidence. I noted that my comments were written in civil, polite, and respectful language, and that these comments ought to be of some value to the authors in their attempts to get their manuscript published.
The handling editor replied the same day to make “the more nuanced point” that she was not insinuating that my comments would have no value to the authors. The problem was that my comments could appear insensitive. For an explanation of APA policy on such issues, she referred me to the editor-in-chief.
“[M]y review [was] sent to the authors with all or part of nine of my concerns redacted.”
On June 4, the editor-in-chief replied that the APA Editor’s Handbook compels editors to consider the “tone and spirit” of reviews, emphasizing that comments be “respectful.” I searched the internet for the APA Editor’s Handbook but could not locate it, so, on June 6, I asked the editor-in-chief where I might find a copy. On June 8, she replied that she had consulted with the APA Chief Editorial Advisor, and the handbook was not publicly available and would not be shared with me.
Meanwhile, on June 6, my review, plus that of a second reviewer, were sent to the authors with all or part of nine of my concerns redacted.
What Was Redacted?
The sentences that were redacted are shown below with strikethrough text. The version sent to the authors of the manuscript showed [REDACTED] in each spot instead of the strikethrough text. The numbers are those from my original review.
9. It was not clear why the sample needed to be referred to as Indigenous. Calling them indigenous seemed to have political or ideological overtones. Why aren’t they more precisely called Native Alaskan or Lakota?
10. The authors referred to “minoritized” samples as opposed to minority samples. Minoritized is a political term that implies the samples have been oppressed. Minoritized is not a scientific term that has precise meaning, and there was no evidence that the current sample was oppressed in their lifetimes.
11. The authors stated that Indigenous peoples and families have endured traumas including genocide, forced displacement and forfeiture of homelands. Those traumas do not apply to the current sample. This was not stated directly but it appears to be implying that a psychological impact of historical traumas can be passed down to generations through some sort of intergenerational transmission. This is a highly controversial theory and unproven. Further, the authors claimed that these historical traumas are compounded by present day structural racism. They provided no evidence that either this sample has endured structural racism or the part of the country this sample lives in included structural racism. Again, structural racism is a controversial political term, and has no precise scientific meaning.
12. The authors stated that “there is a critical need to move away from the inherently White ethnocentric lens that has been used in measure development that may overlook capturing unique strengths of Indigenous families.” This was a political statement that does not convey a precise or salient scientific issue and has no place in a science article. The authors did not provide a definition of a White ethnocentric lens, evidence that such definition does or does not have validity, or how such a lens creates empirically-flawed data.
14. The authors stated that Indigenous populations have respect for extended family systems and elders. They also stated family is the backbone for Indigenous families. Every culture has respect for extended family systems and elders and views family as the mainstay of culture. No evidence was provided how this is unique or relevant for Indigenous people.
18. The authors stated their partners preferred the term Indigenous over American Indian/Alaska Native and Native American. They did not state who their partners were or why they have credibility for this preference. Further, it was not clear why this was relevant to the manuscript.
21. The authors wrote that they “honored all community input.” It was not described what “honored” meant. This does not sound like a scientific activity.
22. The authors reported that 7.29% of the children were two-spirit identity. This is a controversial sexual identity and has no place in a science report. It obscures the sexual distribution of male and female and makes the sample unreplicable.
23. They reported that some children and caregivers identified as Latinx. I doubt they truly identified as Latinx. There were likely Latino who were forced to choose Latinx from the researchers’ menu of choices. Using Latinx is neither required by journals nor preferred by the ethnic group it is meant to describe. In my opinion, Latinx is more bigoted than Latino. Latinx was invented by non-Latino apologists to create a special consideration that Latinos never asked for. It is also controversial for being promoted by transgender activists who do not have Latinos’ best interests at heart. Many Latinos have made it clear they are proud of their native male/female language and very few of them use Latinx to refer to themselves.
In contrast to the handling editor’s explanation, only two of the nine redactions had anything to do with the topic of perceived systemic inequities. I am confident that my views are held by a minority of psychologists, at least among those who publish, but that does not mean I am wrong. It means that psychology (and psychiatry and social work) is a self-selected faction with liberal views, and the field lacks a balance of ideological heterogeneity (Duarte, et al., 2015).
“[N]ow I am wondering how many times this has happened without me being told about it.”
How Common Is Redaction of Peer Reviews?
I have three concerns. First, I have submitted more than 300 reviews over the past 28 years, and this was the first time I am aware of that my review was altered by editors before being sent to authors.
But now I am wondering how many times this has happened without me being told about it. For the vast majority of reviews in the past, journals have cc’d me on the emails sent to the authors and I have been able to see what the authors see. But there have been several instances where the emails I received with the editor’s decisions informed me only that the manuscripts were rejected or accepted with revisions, and did not include the reviews from me or the other reviewers. Were the reviews not included because they were redacted and the journal did not want me to know?
Second, regardless of past practices, it is evident that redaction of civil and respectful language of differing opinions is now accepted practice, at least by the APA.
Third, what is the standard for editors to decide what is insensitive language? Are editors protecting the fragile egos of authors? Are they protecting the professionalism of their journal brand? Or, are editors simply trying to head off the drearily predictable complaints from angry authors who had their papers rejected?
If anyone possesses the classified APA Editor’s Handbook, and would like to shed light on the APA policy position, I think that would be enlightening for all of us. If you are barred by an agreement to not share it with us, perhaps at least you could explain the policy on “tone and spirit” that I must have violated.
A Revolution Occurred—but We Weren’t Notified
Editors have the power, nearly unlimited it seems, to decide what language is allowed and what ideas are permissible in peer reviews. It appears they can make these decisions without the consensus of reviewers, and secretly, without peer reviewers ever knowing what’s happening. Editors seem to have leapfrogged over the democratic step of building agreement in the field for what counts as insensitivity.
This authoritarian model is not the problem; I think it is fine, and efficient for conducting business, when the rulers are fair. The problem is when rulers favor one faction over another unfairly and there is no recourse.
I am not suggesting a total remake of peer review is needed. I am suggesting that a revolution has occurred and we were not notified. What we need is a way to rein in deviant editors, such as those at Psychological Assessment. Those models already exist at most universities and businesses for handling problems of professional conduct. Start with a coffee chat, then move up rapidly to stiffer remedies as needed. I’m looking at you, APA. Consider this my official complaint.
Originally published in Unsafe Science
Images of people with mouths covered from pexels.com
REFERENCES
Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, S., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38:e130. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X14000430. Epub 2014 Jul 18. PMID: 25036715.