Last week, Robert
J. Sternberg resigned as Editor of Perspectives on Psychological Science after
a series of criticisms of his behaviour on social media. I first became aware
of this issue when Bobbie Spellman wrote a blogpost
explaining why she was not renewing her membership of the Association for
Psychological Science, noting concerns about Sternberg’s editorial bias and high
rate of self-citation, among other issues.
Then a grad student at the University of Leicester, Brendan
O’Connor, noted that Sternberg not only had a tendency to cite his own work; he
also recycled large portions of written text in his publications. Nick Brown
publicised some striking examples on his
blog, and Retraction Watch subsequently published an interview
with O’Connor explaining the origins of the story.
In discussing
his resignation, Sternberg admitted to ‘lapses in judgement and mistakes’
but also reprimanded those who had outed him for putting their concerns online,
rather than contacting him directly. A loyal colleague, James C. Kaufman, then came
to his defence, tweeting:
The term ‘witch-hunt’ is routinely trotted out whenever a
senior person is criticised. (Indeed, it has become one of Donald Trump’s
favourite terms to describe attempts to call him out for various misbehaviours).
It implies that those who are protesting at wrongdoing are self-important
people who are trying to gain attention by whipping up a sense of moral panic about
relatively trivial matters.
I find this both irritating and symptomatic of a deep problem
in academic life. I do not regard Sternberg’s transgressions as particularly
serious: He used his ready access to a publishing platform for self-promotion
and self-plagiarism, was discovered, and resigned his editorial position with a
rather grumbly semi-apology. If that was all there was to it, I would agree that everyone should move on.
The problem is with the attitude of senior people such as
Kaufman. A key point is missed by those who want to minimise Sternberg’s
misbehaviour: He is one of the most successful psychologists in the world, and
so to the next generation, he is a living embodiment of what you need to do to
become a leader in the field. So
early-career scientists will look at him and conclude that to get to the top
you need to bend the rules.
In terms of abuse of editorial power, Sternberg’s behaviour
is relatively tame. Consider the case of Johnny Matson, Jeff Sigafoos, Giuliano
Lancioni and Mark O’Reilly, who formed a coterie of editors and editorial board
members who enhanced their publications and citations by ditching usual
practices such as peer review when handling one another’s papers. I documented
the evidence for this back in 2015, and there appear to have been no
consequences for any of these individuals. You might think it isn’t so important
if a load of dodgy papers make it into a few journals, but in this case, there
was potential for damage beyond academia: the subject matter concerned
developmental disorders, and methods of assessment and intervention were given unjustified
credibility by being published in journals that were thought to be
peer-reviewed. In addition, the corrosive influence on the next generation of psychologists
was all too evident: When I first wrote about this, I was contacted by several
early-career people who had worked with the dodgy editors: they confirmed that
they were encouraged to adopt similar practices if they wanted to get ahead.
When we turn to abuse of personal power, there have been
instances in academia that are much, much worse than editorial misdemeanours –
clearly documented cases of senior academics acting as sexual predators on
junior staff – see, for instance, here
and here.
With the #MeToo campaign (another ‘witch-hunt’),
things are starting to change, but the recurring theme is that if you are sufficiently
powerful you can get away with almost anything.
Institutions that hire top academics seem desperate to cling
on to them because they bring in grants and fame. Of course, accusations need to be fully
investigated in a fair and impartial fashion, but in matters such as editorial
transgressions, the evidence is there for all to see, and a prompt response is
required.
The problem with the academic hierarchy is that at the top there
is a great deal of power and precious little responsibility. Those who make it
to positions of authority should uphold high professional standards and act as academic
role models. At a time when many early-career researchers are complaining
that their PIs are encouraging them to adopt bad scientific practices,
it’s all the more important that we don’t send the message that you need to act
selfishly and cut corners in order to succeed.
I don’t want to see Sternberg vilified, but I do think the
onus is now on the academic establishment to follow Bobbie Spellman’s lead and state
publicly that his behaviour fell below what we would expect from an academic
role model – rather than sweeping it under the carpet or, even worse, portraying
him as a victim.
Posts
