Journals retract three papers by Hans Eysenck, flag 18, some 60 years old – Retraction Watch
A journal has retracted three papers co-authored by the late — and controversial — psychologist Hans Eysenck, following a college investigation that discovered dozens of his papers to be “unsafe.”
The similar journal, Perceptual and Motor Skills, subjected eight of Eysenck’s papers to expressions of concern, whereas one other — Psychological Reports — subjected 10 of them to the identical flag. Both journals are revealed by SAGE.
A May 2019 report by King’s College London into the work of Eysenck and Ronald Grossarth-Maticek, apparently of the University Heidelberg, that greater than two dozen papers be retracted. Among different points, the report cited
the implausibility of the outcomes offered, a lot of which present impact sizes just about unknown in medical science.
The discover in Perceptual and Motor Skills reads:
The following articles have been retracted because of King’s College London’s evaluate of sure publications authored by Hans J. Eysenck with Ronald Grossarth-Maticek as regards to character and sure well being outcomes. The King’s College London evaluate committee advisable that the articles of their evaluate be retracted on account of discovering they’re unsafe, particularly noting the next:
— Concerns with the validity of the datasets, together with the “recruitment of participants, administration of measures, reliability of outcome ascertainment, biases in data collection, absence of relevant covariates, and selection of cases analysed in each article.”
— The outcomes reported by Eysenck and Grossarth-Maticek had been implausible and incompatible with trendy medical science and the understanding of illness processes.
The King’s College London report could also be learn right here: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/information/statements/hans-eysenck
The Editor and SAGE attempt to uphold the very highest requirements of publication ethics and are dedicated to supporting the excessive requirements of integrity of Perceptual and Motor Skills. Authors, reviewers, editors and readers ought to seek the advice of the ethics part of the SAGE web site and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) web site for tips on publication ethics.
— Grossarth-Maticek, R., Eysenck, H. J., Uhlenbruck, G., Rieder, H., Vetter, H., Freesemann, C., … Liesen, H. (1990). Sport Activity and Personality as Elements in Preventing Cancer and Coronary Heart Disease. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71(1), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1922.214.171.124
While the King’s College London evaluate didn’t particularly identify the next two articles as problematic, after consideration of the intense nature of the issues that had been recognized by the College, and evaluate of an editorial by David F. Marks in Journal of Health Psychology, the Editor and SAGE believed it was applicable to retract the next two articles as nicely.
— Grossarth-Maticek, R., Eysenck, H. J., & Vetter, H. (1988). Antismoking Attitudes and General Prejudice: An Empirical Study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66(three), 927–931. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1988.66.three.927
— Eysenck, H. J. (1990). The Prediction of Death from Cancer by Means of Personality/Stress Questionnaire: Too Good to Be True? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71(1), 216–218. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.19126.96.36.199
The three retracted papers had been cited a complete of 19 instances, in line with Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science.
One of the articles subjected by Psychological Reports to an expression of concern dates again to 1955, and several other to 1960. None of the flagged articles consists of Grossarth-Maticek as a co-author.
Eysenck’s work has been the topic of scrutiny since the early 1990s. Some of it was cited closely by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s controversial e book The Bell Curve. As we famous final 12 months,
In February, Anthony Pelosi revealed a paper within the Journal of Health Psychology calling the Eysenck case “one of the worst scientific scandals of all time,” accompanied by an editorial from David Marks calling for an inquiry by King’s and the British Psychological Society.
Eysenck has now had 4 papers retracted. The first retraction appeared in January. Eysenck’s biographer, Rod Buchanan, thinks that the retraction rely might develop nicely previous 60. Scientific sleuth James Heathers has additionally weighed in on the case.
Like Retraction Watch? You could make a tax-deductible contribution to assist our work, observe us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our day by day digest. If you discover a retraction that’s not in our database, you’ll be able to tell us right here. For feedback or suggestions, electronic mail us at email@example.com.