>>-----Original Message----- >> >> I am considering resigning from APA, which would also >> necessitate resigning as Editor of JPSP:PPID, as well as from the >> Presidency of Division 8 of APA. A number of events make me question >> the full commitment of APA to the open discussion of scholarly >> questions, and to the scientific integrity of journal publishing: >> >> A. APA's initial reaction to political pressure exerted over the Rind >> et al. article. APA asked that the Rind article be reviewed by >> outside sources, and in its reply to Congressman DeLay did not >> advance a single argument in favor of the scientific peer review >> process or of open dialogue on intellectual issues. >> >> B. When the editor of Psychological Bulletin, Nancy Eisenberg, in >> concert with several other editors, proposed to write an article for >> the American Psychologist about tensions between science and >> politics, it was evident that such an article would not be warmly >> welcomed by APA. It seemed to me that an Eisenberg article written >> for the American Psychologist would not be published by APA because >> the leaders of the organization were afraid of the possible political >> repercussions of such a paper. >> >> C. In the most recent turn of events, an article explaining the >> history of the Rind article controversy was accepted by a guest >> editor of the American Psychologist (by Nora Newcombe, herself a >> highly respected editor of an APA journal). Although Dr. Newcombe >> accepted the article for publication and it was to appear in the >> American Psychologist this summer, the editor of AP, Richard McCarty, >> sent the article out for further review and basically rejected the >> article after it had already been accepted. He apparently did this >> without telling either the author or Dr. Newcombe that he was >> proceeding as if the article had not been accepted. Neither Professor >> Newcombe nor the author were told that the article was receiving >> further review until they inquired about when the article would >> appear in print. Because Richard McCarty is an integral part of the >> upper level administration at APA, his actions are not those of an >> editor acting independently of the APA administration. >> >> People will argue about whether Dr. McCarty acted within the >> rules, and will discuss other details of these controversies. For >> example, Dr. McCarty technically did not reject the recent paper, but >> asked the author to make such extensive revisions that it would have >> been a totally different paper. However, what perhaps worries me even >> more than the events described above is the fact that APA has not >> come forward to clearly and strongly defend scholarly debate on >> controversial topics and the integrity of the editorial decision >> process. The administration of APA has never during this debate come >> out forcefully to defend and encourage scholarly debate on >> controversial issues, to defend without reservation ongoing >> scientific work on these topics, and then proceed accordingly. >> >> This is not an issue of liberal versus conservative; I am >> concerned with individuals on either side who know the answer to most >> questions in the absence of empirical work and scholarly debate. In >> the absence of individuals who are willing to stand up for open >> scientific debate, it seems clear to me that APA will continue to >> capitulate to political forces that do not value the integrity of >> scientific discourse. This is also not an issue of whether the Rind >> article provides definitive evidence on the issues it addressed - >> scientific discourse is an ongoing enterprise. Rather, this is an >> issue of whether APA is willing to stand up and defend scholarly >> dialogue and empirical work on delicate issues even when this might >> bring heated criticism and controversy. I believe that the recent >> events repeatedly show that APA does not have sufficient commitment >> to the scientific process to stand up for it when pressure is brought >> to bear on APA by forces that do not place high value on scientific >> dialogue. As an APA journal editor, I am very nervous about APA's >> lack of strong support for scholarly work on controversial topics. >> >> I would like to be convinced that APA will defend >> controversial scholarship, academic freedom, and the integrity of >> scientific publication. Recent events are not reassuring. Unless APA >> takes expeditious actions in this regard, I will feel obligated to >> resign from my editorship and divisional presidency. >> >> ______________________________________________ >> Ed Diener, Ph.D. >> Alumni Professor of Psychology >> Editor, JPSP: PPID and Journal of Happiness Studies >> University of Illinois >> 603 E. Daniel St. >> Champaign, IL 61820 U.S.A. >> (217) 333-4804 Fax: (217) 244-5876 JPSP: (217) 244-0671 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> www.psych.uiuc.edu/~ediener _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
