What Are Student Journals To Do When Authors Refuse To Change False Claims?

This post is based on my experience with Professor Xiao Wang's article, but addresses a broader issue: what should a student journal do when an author refuses to correct a false claim. I think there are three ways to approach this question.

First, imagine during the review process, the journal identified an error in the author's paper, and asked the author to make the change. The author steadfastly refused to make the correction, convinced he was correct. The journal could rescind the offer of publication. Or the journal could post some sort of editor's note on the article, to flag the error. But in most cases, the journal may decide that the article has the author's name on it, and it is the author's problem. I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment, but it probably describes how publishing works in practice.

Second, imagine during the review process, the journal fails to identify the error in the author's paper, and only becomes aware of it after publication. Here, there was a failure of the editorial process (to one degree or another). What are the options here? The journal could post a correction, with the consent of the author. Or the journal could post an editor's note, without the author's consent. Or, perhaps in egregious circumstances, the journal could withdraw the article altogether.

Third, imagine that the error was only identified after publication, but the journal takes no action to acknowledge any correction. Perhaps the author refuses to acknowledge the error, and the journal stands by that decision. At that point, the error will stand in perpetuity.

Among these three options, I would have the most sympathy for the students in the first scenario. They did their due diligence, and tried to get the author to correct an error, but ultimately acquiesced. I am also partially sympathetic to the students in the second scenario. Even where the author refuses to make the change, the editors can exercise their prerogative to distance themselves from the error. I am least sympathetic to the students in the third scenario. Their review process failed to uncover the error, and now the journal takes no action to own that error on their part.

Comments

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What should an ostensibly academic blog do when two of its authors refuse to correct repeated false claims, an occurrence so common and predictable that prizes are awarded for identifying such shoddy work? (Spoiler: In this case, it will ignore the shabby work product from law professors who are ideological allies.)

How should a legitimate educational institution respond when its reputation is being diminished by an employee's scholarly malpractice? (Spoiler: Learn from the mistake and adjust hiring practices.)

[David Nieporent]

ostensibly academic blog

Lying again, I see.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Mostly law professors." Who spotlight their academic affiliations incessantly. And blog about the legal academy, legal issues, and professorial matters regularly. Sounds ostensibly academic to me.

(That "mostly law professors" tag has the virtue of being true. The "often libertarian" claim is misleading and mostly bullshit.)

[ThanksForTheFish]

Jeebus Artie, give it a rest. Go yell at some kids to stay off the lawn.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When the Volokh Conspiracy stops publishing discredited falsehoods in a predictable pattern, observers should stop referring to that pathetic work.

Until then, kiss my ass. Or continue to kiss the Conspirators' asses. It's a free country, clinger.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"How should a legitimate educational institution respond when its reputation is being diminished by an employee’s scholarly malpractice?"

While Kirkland is being the traditional a-hole here, it does raise an interesting question -- the example that comes to immediate mind is Ward Churchill.

It is a very dangerous issue because never forget where academic freedom came from -- the Stanford Econ Professor stating that Leland Standford had exploited Chinese laborers in building his railroad (and he had) and Stanford's widow not liking that being said. And, fortunately, we do not live in a world where Kirkland has any real power.

But what about the basic underlying issue, what is to be done with people like Churchill or BC's Mary Daly -- who refused to let male students into her classes.

[wolfefan]

The irony of this post after the Pitney piece a few days ago is duly noted. (Unless Josh is being critical of the VC for either not fact-checking him or doing so but publishing factual errors anyway.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Careful . . . the Volokh Conspiracy’s fans dislike mention of the hypocrisy and embarrassingly spurious “scholarly” content that have become signature elements of this blog.

And it's not just the Pitney piece . . . there are at least a dozen other examples.

[bernard11]

I have no sympathy whatsoever for the students in the first scenario.

If there is a significant error in the paper don't publish it. Period. This is not hard.

Scenarios 2 and 3 look the same to me. An error is discovered after publication. Simple. Post a correction. If the author doesn't agree let the author explain why the correction is incorrect.

Again, these are not hard problems.

[Martinned]

I agree. The questions, as posed, are not hard. If it helps, one can imagine that the error amounts to a libel. That tends to clarify people's thinking.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes -- and why NYT v Sullivan may be bad public policy.

[NOYB2]

Second, imagine during the review process, the journal fails to identify the error in the author’s paper, and only becomes aware of it after publication.

The idea that it is the job of peer reviewers to reliably identify errors in papers is ridiculously naive. In the sciences, peer reviewers can’t reproduce experiments. In mathematics, peer reviewers can’t usually verify every single detail of a proof. Peer reviewers generally are neither qualified, nor have the necessary skill, nor have the necessary data, to render definitive judgments on the truth of paper submissions.

The job of a peer reviewer is to determine whether the results are of interest to the readers of a journal, nothing more. As part of that, they try to identify clear and obvious errors in the paper and its assumptions, but that’s the extent of their error checking.

Third, imagine that the error was only identified after publication, but the journal takes no action to acknowledge any correction. Perhaps the author refuses to acknowledge the error, and the journal stands by that decision. At that point, the error will stand in perpetuity.

That is nonsense. Errors in academic papers are properly pointed out by subsequent peer reviewed academic papers. Scientists traditionally have lengthy discussions about the truth of some idea or theory in the pages of academic journals, in a string of related publications.

The only time a journal should publish a correction on its own, without peer review, is if there is a provable case of academic misconduct or fraud, or if the reviewers turned out to be grossly incompetent.

The assumption that something is, or ought to be, free of errors because it is published in a peer reviewed journal is at the heart of the low quality of academia today. Academics like Blackman would do well to free themselves of that absurd notion and exercise some critical thinking when reading academic papers.

[David Nieporent]

The idea that it is the job of peer reviewers to reliably identify errors in papers is ridiculously naive. In the sciences, peer reviewers can’t reproduce experiments. In mathematics, peer reviewers can’t usually verify every single detail of a proof. Peer reviewers generally are neither qualified, nor have the necessary skill, nor have the necessary data, to render definitive judgments on the truth of paper submissions.

Just to be clear, since he's talking about his favorite subject — himself — there's no "peer review" here in the first place, so your comments are irrelevant.

And what the student editors of law reviews do deal with is making sure that each of the statements in an article is supported. If an article attributes a claim to a certain source, the reviewers make sure the source exists and says that.

[Social Justice is neither]

Cool story bro, thanks for explaining why the reproducability problem exists in modern science and why it's nobody's responsibility to correct or look at. I'm sure that will do wonders for the reputation of the sciences as seekers of truth. Fashionable nonsense passed off as authoritative "peer reviewed" science when it's roots are more aligned with Lysenko.

[Scott Fruehwald]

About a year ago, I, and others, found deceptive quotes in an article in Music Theory Online. I thought the author had intentionally incompletely and deceptively misstated the quotes to back up his thesis. I informed the journal editors, and they did not respond. The author is a well-respected professor in music theory. I have an article that has been accepted for publication on this situation, which should appear this summer.

In fact, Eugene Volokh has commented on a related part of this situation.https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/this-case-stems-from-the-suppression-of-academic-scholarship-at-the-university-of-north-texas/?comments=true#comments

[NOYB2]

The author is a well-respected professor in music theory. I have an article that has been accepted for publication on this situation, which should appear this summer.

And that is the correct way of dealing with this: you correct errors in an academic publication with another academic publication.

[tkamenick]

My undergrad is in music and now I'm really curious, can you say more?

[Scott Fruehwald]

See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4020545

[Flight-ER-Doc]

In condition one: Let the author have a chance to correct, if he doesn't print as is with a large description of his error and refusal to fix it.

Condition two: The journal should publish a statement acknowledging the error, and give the author a chance to correct it, and follow up in a reasonable time frame if he does. If not, withdraw the paper with an explanation.

Condition three: Corrupt science.

[Noscitur a sociis]

For extra credit, a fourth hypothetical:

What if a narcissistic mediocrity contacts the journal obsessively to insist that the article contains an error, but the editors don’t that the statement is actually erroneous?

[David Nieporent]

+1,000.

[Lee Moore]

Khalid and Snyder’s DEI piece provided a good example of what one might choose to do about errors :

They said, no doubt keen to drum up some right wing outrages to “balance” DEI :

Among the things prohibited in this EO was that "any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex."

This was, of course, nonsense, as more than one commenter pointed out. (I should add for completeness that I doubt Khalid and Snyder made a deliberate “error”, I suspect they just skim read the EO and saw what they were expecting to see, based on their no doubt very faculty lounge opinion of Trump.

But what the EO actually said was quite different :

The contractor shall not use any workplace training that inculcates in its employees any form of race or sex stereotyping or any form of race or sex scapegoating, including the concepts that ……(f) an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex;

Thus what the EO prohibits is teaching whiteys that they should feel guilty on account of their whiteyness, not any teaching that may result in whiteys actually feeling guilty about their whiteyness.

And Randal showed that one can respond to this sort of error with complete insouciance :

I think all this hiding behind a technicality (“should” vs. “does”) is an attempt to justify a policy that absolutely will enable white students to shut down discussions that make them uncomfortable. The concept of white privilege doesn’t have anything to do with collective guilt or the idea that any individual should feel discomfort, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress. But lots of white students will feel those feelings, and I’m 100% sure that DeSantis’s law was intended to — and will — outlaw those discussions in practice.

Or more briefly, “Whatev, it’s just a technicality.”

And one can see his point, or at least the mindset behind his point. Depending on one’s point of view, an error that appears yuuuuge to Person A may appear tiny and insignificant to Person B. Taking a different view of the importance of an error does not ipso facto demonstrate bad faith.

To be sure, the world does not lack for scoundrels, but it is also quite possible for two reasonably honest fellows to disagree completely on the significance of an error.

[David Nieporent]

While I still think they read it wrong, you're quoting a different section of the EO than they were.

[David Nieporent]

I would say, however, that the way something is worded and the way it's implemented are not necessarily the same, and if they can misread it so can the people implementing it.

[Lee Moore]

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

One would hope that those actually implementing it would take a tiny bit longer reading it than those skimming it for a quick "balancing" right wing sin, or lazy VC commenters copying and pasting a few words into a comment.

It really isn't that easy to misunderstand if you have a whole minute to spare.

[Lee Moore]

My bad. I was intending to reference

The contractor shall not use any workplace training that inculcates in its employees any form of race or sex stereotyping or any form of race or sex scapegoating, including the concepts that ……

(g) any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex

The perils of skim copy and pasting are very similar to those of skim reading.

[Leo Marvin]

Josh's subtext seems to be that Wang committed a #3 against him. For the reasons I gave in the other thread, if that's so, I believe it's at least as much Josh's doing as Wang's.

[EscherEnigma]

Dude, if you don't want someone to point out your predictions were wrong, don't make predictions, stick to writing about events that have already happened.

Coming back years later and trying to re-write your predictions so that you aren't wrong anymore is just gas-lighting.

[myself]

And what is an author to do when someone keeps insisting that they made a false claim despite clear evidence to the contrary?

Re-read the Xiao Wang quote again, this time with more appropriate bolding:

That finding contradicts an idea, put forth by Josh Blackman, that judges are only just now taking senior status to benefit President Biden and the Democratic Party. This conjecture is not borne out by the data. True: both sides may be playing the game of strategic retirement. But also true: one side—the Republican Party—is much better at playing the game than the other.

Xiao Wang is clearly assigning Josh the position not that Democratic Judges only play the strategic senior status game, but that Democrats are playing the strategic senior status game just like the Republicans did.

And that's exactly the position that Blackman is claiming he has as a "rebuttal" to Xiao Wang.