The Hans Eysenck affair: Time to correct the scientific record (2019) David F Marks

Some discussion related to this here: https://www.s4me.info/threads/perso...isiting-a-scientific-scandal-2019-pelosi.8311

Could be worth also having a separate thread for the editorial?

 

there seems to be something of a problem with whistleblowing within psychology being linked with personal axe grinding that benefits from the whistling. There is no suggestion that David Marks is involved in this but Pelosi seems to maybe have other irons in fires, judging by his defence of PACE. Something similar seems to have been involved in all the stuff about Cochrane and mental health - with axes to grind about Big Pharma.

David M and Brian Hughes stand out as people without axes to grind. Refreshing.

 

I think wherever big pharma is involved there will inevitably be some very big axes grinding away somewhere or other.

 

“Do we have the will to do anything about it?” James Heathers reflects on the Eysenck case

We have a tension about resolving inaccuracies in scientific documents when they’re past a certain age.

Specifically, what should we do with old papers that are shown to be not just wrong, which is a fate that will befall most of them, but seriously misleading, fatally flawed, or overwhelmingly likely to be fabricated, i.e. when they reach the (very high) threshold we set for retraction?

To my way of thinking, there are three components of this:

(1) the continuing use of the documents themselves as citable objects in contemporary research – some research stays current and relevant, other research is consigned to obscurity, or is so completely superseded that it has no bearing on contemporary research whatsoever.

(2) the profile of the authors – some authors of such documents are alive, famous, and have theories with contemporary relevance. Others are dead, obscure, and have theories which have no continuation in any other papers. Like it or not, these authors are treated differently.
and, of course,

(3) the nature and extent of the errors – some are small but definite mistakes, some are blatant multi-paper fabrications.

https://retractionwatch.com/2019/10...-james-heathers-reflects-on-the-eysenck-case/

 

Merged thread

A glimpse into our inevitable future. Eysenk's research, the cancer personality stuff, has been discussed a few times here and there but there isn't really a proper thread for it.

His research seems to be of similar quality and framing than the rest of the psychosocial stuff on ME and MUS in general. Irony alert: KCL. And the crisis of replicability lives on.

Also in headlines for the future:

https://retractionwatch.com/2019/10...ntroversial-psychologist-hans-eysenck-unsafe/

 

As may have been mentioned before, Pelosi is a psychiatrist in a similar camp to Michael Sharpe/Peter White/Simon Wessely in terms of ME/CFS.

 

Some may have noticed a certain irony in the comments:

Peer review may have been less rigorous and systematic in those days than they are now (and even now peer review is far from perfect).

 

Weird, it's been set to private.

 

King’s College London Enquiry Into Hans J Eysenck Fails to Address All of His Bogus Publications

HANS EYSENCK EXPOSURE
Earlier this year we exposed the largest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of psychology (Marks, 2019; Pelosi, 2019). This audacious fraud was carried out by the UK’s most published and best known psychologist, the late Professor Hans J Eysenck (1916-1997), by all accounts, a maverick and controversial figure.

We called for an enquiry (Marks, 2019). H J Eysenck’s ex-employer, the Institute of Psychiatry in Denmark Hill, is now a part of King’s College London (KCL).

The enquiry at KCL concluded that 25 publications were unsafe. However, the enquiry report remains unpublished and incomplete.
KCL reviewed publications written by Eysenck with his collaborator Ronald Grossarth-Maticek. The enquiry failed to investigate 36 other bogus items based on exactly the same data collected by Eysenck’s collaborator.

The KCL enquiry must be properly completed to include the entire set of 61 bogus publications.
The Eysenck affair makes a strong case for a National Research Integrity Ombudsperson.​

https://davidfmarks.com/2019/10/10/...ils-to-address-all-of-his-bogus-publications/

 

That title will not last very long.

 

Poor old Mike is concerned.
https://twitter.com/user/status/1181566100028481536

 

another interesting read here:
“Do we have the will to do anything about it?” James Heathers reflects on the Eysenck case

no wonder Sharpe is worried

https://retractionwatch.com/2019/10...-james-heathers-reflects-on-the-eysenck-case/

 

My thought too

 

That depends on your world view and how useful the paradigm is for your own advancement .....

 

In case people are interested this is what happened about Diederik Stapel (as mentioned in article I posted above).

December 2011

https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2011/12/diederik-stapel

but he (DS) then wrote a book about it which was translated into english by Nick Brown. Haven't read it but it can be found here:
http://nick.brown.free.fr/stapel/FakingScience-20161115.pdf

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science...ned-uk-psychologist-hans-eysenck-ruled-unsafe