Inside Higher Ed: Journal Doubles Down on Flawed Study of Child Abuse and Homosexuality
Still silent about using my work without citation
The publishers and editor of Archives of Sexual Behavior have doubled down on their decision not to retract the flawed 2001 report of dissertation research by Marie Tomeo which surveyed gays about their history of sexual contact. Ryan Quinn at Inside Higher Ed reports today that Springer and Archives editor Ken Zucker defended their decision not to retract the article with contradictions between text and tables. Quinn also reported that Zucker acknowledged email correspondence with me about the flaws in the article prior to issuing his “editorial expression of concern” in the journal in late February.
I wrote about Zucker’s statement of concern on March 12. In the EEC, he repeats what I sent to him in 2009 and then what I wrote in a 2009 blog post about the contradictions between the text and tables in Tomeo’s write up. Tomeo asked gay participants if they had experienced sexual contact but was not clear in her write up how many were gay before or after the contact. In the text, she and her co-authors said 68% of gay participants who reported sexual contact were not gay when the contact happened. In the table depicting the results, she said 68% already had identified as gay when the contact happened which leads to a very different suggestion about the relationship between early sexual contact and the development of homosexuality.
Quinn also contacted the school which published the dissertation, Alliant International University. Alliant distanced itself from the article:
“That being said, Alliant does not endorse or support the conclusions reached in the referenced research, nor does this research align with the current or prior mission, vision and values of the institution. In fact, Alliant is home to the Rockway Institute—a national center for LGBT psychology research, education and public policy which advances the use of scientific and professional expertise to counter anti-gay prejudice and inform public policies affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.”
Handle with Caution?
According to Quinn, Zucker said he favors caution.
“I did not recommend a retraction, and neither did the [Springer Nature] research integrity office,” Zucker said.
“We felt that by identifying the discrepancies, that that would make it clear why” people must be cautious about drawing conclusions from the paper, Zucker said.
I don’t understand this viewpoint. Since there is a contradiction between the text and tables, what good does caution do? The study is uninterpretable as it is. Is a reader supposed to pick a side cautiously? I will tell you who will not use caution. People who are now using the study to attack gays or claim they are recruiting children. An EEC does nothing to bring caution to them. The article should be retracted.
Let’s Talk About Research Integrity
I’m about to let this go, but I will say again that I am pretty sure when you use someone else’s work, you are supposed to cite that person’s work. I don’t know what else to say about that. Somehow, in this case, research integrity at Springer and the Archives of Sexual Behavior means using someone else’s work without any citation or mention whatsoever.
Go read the entire Inside Higher Ed article.
Also check out Hemant Mehta’s write up of this matter as well.
This is beyond ridiculous. The article must be withdrawn. If not, this journal should never be taken seriously again by anyone.