A week ago I wrote a critique of a really misguided (and unsigned) editorial in Nature, blaming the death of Jason Arday on his hounding by a racist press as well as “systemic racism” in academia. You can see that editorial by clicking the screenshot below:
The “deep reflection” that Nature demands involves us examining our souls for our complicity in Arday’s death, as well as realizing the harm caused by the press’s reporting of the Arday affair, as well as by Cambridge University’s announcement that they were investigating accusations against him. (That announcement itself was said by Nature to violate Arday’s confidentiality, perhaps also leading to his suicide. But if you read the actual announcement, it’s nothing that’s sp unusual when a university announces a public accusations.)
Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of the Nature piece is that it almost completely ignores the lies, fraud, and fabulism issued by Arday, as well as the palpable fact that a man with almost no qualifications, and a background of duplicity (including probable research theft and fraudulent assertions on his c.v.) was appointed and lionized as a full professor of sociology at Cambridge. What Nature construes as “racism” is really “antiracism” by Cambridge: putting Arday’s ethnicity and claimed disability above his merit. If there’s any silver lining to the Arday tragedy, is that the outrageous claims by Arday touted have now made it okay to discuss how race-and-disability-based hiring can conflict with merit—that the term “inclusive excellence” might be an oxymoron. (There are of course very good black scholars, but Arday wasn’t one.)
At any rate, it was both misguided and even shameful for Nature to advance such a dumb argument, and I took it apart in my post. That post caught the eye of folks at The Chronicle of Higher Education (CHE), and they asked me to rewrite it for publication on their site. I did that, with the help of an excellent editor, and it was published yesterday. You can read it by clicking on the screenshot below. (You may have to “subscribe” by giving the CHE your email, but they do not send out promotional emails, and you can read a couple of articles a month for free.
I will not reproduce the whole piece I wrote there, but have put a few excerpts (indented) below. I should be able to put it somewhere free, and in toto, next week.
A few excerpts:
One of the more distressing changes in science is its infection by politics and ideology, a change visible in what I call “journal creep.” Until recently, the primary function of scientific journals was to disseminate research. Now, however, many journals have adopted an additional mission: promoting ideological, moral, or political positions. This newer mission, which endangers not only the reputation but also the practice of science, is seen clearly in a recent editorial in one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals, Nature.
The Nature editorial centers on the tragic story of Jason Arday, a sociologist who at 37 became the youngest Black full professor ever appointed at the University of Cambridge. In July, it was revealed that Arday had plagiarized significant portions of his Ph.D. thesis at Liverpool John Moores University. This in turn prompted extensive investigations by the press. What they found was not pretty: more evidence of plagiarism, falsified research, fabricated claims on his curriculum vitae, and, most striking, a breathtaking record of biographical fabulism.
. . . Nature’s editorial is titled “The Death of Jason Arday Must Prompt Deep Reflection.” Unfortunately, the reflection Nature demands does not involve asking how someone with such a thin academic record and a history of exaggeration and lying managed to secure such a prestigious position. Rather, Nature is concerned with assigning blame for Arday’s downfall and death, and the blame falls on everyone but Arday himself.
Most at fault, says Nature, was “persistent media attention” largely fostered by racism. Cambridge also deserves blame both for participating in the “systemic racism in academia” that supposedly made Arday’s life intolerable, and for announcing that they would investigate him, which, says Nature, was a violation of “confidentiality.” But all Cambridge announced was that it was investigating Arday’s “academic qualifications and honorary appointments” as well as allegations of “academic misconduct”— nothing more. Since the media was already intensively focused on Arday, announcing an investigation without giving details doesn’t seem out of line. American universities do it all the time, saying things like: “We are not commenting pending an investigation of these accusations.”
Oddly absent from Nature’s editorial is any serious acknowledgement of Arday’s apparent fabulism, plagiarism, errors, and lies. Nor is there any attempt to grapple with the fact that Arday’s decision to publish a memoir with a major commercial publisher further drew the media’s spotlight.
. . . Disparaging merit in favor of equity, shifting research funding towards progressive topics, misrepresenting science by skewing citations towards researchers having approved backgrounds, censoring papers, controlling language, and distorting accepted science so that it conforms to certain narratives while proscribing research on topics considered taboo — such symptoms of ideological pollution are present in journals across the sciences. Here are three examples, all involving Nature journals.
. . . A scientific journal, like a university, should remain ideologically and politically neutral, with the possible exception of matters that directly affect the mission of the journal itself. Pinning blame for the death of Jason Arday on the press and on the University of Cambridge, and flippantly characterizing science as ridden with “structural racism,” are not issues within the remit of Nature. Although Arday was the author of his own tragedy, Nature asks all of us to search our souls for traces of the racism that, they claim, make us coauthors:
It is incumbent on all of us in the media and academia to reflect on our roles and responsibilities. Both research and media organizations have an obligation to communicate information fairly and accurately — and to avoid causing harm to the people they employ or report on. We can and must learn from this tragedy.
Sadly, Nature has learned the wrong lessons.
Excellent commentary as per usual!
This is crystal clear and down-to-Earth.
“journal creep” is 🎯 (bullseye) – more could be written on this idea –
I say so with this perhaps lower-level subject in mind :
“Concept Creep: Psychology’s Expanding Concepts of Harm and Pathology”
Nick Haslam
Psychological Inquiry
Volume 27,
Pages 1-17, 2016
(Taylor & Francis link / doi omitted for simplicity)
Indeed, Concept Creep is quantifiable, and a distinct phenomenon. There are numerous papers to find from just single words alone, e.g. bullying.
I hypothesize Journal Creep is facilitated by Concept Creep. That is, Concept Creep is at least necessary for Journal Creep.