{"id":235905,"date":"2023-05-29T12:01:10","date_gmt":"2023-05-29T11:01:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=235905"},"modified":"2023-05-23T04:06:05","modified_gmt":"2023-05-23T03:06:05","slug":"censorship-at-the-american-psychological-association","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2023\/05\/censorship-at-the-american-psychological-association\/","title":{"rendered":"Censorship at the American Psychological Association"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Source: Roy Eidelson<\/p><\/div>\n

22 May 2023 – <\/em>The publishing process in academic psychology journals isn\u2019t typically known for its drama or intrigue. It\u2019s true that there can be frustrations and challenges for aspiring authors. These include obtaining timely feedback from peer reviewers; adequately addressing often-disparate concerns and revision recommendations; and waiting the many months that frequently elapse between submitting a manuscript and its hoped-for publication. Nevertheless, there\u2019s little doubt that articles published in reputable scientific journals play an essential role in advancing our understanding of human behavior.<\/p>\n

Sometimes, however, a manuscript can become ensnared by behind-the-scenes maneuvering and decision-making that have little to do with the merits of the article itself. In such cases, non-scholarly considerations supersede the well-established guideposts of impartial peer review and unbiased evaluation of a submission\u2019s worthiness for publication. That was apparently the unfortunate fate of \u201cA Military\/Intelligence Operational Perspective on the American Psychological Association\u2019s Weaponization of Psychology Post-9\/11.\u201d This article\u2019s circuitous journey bears recounting here as a cautionary tale for the profession and for the APA.<\/p>\n

Written by my colleague Jean Maria Arrigo and five co-authors, four of whom are retired military-intelligence officers,\u00a0\u201cA Military\/Intelligence Operational Perspective\u201d<\/em> thoughtfully examines two deeply problematic aspects of the APA\u2019s connection to the so-called war on terror. The first is\u00a0the damage suffered by psychological science when psychological knowledge is used as a weapon of coercion, manipulation, and humiliation. The second is the adverse consequences that arise when the US security sector employs covert influence tactics against professional civil society organizations.<\/p>\n

The troubling history of the APA\u2019s post-9\/11 collaboration with the US Department of Defense and the CIA has been extensively detailed elsewhere. The briefest of summaries would highlight the APA\u2019s years-long\u00a0support<\/a>\u00a0for psychologists\u2019 involvement in detainee detention and interrogation operations despite credible\u00a0reports<\/a>\u00a0of abuse; the 2015\u00a0independent review<\/a>\u00a0(familiarly known as the Hoffman Report) that concluded APA leaders repeatedly took steps to preserve this involvement despite growing outrage within the profession and among human rights advocates; and the independent review\u2019s aftermath, which saw key\u00a0ethics reforms<\/a>\u00a0instituted at the APA but also ongoing defamation\u00a0lawsuits<\/a>\u00a0from individuals who\u2019ve claimed they were maligned in the Hoffman Report.<\/p>\n

The Arrigo et al article was submitted in September 2018 (almost five years ago) to the APA journal\u00a0History of Psychology<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>\u2014 in response to an invitation from the journal editor \u2014 for inclusion in a special section\u00a0on \u201cThe Hoffman Report in Historical Context.\u201d The special section was scheduled to appear in the summer of 2020. As is standard practice, the editor sent the paper to two anonymous reviewers. Both were laudatory in their assessments while also providing valuable feedback for how to enhance the manuscript\u2019s clarity. One reviewer wrote, \u201cThis is very important for the science of psychology\u201d; the other emphasized, \u201cThis paper presents an important, even vital, perspective.\u201d The authors revised the paper according to the guidance they received and resubmitted it in March 2019. The journal editor approved its publication, but it apparently took over a year, until May 2020, for the APA\u2019s legal office to sign off on it as well.<\/p>\n

In August 2020, everything was seemingly set \u2014 all approvals had been obtained, all contracts had been signed, and the journal issue was ready for publication. But the APA\u2019s Chief Publishing Officer \u2014 a member of the Association\u2019s\u00a0Executive Office<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 suddenly intervened, sending a perfunctory yet highly consequential email to Arrigo.\u00a0Without providing any explanation<\/em>, the three-sentence message stated simply that the APA was declining to publish\u00a0all of the\u00a0articles that would have comprised the special section in\u00a0History of Psychology<\/em>,\u00a0<\/em>and that the authors were free to publish them elsewhere in a non-APA journal.\u00a0<\/em>The journal editor has described being totally blindsided by this decision as well \u2014 and the prospect of finding some alternative outlet for these four articles was daunting, to say the least.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s important to note here that there are widely accepted principles of publication ethics for academic journals. Of particular relevance, the\u00a0Guidelines<\/a>\u00a0from the independent\u00a0Committee on Publication Ethics<\/a>\u00a0(COPE) includes this statement:<\/p>\n

The relationship of Editors of the journals of Learned Societies to those Societies is often complex. However, notwithstanding the economic and political realities of their journals, directors of Learned Societies should respect that their editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for readers rather than for immediate financial or political gain. Directors and employees should not be able to overrule these decisions. The relationship of Editors of the journals of Learned Societies to those Societies should be based firmly on the principle of editorial independence.\u00a0<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The\u00a0International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers<\/a>\u00a0(STM) has also endorsed similar\u00a0principles<\/a>.\u00a0And the APA is a member of both COPE and STM.<\/em><\/p>\n

But in responding to a follow-up inquiry from Arrigo, the APA\u2019s General Counsel told her that the APA\u2019s editorial policies are set by its own\u00a0Publications and Communications Board \u2014 whose members include the CEO and Treasurer \u2014 and\u00a0not\u00a0<\/em>by the codes of conduct from COPE or STM.\u00a0However, in my own perusal of the APA\u2019s\u00a0website<\/a>, this board\u2019s functions don\u2019t appear to include overruling the publication judgments of journal editors.<\/p>\n

The General Counsel further insisted that, in light of active litigation, anything related to the Hoffman Report must be subjected to additional review at the highest levels of the Association. That supplementary review reportedly concluded that all of these manuscripts \u2014 already accepted for the special section of the journal \u2014 failed to provide the context and documentation necessary to meet the needs of the scientific community or the general public. This remarkable finding stood in diametric opposition to the journal editor\u2019s scholarly view\u00a0and<\/em>\u00a0the lengthy prior review by the APA\u2019s legal office.<\/p>\n

Fortunately, several years later, and thanks to the dedicated efforts of the now\u00a0former<\/em>\u00a0editor of\u00a0History of Psychology<\/em>, the four suppressed articles \u2014 including Arrigo et al\u2019s\u00a0\u201cA Military\/Intelligence Operational Perspective on the American Psychological Association\u2019s Weaponization of Psychology Post-9\/11\u201d<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 have found a new home. They were recently published by the international journal\u00a0History of the Human Sciences<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0\u201cBeyond Torture: Knowledge and Power at the Nexus of Social Science and National Security\u201d<\/a>\u00a0focuses on the history of APA-military entanglements that have evaded careful oversight.\u00a0\u201cThe Hoffman Report in Historical Context: A Study in Denial\u201d<\/a>\u00a0examines the APA\u2019s strategy of deliberate ignorance in regard to the misuse of psychology. And\u00a0\u201cBeyond Following Rules: Teaching Research Ethics in the Age of the Hoffman Report\u201d<\/a>\u00a0explores how psychological ethics can be made less vulnerable to manipulation. Interested readers can judge for themselves whether these illuminating analyses were actually undeserving of publication by the APA.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, it seems likely that APA executives viewed this publishing controversy as a minor inconvenience and moved on years ago. If that\u2019s so, it\u2019s regrettable because the issues raised are serious and relevant to the APA\u2019s future. They are best summarized by Jean Maria Arrigo herself:<\/p>\n

Clearly, both scientific method and historical inquiry flounder if publishers hold the right to reject articles that have passed peer and legal review. My five co-authors and I were meticulous in our citation of sources and had two legal experts review our manuscript to ensure it did not include unsubstantiated claims or defamatory\/libelous language. Direct discourse by scientists and historians, not publisher\u2019s fiat, is the method of resolving scientific and historical disagreements in academic journals.\u00a0The anomalous suppression of analysis in an APA history of science journal creates a dangerous precedent for censorship of scholarly works viewed unfavorably by APA authorities.\u00a0<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As a final note, there\u2019s more than a little irony in the APA\u2019s decision to quash Arrigo\u2019s article. After all, it examines the damage and danger of letting military-intelligence interests covertly interfere in the proper functioning of psychological science. Consider too that, after the Hoffman Report was released in 2015, the APA\u2019s governing body gave Arrigo an\u00a0award<\/a>\u00a0in recognition of her integrity and commitment to ethics and human rights (she also received an award from the\u00a0American Association for the Advancement of Science<\/a>). The APA award\u2019s inscription specifically highlighted her \u201csteadfast reliance on logical, fact-based advocacy\u201d and it described her as \u201cthe finest possible role model for us in the profession of Psychology.\u201d But even while expressing appreciation for the APA honor, at that time Arrigo\u00a0commented<\/a>\u00a0that she was\u00a0\u201cvery wary that this is a public relations event meant to shut me up.\u201d Indeed.<\/p>\n

Addendum:<\/strong>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Arrigo has shared various materials and correspondence with me, and has given me permission to quote from them here. I was also fortunate to have had the opportunity to assist with some of the organizing and editing of her manuscript.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

_______________________________________________<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> Roy Eidelson is a member of the TRANSCEND Network<\/a> and was a member of the American Psychological Association for over 25 years, prior to his resignation. He is a clinical psychologist and the president of Eidelson Consulting<\/a>, where he studies, writes about, and consults on the role of psychological issues in political, organizational, and group conflict settings. He is a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility<\/a>, former executive director of the University of Pennsylvania\u2019s Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict, and a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology<\/a>. Roy is the author of <\/em>Political Mind Games: How the 1% Manipulate Our Understanding of What\u2019s Happening, What\u2019s Right, and What\u2019s Possible<\/a> and can be reached at reidelson@eidelsonconsulting.com<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There\u2019s more than a little irony in the APA\u2019s decision to quash Arrigo\u2019s article; it examines the damage and danger of letting military-intelligence interests covertly interfere in the proper functioning of psychological science.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":110813,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[2755,1785,133,550,1810,2462,112,572,95],"class_list":["post-235905","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-transcend-members","tag-american-psychological-association-apa","tag-censorship","tag-cia","tag-corruption","tag-enhanced-interrogation","tag-military-industrial-media-complex","tag-pentagon","tag-torture","tag-us-military"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235905","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=235905"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235905\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":235908,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235905\/revisions\/235908"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/110813"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235905"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235905"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235905"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}