orgtheory.net

investigating regnerus

I am not sure what this accomplishes, but some journalists are trying to get further records from the University of Central Florida, where the editor of Social Science Research works. From the website of activist and author John Becker:

Despite the wide reach of the New Family Structures Study, much about the process by which it was peer-reviewed and published by the journal Social Science Research remains unknown. We know that the timetable was extraordinarily compressed — according to data from the University of Texas and SSR, Regnerus submitted his paper 20 days before the end of the data collection period and 23 days before the data file was delivered to the university. Sounds fishy, doesn’t it? And the entire process, including the paper’s initial submission, review, revision, and acceptance, took place within six weeks. But why? What are the reasons for moving so quickly? Did Regnerus just catch a lucky break, or is there more to the story? We already know that his funders had an anti-gay agenda and the study itself was plagued by troubling conflicts of interest; were the peer review and publication processes similarly compromised?

Last month, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the University of Central Florida, which houses Social Science Research, seeking public records relating to the peer review and publication of the New Family Structures Study. My goal is simply to discover the truth: whether everything was above board and best practices and ethical standards were followed, or whether something more sinister occurred. The documents I requested from UCF may help to answer these important questions.

Adverts: From Black Power/Grad Skool Rulz

Advertisements

Written by fabiorojas

April 21, 2013 at 12:09 am

Posted in fabio, research

74 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I think it’s worthwhile. It’s a commercial journal with no accountability, so there’s no other way to find out what happened. It’s a case where monied interests ran roughshod over academia’s puny ethical defenses. If they are successful, the reviewers might be identified, which would be embarrassing because they did a bad job and took money. But it might help more ethically-minded journal editors and publishers evaluate their policies and consider policy changes.

    Like

    Philip N. Cohen

    April 21, 2013 at 12:59 am

  2. Perhaps. The sociological community has a pretty good sense of what happened already. I think the only real deterrent would be if lbraries stopped subscribing to SSR. Outing reviewers (which I oppose – what they was unethical, not illegal) wouldn’t do much except make a few folks squirm.The editor is fine, and Elsevier seems not to care.

    Like

    fabiorojas

    April 21, 2013 at 4:05 am

  3. I disagree, Phillip. This is an important test case about peer-review and whether or not we have any anonymity. While I personally loathe and wish all manner of bad will on the reviewers of the Regnerus manuscript (and I know who they are….), it is extremely important to protect the sanctity of the review process. I’m not some toady of any interests, and I reviewed the editorial process. The editor is not to blame, unless you think every editor should give full blown review to every article submitted to a journal. Some people are at fault, but they should be protected, for the sake of others in other cases far afield from this. It is pathetic to see minor league left-wing activists push this strategy, since that should sound the alarm bell for the rest of us for what would happen if heavily funded right wing organizations decided to insert themselves into the scholarly review process in a direct way (they did so in this case as passive actors).

    Like

    sherkat

    April 21, 2013 at 10:49 pm

  4. I should also note that both right wing and LGBT activists have been filing suits to obtain SSR records since last July, None have succeeded, and I appreciate the efforts of Elsevier, the University of Central Florida, and Southern Illinois University to protect peer review.

    Like

    sherkat

    April 21, 2013 at 11:56 pm

  5. Speaking as a queer person, rather than an academic, I want to see every effort to get this study taken down. I’m sorry, but the response from academics wasn’t enough to stop the study from being used to further deny rights to LGBT people. I appreciate your review, Darren. And, I’m grateful for Philip’s extensive advocacy to debunk the Regnerus study. But, what else are we doing as academics to prevent the harm that this study has caused, even after being “debunked”? I appreciate protecting the peer review process, but what do you suggest for protecting the oppressed community that is still affected by Regnerus’s actions?

    Like

    Eric Anthony Grollman

    April 22, 2013 at 5:29 pm

  6. Eric: When you say “taken down” – what exactly do you mean? If you mean that the sociological community thinks the study is garbage, then that has been accomplished.

    Do you mean: “We won’t let this study get printed?” Then I think we are in dangerous territory. Regnerus published a poorly designed study that was approved by peer review, which, I would guess, was probably biased in his favor from the start. That’s not enough for me to trash one of the foundations of the academic profession. Part of life in academia is accepting that garbage – even dangerous garbage – gets published from time to time.

    What do I recommend for protecting people? I’d start by first realizing that history is on our side. Increasingly, public opinion polls show greater and greater majorities favor LBGT equality. So if we are winning already, I wouldn’t go and ruin one of academia’s most valuable assets – blind review.

    Second, I would conduct high quality research to prove my point. And as far as I can tell, studies that actually measure LBGT households with reasonable methods don’t show differences when compared to heterosexual parents.

    Third, as I would follow Eric Grollman’s advice (he’s this sociologist I know who blogs and writes about LBGT issues) and relentlessly critique garbage and draw attention to the body of research.

    Fourth, I would engage the other side with sincerity and fervor. I would show people how to maintain the high ground.

    Like

    fabiorojas

    April 22, 2013 at 5:55 pm

  7. I agree with much of what’s been said, in particular that as academics we ought not be pushing for the revelation of information such as the reviewers and review process that is widely expected to remain private. I think there’s plenty of information already out there to warrant the retraction of the article, which is an outcome I think any reasonable social scientist should endorse.

    That said: it seems like various activists are hell-bent on pursuing the FOIA/Sunshine law approach to “uncovering” the seamy history of this project, and their efforts have already revealed some pretty impressive information. If it should come to pass that they are successful in revealing the inner workings of SSR‘s review process, and that the revelation is in fact of malfeasance of some sort, what do you think the proper reaction among scholars ought to be? Must we ignore the information once it’s out there, thereby ceding the ground to the activists?

    Like

    andrewperrin

    April 23, 2013 at 12:07 pm

  8. Here’s a question: Conflicts of interest has been a big deal in the medical literature, where authors are often paid consultants for the companies who make the products they are studying. What are the disclosure requirements for reviewers of such studies? And if reviewers did not disclose their conflicts, would it be grounds for retracting an article?

    Like

    Philip N. Cohen

    April 23, 2013 at 7:06 pm

  9. Why do we assume *in advance* that the activist, well let’s give him the dignity of saying his name, John Becker, why do we assume he will reveal the names of the Peer Reviewers if nothing malevolent occurred?

    Like

    str8grandmother

    April 24, 2013 at 5:24 pm

  10. I don’t think that the concern is really (or at minimum, only) about the specifics and potentials of this case. It’s (to me) as much about the potential precedent actions like this could spin off. Becker may not (or may) reveal the reviewers in this case (based on his reading of the “malevolence” of the infractions, or who knows what else). But more importantly (again, to me) if this request is granted, what’s to stop others from simply filing FOIA requests at will to precisely so they can reveal reviewers’ names (for whatever reasons they might cook up).

    Like

    jimi adams

    April 24, 2013 at 8:25 pm

  11. I think, “(for whatever reasons they might cook up)” is the operative phrase.
    The issue I think is, that Elsevier is a for profit Publisher that has as it’s primary interest making money. Other than filing a FOIA what recourse is there when you ask the Publisher to investigate and the DO NOT.

    If this was published at a not for profit, there would be ethical board in place, and if anybody had a complaint they would rely on the integrity of a board of people to handle a proper investigation, a complete investigation. In other words, there is someplace to complain to. Not so at For Profit Elsevier, what other recourse is there.

    Without getting into the details I would like to point out that in his audit Dr. Sherkat states that he had six names from Wright but he did not know “who” of the 6 reviewed each paper. Yet here on this blog he says, “Oh I know who reviewed each paper”. FWIW I never believed Dr. Sherkat in his audit that he didn’t know who the specific peer reviewers were for each paper. Dr. Sherkat is far far far to intelligent of a man to accept that as a condition, for with those conditions he would not be able to ascertain conflicts of interest. So I have always believed that Sherkat lied in his audit (go back and read his audit), he had to have known who was the peer reviewer for each separate paper, even though he says, “I do not know who reviewed each paper, I just know these were the six”, as he could not have done a proper audit without knowing who reviewer Marks and who reviewed Regnerus. Maybe the evidence will show differently that he really accepted doing an audit without specifically knowing the peer reviewers, but I doubt it. I think he is being truthful here on this blog, he knows who they are and he has always known.

    To close the loop jimi adams, when the publication is a for profit and they have refused to investigate, what would you say a good option is? I think we are only seeing this as an issue because the public does not have confidence in the for profit publisher, to work in the best interests of science. If it were published in a different Journal, a Journal who has as it’s basis the furtherance of science, and has boards of review set up, I don’t think you would see anybody filing FOIs. When a scientist with NO BACKGROUND, TRAINING, nor EXPERIENCE in the subject matter and takes on a research project that is the heart of clearly divisive public policy issues, and purports to upturn all previous research, well…. Inquiring minds want to know. And when the public’s inquiries are flitted away unanswered, well do you have any better ideas on how to proceed jimi? Wright himself said in his statement he was motivated by greed. He wanted his Journal to get a lot of hits because at his school he is evaluated on these measurements. Go back and read what Wright wrote. I don’t know if the right word is greed, but it is a word similar.

    I don’t think anybody should jump to any conclusions we should all just stand pat and wait to see what the evidence shows. I think everyone, knowing what you know now, everyone should go back and read again Wrights Comments and Sherkats audit. You are going to see things today that slipped by you previously.

    Like

    str8grandmother

    April 24, 2013 at 9:08 pm

  12. The peer review system is worthless if those participating in it — including editors and reviewers — fail to adhere to the ethical standards for it and if the academy has no means of enforcing those standards and holding those who violate them accountable.In this case, the anti-gay-hate industry worldwide is banking on the alleged professional “peer review” of the Regnerus submission, even though it is clear that the Regnerus submission was published without valid professional peer review. As Dr. Lori Holyfield has said: “Wright himself has lost credibility. I can not imagine that the protection of the peer reviewers is more important that the protection of the integrity of the research.” If Dr. Sherkat is so adamant about protecting peer review, why is he not insisting on retraction of the Regnerus paper, where he himself has admitted that those involved with the peer review violated ethics standards for peer review? It seems to me that Dr. Sherkat is himself involved with compromising the integrity of the peer review process, by incorrectly alleging that retraction of the Regnerus paper is unthinkable.

    Like

    Scott Rose

    April 24, 2013 at 9:11 pm

  13. There additionally is a concern where Dr. Wright has documentably violated science publishing ethics but is being left in place as the editor of Elsevier’s upcoming Encyclopedia. Who knows what promises Wright might have made to Sherkat about including Sherkat articles in the Encyclopedia in exchange for shielding him, Wright, from accountability for ethics violations? As Sherkat is himself on the SSR editorial board, he has conflicts of interest in commenting on the scandal. The academy appears not to comprehend what the victims of this science publishing hoax are suffering. Witherspoon heads are involved with public rallies where their chosen speakers yell through megaphones that homosexuals are “worthy to death.” In France, where the Regnerus paper has been widely used to incite to a conflation of homosexuality with pedophilia, violent attacks against gay people have sky-rocketed. Dr. Wright has undermined the trust on which science is based.

    Like

    Scott Rose

    April 24, 2013 at 9:42 pm

  14. I can at least say that other sociologists at UT Austin are doing great work on LGBT families these days, and making a big effort to counter the damage caused by this scandal. https://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/sociology/the-austin-summit-on-lgbt-families/overview.php

    Like

    Eric Anthony Grollman

    April 24, 2013 at 11:31 pm

  15. No matter Dr. Sherkat’s motives for publishing in his audit that Dr. Wright had not told him who peer reviewed which of the Marks and Regnerus papers, when in fact, Sherkat did know who peer reviewed which paper, it was wrong, and in violation of science publishing ethics knowingly to publish that untruth in the audit in the November 2012 issue of Social Science Research. Wright absolutely did tell Sherkat who reviewed which paper — Sherkat himself now has admitted that. Sherkat is trying to promote himself as nobly defending the anonymity of peer review, but some of his other actions suggest that he could be acting for more nefarious reasons. For example, he has commented elsewhere that in twenty years, no sociology paper has ever been retracted for any reason. That is simply false, as a quick Google search verifies. If Sherkat’s only motive in lying about what Wright told him about the peer reviewers was to protect the anonymity of peer review, then why has Sherkat been muddying the waters about the threshold for retraction? I have to stress that Sherkat has conflicts of interest in this because of his relationship with James Wright — and we may not yet know what all of those conflicts of interest are.

    Like

    Scott Rose

    April 24, 2013 at 11:45 pm

  16. In reply to Eric Anthony Grollman. UT has defined itself, in letters to the Texas Attorney General seeking exceptions to Public Records Act requests, as an investor in Regnerus’s New Family Structures Study. UT also has told the Texas Attorney General that school officials strategized with Regnerus way ahead of publication of the study, in anticipation of negative reactions to it. One document had through FOIA requests to UT details responses for Regnerus to give to the media about the NFSS. That document is full of false claims that Regnerus is impartial on gay rights. If UT promulgated that document, it has a responsibility to make amends for it. Additionally, UT’s own site dedicated to the NFSS wrongly defines the NFSS as having studied young adults “raised by same-sex parents.” Though that is documentably false, the university so far has refused to change the wording, even though it is deliberately misleading. Due to the positive attention that SSR and UT receive from heterosupremacist theocrats for the Regnerus hoax, UT has an unethical motivation to juice the conflict. Fine, they are hosting Gary Gates and a panel, but that is not enough to make amends for the ethics violations in which the school is involved in this matter.

    Like

    Scott Rose

    April 24, 2013 at 11:53 pm

  17. P.P.S. — Who said that peer review is the only ethics issue here? COPE’s Code of Conduct for editors says that any funder’s role in conducting or publishing the study must be disclosed. Through a FOIA request, we obtained documentation that the idea to publish the Regnerus package in SSR originated with SSR editorial board member, and Regnerus’s funding agency representative Brad Wilcox. That is something which, according to COPE’s Code of Conduct, should have been disclosed but was not disclosed. The scandal is much wider than just the peer review questions.

    Like

    Scott Rose

    April 25, 2013 at 12:03 am

  18. Erik Anthony Grollman Many thanks for that link! That is going to be ONE fascinating Conference at UT. I hope they video tape it so that those of us who cannot attend can watch it later.

    Like

    str8grandmother

    April 25, 2013 at 12:12 am

  19. I’m intrigued by Perrin’s contention that there is ample evidence to retract Regnerus’ bullshit paper. By what measure? Can you give me a list of shitty bullshit papers in sociology that have been retracted by peer-reviewed journals? Let me just answer that one for you, no, you can’t. Because none have. We don’t retract in sociology because nobody listens to us in the first place, and nobody dies from sociological malpractice. Oh, sure, Regnerus is having is moment in the limelight opposing gay marriage base on his bullshit study, but no serious investigation of the evidence supports his contentions, and he’s been roundly denounced by every legitimate scholar in the field. Scalia may ignore that, but nobody else can or will—and this had no effect on what ideologues like Scalia would do. Retraction? Jesus Fuck. Can I get Journal of Aging and Health to retract the bullshit paper by a bunch of Transcendental Meditation wackos that appeared in JHSB immediately before our paper on racial disparities in medicare costs? I could go on and on….but retraction is pointless, and this “controversy” just needs to die. I hope that people will simply take from this the knowledge that many of our colleagues are right wing ideologues, and that their massive grants should be counted AGAINST them for promotion and tenure,

    Like

    sherkat

    April 25, 2013 at 12:22 am

  20. Gosh, Darren, maybe if you throw an extra f-bomb you’ll convince a few more people.

    I don’t really care whether other sociology has been retracted. There are specific, documented standards for retraction, and this case certainly meets those standards. There is, furthermore, ample evidence that this article is being misinterpreted in the policy-making process. It really makes no difference whether the JHSB paper that has you so aroused was or should have been retracted. This one should be.

    Like

    andrewperrin

    April 25, 2013 at 12:29 am

  21. I’m not intending this as a counterargument to Sherkat’s point, but in case one is wondering if sociology journals ever manage to retract anything, here’s one from an ASA journal: http://spq.sagepub.com/content/74/1/98.abstract . Maybe this is an exception that proves the rule, though, as this was part of 30-odd papers by one of the authors that were retracted for fraud, so it would have been weird if sociology had not moved to retract.

    Liked by 1 person

    jeremy

    April 25, 2013 at 12:35 am

  22. When I was reporting on the Regnerus scandal during the summer of 2012, and Sherkat was in the middle of his audit, I asked him if he was checking for conflicts of interest and if he found any, what he would do. He responded by telling me that he was seeking info from UT as to whether any of the peer reviewers had NFSS consulting contracts, and he told me that if he found conflicts of interest, he would recommend to Wright and the editorial board that the Regnerus study be retracted “as is normal in all sciences.” I have that e-mail from Sherkat for anybody who would care to see it. Only after the audit was published did Sherkat start his false propaganda campaign alleging that social science papers are never retracted.

    Like

    Scott Rose

    April 25, 2013 at 12:55 am

  23. 1) Social Sciences paper retracted for lack of ethical approval:
    http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/social-sciences-paper-retracted-for-lack-of-ethical-approval/

    2) Paper retracted from the South African Review of Sociology:
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21528586.2013.774996?journalCode=rssr20

    Like

    Scott Rose

    April 25, 2013 at 1:01 am

  24. Oh, yes, Jesus fuck a bunny in the ass. Sherkat should be dismissed because he likes to say “fuck” and shit like that. How many editorial boards have you served on? I’ve been on ASR, AJS, Social Forces, SSR, SPQ…. Poor little Andrew has a bug up his ass, despite the fact that he has limited editorial experience and is something of an anti-positivist—which is pretty weird when you’re claiming to have absolute knowledge and the gods-like command to strike publications from the public record. Publications which have been retracted in other related fields have been retracted because their data were fabricated. Regnerus’ data simply sucked. They were not fabricated. Opening the field up to politicized critique of the review process would be a very bad move, and it would be a huge boon for the religious and political right. Regnerus would be their martyr, as he already is. All of this should be ignored. If you don’t get that, you’re a moron.

    Like

    sherkat

    April 25, 2013 at 1:06 am

  25. Don’t screw with Sherkat, Rose. This forum is for serious social scientists, not for activists trying to take down reputable scholars. I’ve had the privilege of knowing Darren for many years, and he is a model of scholarly professionalism. You’re barking up the wrong tree.

    Like

    econsocguy

    April 25, 2013 at 1:07 am

  26. Sherkat, “and nobody dies from sociological malpractice” Haven’t been watching the French news lately have you Sherkat? Gay men are getting beat up, gay violence is way up, way up. In two different cities men in masks went in and wrecked the places screaming anti gay insults. They filmed themselves defacing an LGBT center in Paris, again in masks. You haven’t noticed the thousands marching in France? And what Sherkat, what is their, NUMBER ONE Justification, over and over and over and over, it IS THIS DAMNED REGNERUS STUDY THAT REMAINS PUBLISHED. This is quoted on their Senate Floor, in the General Assembly, and it is prominent on every.single.anti.gay.website.in.France. This is BIG, it is really really BIG.

    Sherkat, this published research fuels anti gay violence, so when you say nobody is dying because of it, that’s not true. Right now they are getting the crap beat out of them, just you wait and see, people will be killed over this. Don’t you get it? It gives them justification, in their minds. Last night after the French vote the opponents were throwing Molotov Cocktails, okay Sherkat? And what is their NUMBER ONE Justification for their anti gay hatred? This damned study! It is used in every single country where sexual minorities are trying to get equal civil rights. ALL OF THEM, I even saw it in Polish. Do you NOT understand the world wide significance??? Do you not get it?

    Like

    str8grandmother

    April 25, 2013 at 1:08 am

  27. @sherkat: I think I’ve been on four editorial boards thus far, but I may be off. Overall, though, I think the argument based on reference to published standards is more compelling than ones based on comparing lengths or counting swear words.

    Like

    andrewperrin

    April 25, 2013 at 1:23 am

  28. You forget Sherkat that Brian Brown of NOM was over at the FIRST march in January, who do you think is feeding the French this vitriol? Here look at NOM writing to them,
    http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2013/04/nom-prez-tells-france-to-ban-gays-save-civilization-mariagepourtous.html

    I’ll tell you something Sherkat you probably didn’t notice. Before NOM’s messaged used to be “We need to protect OUR children from learning about homosexuality. Protect your children. It was all about protecting “our” children what they will be taught in school etc.” Now the message has completely changed and you see it as the MAIN Message NOW, now they are coming after the children of sexual minorities. they literally flipped the script.

    Now it is NOT about protecting their own children, now they are coming after the children of sexual minorities, all you hear now on both sides of the Atlantic is “Children Need a Mother And a Father” Now it is no longer about their children. The NOM March on the Supreme Court, that is what every one of their signs said. In France EVERY SIGN is Children Need a Mother and a Father, and it is THIS STUDY that gives them the justification to protest under. You ARE Grossly underestimating the impact of this study Sherkat.

    Like

    str8grandmother

    April 25, 2013 at 1:25 am

  29. Whoever Econosocguy is, telling me to shut up, while he refers to Sherkat as a “reputable scholar” obviously does not have much interest in ethical standards in science publishing. It was never correct for the audit to be conducted in-house rather than by an impartial outsider, but as turned out, the insider audit contains lies deliberately told. Reputable scholars do not deliberately tell lies. Moreover, to protect their business investment in the publication of the Regnerus package, Wright and Elsevier deliberately allowed Regnerus — in the November 2012 issue of SSR — to repeat his lie about his funders not having been involved in his research. Thus, the editorial misconduct that occurred in the initial publication of Regnerus was exacerbated in the November issue. And, it was exacerbated in a way that makes Wright, Elsevier and the SSR editorial board, including Sherkat, accomplices to Witherspoon’s and Regnerus’s attempts deliberately to deceive the public about social science research. Reputable scholars do not do such things. Sherkat moreover has the M.O. of personally attacking those who make accurate criticisms of his journal’s misconduct. I have often been a victim of that, and now Dr. Perrin is as well. Again, that is not how reputable scholars behave.

    Like

    Scott Rose

    April 25, 2013 at 1:47 am

  30. Well, fuck a bunny in the ass, because I have the complete line on unpublished swear words, and I’ve also got you beat several times over on published words in major general interest journals, editorial boards, and whatever other shit anyone wants to measure. The moral crusade against Regnerus and Social Science Research is counterproductive. If it were not for this organized “debate” we would have achieved scientific consensus when the APA condemned the Regnerus study three days after it was published (it took ASA another nine months, but we are slow). If I were a sanctimonious moralistic twit, I’d be horribly offended by what people seem to be implying about my judgement regarding this case. Instead, I just think you are idiots.

    Like

    sherkat

    April 25, 2013 at 1:57 am

  31. To Sherkat: Your university president and its board of trustees should know that you knowingly lied in your audit when you wrote that Wright did not tell you who had peer reviewed which paper, and that when confronted with evidence that you have lied, you resort to ad hominem attacks against scholars, and to use of obscene invective. I bet that the president and the board do not view lying about research matters and ad hominem attacks kindly.

    Like

    Scott Rose

    April 25, 2013 at 2:10 am

  32. Sherkat, Please make a simple public statement that does not require you to divulge who the peer reviewers are. Please state,

    “No Peer Reviewer of the Regnerus Paper Had Any Conflicts of Interest.”

    That is not revealing the peer reviewers, you are not naming names. I have repeatedly asked you to make this simple statement and you refuse. So I’ll ask you again today to simply state,

    “No Peer Reviewer of the Regnerus Paper Had Any Conflicts of Interest.”

    If you would have done a decent audit and been direct in your audit, none of this would be happening. It is because you tried to fudge the matter, merging the comments on BOTH papers so that nobody could figure it out, because you deliberately did not provide the information in a straightforward manner. Without giving names why didn’t you just say in your audit that two out of three Peer reviewers of the Regnerus paper had conflicts of interest? Or one out of three peer reviewers of the Regnerus paper had conflicts of interest? Or None of the Peer Reviewers of the Regnerus Paper had conflicts of interest? Why didn’t you do it that way, straightforward and clear?

    Why did you instead say things like “Out of the 6 peer reviewers of Marks Or Regnerus papers blah blah blah. I don’t think people cared all that much about the Marks paper, it was simply a literature review and others have looked at the same studies and concluded differently. Instead of giving us conflicts of interest, per paper, you made your comments be about BOTH papers, you left us guessing. Your audit actually made it worse. Once again I will ask you to not reveal the peer reviewers, but make the simple statement,

    “No Peer Reviewer of the Regnerus Paper Had Any Conflicts of Interest.”

    Like

    str8grandmother

    April 25, 2013 at 2:13 am

  33. milkwave

    April 25, 2013 at 2:53 am

  34. Dr. Sherkat has fiduciary conflicts of interest in commenting on the Regnerus scandal, in that his career advancement is tied at least in part to Elsevier’s Social Science Research journal and its editor Dr. James Wright. Sherkat above seems to imply that if only his, Wright’s and Regnerus’s critics would keep quiet, the affair would end. In truth, as str8grandmother reported above, Regnerus and his funders are continually exploiting the supposed peer review of the Regnerus package, in ways demonizing to the gay minority.. What Sherkat most likely fears is that were the Regnerus paper retracted, SSR would get fewer site visits, downloads and citations. Who knows what other skeletons are in the SSR closet with regard to this whole Regnerus scandal? Sherkat was from the beginning an inappropriate choice for conducting an audit. On his “Iranian Redneck” blog, the post he made about Regnerus post-publication shows one mouse sexually engaged with another in a mouse trap, and it refers to Dr. Loren Marks as a Mormon sissy. Thus, ethical lapses reported in the audit would ipso facto be diminished and not respected, because the source of them had not behaved himself appropriately in non-confidential internet venues. In fact, there is some appearance that Sherkat was chosen precisely because he would serve to “juice the controversy” and thus drive more readers to SSR, to download from it and to cite from it. In the audit, Sherkat wrote that what happened with the Regnerus package is business as usual as Social Science Research — worrisome as that statement was. Regnerus’s and his funders are relying on what he wrote there as “proof” that valid peer review occurred. That Sherkat told the Chronicle of Higher Education that the Regnerus paper is “bullshit” only added grist to the anti-gay-rights-industry’s mill. You can easily find statements from all of the leaders of all of the anti-gay hate groups saying that Sherkat’s dismissal of the paper as “bullshit” shows that Regnerus’s critics are not criticizing the study on a scientific basis.

    Like

    Scott Rose

    April 25, 2013 at 2:54 am

  35. and anotherhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2009.01264.x/full . Sociology papers have been and should be retracted if there is good reason to do so.

    Like

    milkwave

    April 25, 2013 at 2:59 am

  36. @jeremy: I don’t think people oppose retraction due to fraud or plagiarism. The examples people link to seem to exist in these categories. The issue is whether you should retract due to poorly designed research. The only time I’ve seen articles retracted for non-fraud/plagiarism is when an author is in a field that is highly mathematical and someone discovers a logical error that invalidates a whole paper.

    Like

    fabiorojas

    April 25, 2013 at 3:05 am

  37. It is well-documented that deliberate fraud has occurred in Regnerus’s research and in the publication of the Regnerus package.

    Like

    Scott Rose

    April 25, 2013 at 3:09 am

  38. Above, I linked to a paper that was retracted for lack of ethical approval. That was a reason for retraction that did not involve fraud or plagiarism. Retraction is not restricted to cases of fraud or plagiarism.

    Like

    Scott Rose

    April 25, 2013 at 3:12 am

  39. @fabio: Sure. I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. One of the papers milkwave linked to was a paper that was retracted because of a miscoded variable that invalidated the analysis, so it isn’t just logical errors.

    Like

    jeremy

    April 25, 2013 at 3:15 am

  40. @Dr. Rojas: Nobody is saying that the sole grounds for retraction is poorly-designed research. Subversion of the peer review process, and deliberate lying about the research are further grounds for retraction here. In both his first and second NFSS papers, Regnerus falsely alleged that none of his funding agency representatives were involved in the design, analysis, et cetera of his research. They were! In fact, the FOIA documents demonstrate that the faulty research design originated with the funders, and was calculated to produce the desired “findings.” With absolute certainty, Dr. Wright knew in late August, 2012 that Wilcox had been involved with the study and its design, as a Witherspoon official in 2010 and thereafter too. Wright nonetheless published a repeat of Regnerus’s same lie in his November issue, knowing that it was a lie. His actions are not defensible or honorable and add weight to the reasons already given for retraction.

    Like

    Scott Rose

    April 25, 2013 at 3:27 am

  41. fabiorojas doesn’t the researcher flat out lying in his report count? I already know Sherkat is fine with lying in reports as he e-mailed me last month,
    “It doesn’t matter. Of course they were involved, they were the funding agency. It is irrelevant that Regnerus lied in a footnote. That is a matter between him and Witherspoon, not the journal. Disclaimers about funders are common, and have nothing to do with publication. “

    Regnerus lied in the body of his peer reviewed published report, it wasn’t in a foot note. Read it yourself fabiorojas, read it yourself in one of my comments above is a link to the SCRIBD doc

    I just don’t get you people I really really don’t. You know I am NOT one of those conspiracy nuts. The evidence in this case is overwhelming and it looks like John Becker is about to bring us some more. I have no idea what it will show, just have to wait and see. I am sure Sherkat is completely NOT concerned at all what the records out of Florida will show.

    Like

    str8grandmother

    April 25, 2013 at 3:27 am

  42. From COPE’s Code of Conduct for Journal EDITORS, Section 2.1:

    “Readers should be informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the
    funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.”

    http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf

    The COPE Code of Conduct for editors does not say that disclosure of funder involvement in a study is between the researcher and the funders. It says that the editor has a responsibility to disclose the funders’ involvement in study design and other aspects of the research, including “its publication” which is a very critical aspect of this, given that, as has been documented through FOIA requests, Wilcox was involved in the publication of the research.

    Like

    Scott Rose

    April 25, 2013 at 3:44 am

  43. Here This was Monday’s riots, before the vote, and do watch the longer clip
    FRANCE: Riot Police Tear Gas Anti-Gay Marriage Protesters, Scuffle With Priest
    http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2013/04/french-riot-police-tear-gas-anti-gay.html

    This was last night after the vote
    FRANCE: Anti-Gay Protesters Battle Riot Police After Same-Sex Marriage Vote
    http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2013/04/france-anti-gay-protesters-battle-riot.html

    Meanwhile in the northern city of Lille, three employees of a gay bar were insulted and injured late Wednesday in an attack by four men who smashed its windows. The bar’s owner linked the incident to “tensions” surrounding the parliament vote. “I was hit by a chair,” thrown through the window, he told AFP. Police later detained the suspects.

    Hashtag Trending On French Twitter:
    “Homosexuals Must Be Killed”
    A Twitter hashtag loosely translated as ‘Homosexuals must be killed’ is going viral before France’s National Assembly votes on gay marriage today (23 April). It is unknown where ‘Il Faut Tuer Les Homosexuels’ started from, but thousands of social networking users are tweeting about the trending topic.
    http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2013/04/hashtag-trending-on-french-twitter.html

    BEATINGS!!
    http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2013/04/another-gay-bashing-in-france.html

    Right Sherkat nobody has ever been killed by Sociology…..

    Like

    str8grandmother

    April 25, 2013 at 3:56 am

  44. Also, the http://soc.sagepub.com/content/44/3/541.abstract paper was retracted because of “provenance and attribution” of the data – the details are not elaborated but this is not a plagiarism in text.

    Like

    milkwave

    April 25, 2013 at 3:57 am

  45. At this point in the thread, we’ve touched upon an issue in academia – what to do about research that was conducted in bad faith but does not outright fabricate results? While it is correct that the norm is that people should disclose conflicts of interest and relationships to funders, academia, in general, has no firm rules about people who break this rule.

    I can safely say that most academics would support retracting false results, I honestly can’t say that we’d agree on what the punishment is for non-disclosure. I suspect that’s why Scott and str8grandmother find this part of the discussion frustrating. Many commenters (and most sociologists I’d guess) agree the paper is poor, but we are very cautious about suppressing research, even bad research. That being said, many would probably support an editor’s decision to retract a paper for non-disclosure. The disagreement is whether that should be a hard and fast rule.

    Finally, str8grandmother raised the issue that bigots appeal to this paper to justify their actions and views. Here’s my response: anti-gay bigots were not influenced by the paper. I bet they probably held their views way before they ever heard of the paper. Given that bigots are not influenced by academia, rather they pick what confirms their bias, I’m reluctant to violate a core academic practice, the presumption of anonymity in peer review, in response to a single paper.

    Like

    fabiorojas

    April 25, 2013 at 4:02 am

  46. One argument for retraction is court cases and expert testimony. The briefs that cite the paper have loosely mischaracterized the results and drawn the obvious reactionary implications. Assuming SCOTUS doesn’t decree a blanket marriage right there will be more cases, state cases, adoption cases, etc. if it were retracted it wouldn’t likely show up in those decisions – and there’s really nothing else for that side to use on child wellbeing. If I thought retraction was reasonable but not imperative in this case, the court stuff would push me toward retraction.

    Like

    Philip N. Cohen

    April 25, 2013 at 4:22 am

  47. “That being said, many would probably support an editor’s decision to retract a paper for non-disclosure. ” However THIS Editor has dug in his heels and chooses to NOT retract.

    “anti-gay bigots were not influenced by the paper. I bet they probably held their views way before they ever heard of the paper”

    Although it is true SOME held their views prior, I can assure you having read thousands and thousands and thousands of comment on the Regnerus paper, literally thousands of comments, people were swayed, they were. And the ones who were previously deeply anti gay this gave them fuel. It did. There is nobody who has followed this story more than me. Probably because I am not a blogger, or file anything, it allows me that much more time to instead watch what is happening with it. There is not one person who has read more on this on a daily basis, and I mean every single day I search for this, nobody has more in depth knowledge of this than me. So fabiorojas, while you make your assumptions shooting from the hip I make my conclusions based on solid daily research. I mean evey day. I know more than anybody exactly how this unfolded and the impact. I assure you your assumtion is wrong. This research paper has deeply deeply fueled anti gay hatred and it is world wide. It comes up more when there is some kind of legislation proposed, but just on various websites it is constantly quoted. Constantly.

    I actually saved the URLs for how it unfolded. It was of course a big splash in the USA and then to other English speaking countries. In early July it got promulgated in non English speaking counties via Catholic websites. I have the URLs. I would use Google advanced search and put in different countries and different languages. It very very very definitely started in non English speaking countries through the Catholic Church. Then I would watch it after just a few days it would jump to mainstream press. Then it would expand into multiple mainstream press articles. I monitored it.

    I think you should trust me that I know what I am talking about when I say how this paper has literally been jet fuel against sexual minorities, and world wide. You seem to think it has not had an impact, and I am telling you it has had a HUGE impact.

    I knew the Sunday before it was publicly released on the internet on Monday that this was being done to influence our Court Cases. I read an article on BoxTurtleBulletin about it and was immediately concerned. So concerned that I didn’t even wait for it to be available for free on Monday I got out my VISA card and bought it on Sunday. I am certain I was the very first member of the public to contact Regnerus, and he e-mailed me back. We had quite an exchange actually. I published the exchange on BoxTurtle. Ever since that day I have stayed on this just watching and investigating and following it literally around the world. I don’t own a blog, or work professionally in this field so I am basically free to follow what interests me, and this has worried me from the very first minute I saw it. I was RIGHT to be concerned. You should be very very concerned, this is the ONLY research that purports to say children are harmed by having gay parents. That is literally jet fuel and it is harming millions and millions of sexual minorities. It Is.

    Like

    str8grandmother

    April 25, 2013 at 4:37 am

  48. Maybe I should be more specific, start giving you examples fabiorojas, Here is the study promoted on the Manif Pour Tous website, Manif Pour Tous being the organization that is the lead in the anti gay protests in France. They promoted in February 2013 a special issue of the Regnerus research translated into French.
    The download link, read the Regnerus study in French
    http://manifpourtous.free.fr/Ancien/etudeRegnerusenfrancais.pdf

    The Webpage at ManifPourTous
    http://manifpourtous.free.fr/?p=1477

    I am very concerned about the use of this study in Africa. There are many French speaking African countries. Mostly in Africa the anti gay hatred is fueled simply by religion. In fact in early July 2012 when the Regnerus study was being promulgated around the world into non English speaking countries I spent extra time looking in Africa. Yes it made it there but not as much. Now with the Regnerus study having been translated into French I am very concerned about sexual minorities in Africa. Recall the President of Gambia threatened to behead ALL homosexuals in the country as little as three years ago. I have carried with me real anxiety about how this Regnerus research will be used in Africa. And thanks to Manif Pour Tous now the French Speaking countries have it available in French.

    Yes people will be killed because of sociology, I am not being far fetched at all. This paper is deeply, deeply important. Surely protecting peer review of a crappy study is NOT WORTH THIS. Open your eyes, please open your eyes.

    Like

    str8grandmother

    April 25, 2013 at 2:25 pm

  49. The non-disclosure is not the only issue. Other issues involve matters spelled out in the American Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics. Researchers not trained or experienced in specialized fields must either receive proper training in those fields or consult with established experts in the specialized fields. Neither Marks nor Regnerus nor any of the three commentary writers are experienced in LGBT-sciences generally and never mind in the esoteric topic of gay parenting. Where Wright is known to have asked an LGBT-sciences experienced scholar — Dr. Michael Rosenfeld — to write a commentary on Regnerus for the June 2012 issue, Regnerus refused to give Rosenfeld access to his study data — and Wright nonetheless published the whole package, with zero input from LGBT-sciences professionals. That is a violation of the ASA’s Code of Ethics. Then too, the utter absurdity of alleging that one has done a large national random sample study on a tiny minority, when tiny national minorities can not be reached by this method. The Regnerus propaganda machine is based on the false notion that one can reach tiny national minorities by screening only 15,000 people in the general population. If James Wright doesn’t understand that you can’t reach a tiny national minority by screening only 15,000 people, he has no business editing a science journal. It would preposterous to believe that James Wright did not understand, at first sight, that the population Regnerus alleged he wanted to study could not be reached by a pure large national random sample study. Remember the question that Regnerus says, in his June 2012 SSR paper, he is is answering: ” Do the children of gay and lesbian parents look comparable to those of their heterosexual counterparts?” The paper does not answer that question. It is not believable that the editor didn’t realize it didn’t answer that question. The way Wright put it when he was interviewed by the Chronicle for Higher Education was “Wright acknowledges that he was excited about the interest the paper would no doubt inspire, and he wonders in retrospect if “perhaps this prospect caused me to be inattentive to things I should have kept a keener eye on.” He outright admits that commercial considerations overrode scientific ones in his publication of the Regnerus package. That is unethical and violates COPE’s and ASA’s ethics codes.

    Like

    Scott Rose

    April 25, 2013 at 4:46 pm

  50. PS — While the movement among sociologists generally now is for retraction of the Regnerus paper, I agree with the Chair of Sociology at Stony Brook University, Dr. Michael Schwartz, that in addition to retraction of the paper, James Wright should be removed from his position. He is untrustworthy and dishonest. He knowingly subverted peer review and made sure that the two studies would get rubber stamped by people with conflicts of interest. He should not be left as editor of SSR or any other journal and he can not be trusted as editor of the upcoming Elsevier Encyclopedia.

    Like

    Scott Rose

    April 25, 2013 at 4:49 pm

  51. OK, now this is a witch hunt.

    Like

    krippendorf

    April 26, 2013 at 12:51 am

  52. I fail to see how filing FOIA lawsuits to obtain e-mails and reveal the reviewers in this case is any different than attempts by Ken Cucinelli, Virginia’s homophobic bigot of an attorney general (and Republican nominee for governor), to obtain the e-mails of a climate scientist in order to embarrass and defame him. Why is going after Wright’s e-mails any different?

    Like

    mike3550

    April 26, 2013 at 3:42 am

  53. krippendorf, why is this a witch hunt? Please explain yourself. I have focused on where and how the Regnerus research is being used, and it is not worrisome, it is terrifying. I have not spent a whole lot of time researching exact rules about peer review and those publication issues. It seems apparent to me that Scott Rose has. I remember reading his articles that he reached out to other scholars and today he brings us quotes from other scholars. It is not as if he is pulling sh*t out of his *ss, and neither am I.

    If I have researched on a DAILY BASIS since June 10, 2012, how and where, this research is being used, and Scott Rose has researched the details about the peer review it seems to me that we come here to this website as experts on this topic. We come here informed sharing with you our expertise. I am not coming on here making brash unsubstantiated representations as is done in a witch hunt. And in reading Rose’s statements it seems to me he has facts that back up his statements. So please explain to me why you think it is a witch hunt? Isn’t a witch hunt looking for someone because of superstitious beliefs, yet I come here informed sharing hard disturbing facts, nothing superstitious.

    The enemies of sexual minorities are WELL funded and organized. Without blinking an eye they raised almost $800,000 JUST for this study. I don’t have that kind of money. Is is to much to ask that the Professional Association of Sociologists investigate so that gay rights activists are not *forced* to file Freedom of Information Act requests because, hey what is the alternative, nobody else is investigating so they have to. Rather than a Witch Hunt krippendorf, I see it as the pursuit of truth. Again maybe the Florida Court Case will not turn up anything at all against Wright, Sherkat, Wilcox, Regnerus or others. If so, no harm no foul. They will come out smelling like a rose, then Sherkat can tell us all go go F*ck ourselves.

    I am very interested in your candid take on this. Why is this a witch hunt? Thank you in advance.

    Like

    str8grandmother

    April 26, 2013 at 12:24 pm

  54. Str8 and Rose — please leave Wright and Sherkat out of this. There is no conspiracy. These scholars are well-respected, honest experts. Sociologists should not put up with your threats against them. As distasteful as Sherkat’s attitude is on this blog, he is actually among the 10 most prolific people in our discipline. And who are you? Are you even a sociologist? Jim Wright, likewise, is one of the leading Floridian social scientists. He’s got better things to do than to have to defend himself against those who are out for blood.

    Like

    Dr. Stanley

    April 26, 2013 at 1:20 pm

  55. Dr. Stanley, what makes you think I am “out for blood”? I understand they are well respected scholars. Please show me where I StraightGrandmother am threatening them.
    Please judge Me, for ME, and refrain from broad brush stroking me. Thank you.

    Like

    str8grandmother

    April 26, 2013 at 1:42 pm

  56. Stanley: where’s this list of the 10 most prolific people in our discipline? I’d love to see it.

    Like

    jeremy

    April 26, 2013 at 2:09 pm

  57. As much as I agree with sherkat’s first post I have to say that I am even more agreeable knowing how very important he is. After all, we all know that Very Important People are never subject to ethical lapses or bad judgment. Never.

    Like

    Joe

    April 26, 2013 at 3:29 pm

  58. Jeremy: It’s simply the view from my corner of the discipline. I’ve been a practitioner of sociology for several decades now, and I’ve seen Darren’s influence in many areas of the field, he’s served on many editorial boards of the field’s very best journals (as he demonstrates above), and he’s always a force to be reckoned with at the professional conferences. Folks like Ridgeway, P Allison, and Howie Becker probably round out the top 3 as far as I’m concerned, but Darren is definitely #9 or 10.

    Like

    Dr. Stanley

    April 26, 2013 at 3:41 pm

  59. Dr. Stanley: If you’d like to assert an opinion that Sherkat is one of the 10 best sociologists working today, you are entitled to that view. I guess I think of the word “prolific” as being one of the less subjective descriptors that could be applied to an academic. For that matter, some sociologists who I would happily describe as very prolific do work that I don’t think is actually very good, and there might even be a sociologist or two I would characterize as “suspiciously prolific.” All this is to say I don’t think it’s any insult to Sherkat to suggest that claiming that he’s one of the 10 most prolific sociologists is an exaggeration; I’d be very surprised if Sherkat himself were comfortable being described that way.

    Like

    jeremy

    April 26, 2013 at 4:13 pm

  60. ditto what jeremy says.

    Like

    doug

    April 26, 2013 at 5:51 pm

  61. has anybody considered the possibility that “Sherkat” and various fans of his commenting here are trolls? Maybe its just me but everything they say has an aura of satire/parody

    Like

    soft scientist

    April 27, 2013 at 12:39 am

  62. […] certain flaws of the paper. And third, he today argues with muscularity (in comments to blog posts) that while the flaws of the paper have been pointed out, and people should take from the research […]

    Like

  63. WRIGHT- “Much has also been made of the fact that two of the three formal commentators on the two papers (Paul Amato, Cynthia Osborne and David Eggebeen) were ‘‘paid consultants’’ to the Regnerus study. As it happens, two of the six referees were also‘‘paid consultants’’ to the survey. All of these reviewers and commentators immediately revealed their prior involvements with the study and in response to follow-up queries averred that this would not interfere with writing objective, critical review and comments, and so with that assurance, they were told to proceed”

    Wright has a history of doing this, having paid consultants be Peer Reviewers. He sees NOTHING WRONG with this.

    WRIGHT- “(I know these things to be true because several scholars from the panel of consultants that Steve Nock, Laura Sanchez and I convened for our ‘‘covenant marriage’’ project later served as referees – quite critical referees, I will add – on the papers produced from the project; and ditto the expert panelists on my various gun studies over the years.).”

    Footnote from page 4 WRIGHT- “2 Or, for that matter, agreed. An insider on the project has told me confidentially that ‘‘many of the people who have vehemently criticized the piece and questioned how it got published played a central role in the data collection and survey development,’’ i.e., were members of the consultant panel. So it is assuredly not the case that service on such panels precludes critical assessment of the project’s final products.”

    (I wonder who these ‘Many People” are and if this is true or not? We know through the Freedom Of Information Act docs out of Texas that two prominent sexual minority scholars were invited to sit on the panel and refused)

    Both Wright and Sherkat say that the reviewers were experts in family and sexuality. There were no experts in the research of sexual minorities, much less sexual minority parenting. There ARE experts in this field, Wright knew about them, he asked Michael Rosenfeld out of Stanford to write up a commentary, Rosenfeld refused when he was denied access to the data. In a rush to publish no topic experts peer reviewed the Regnerus paper. See below Wright speaking about his Rush To Publish

    WRIGHT: “Concern: SSR ‘‘raced to get these [papers] into print. . .to boost the number of hits on Social Science Research’s meter.’’ Reality: Guilty as charged. Every editor of a scientific journal now lives and dies according to the latest Impact Factor statistics. The Impact Factor, or IF, is a citation metric published annually by Thompson’s Web of Science and while it is not the only measure of a journal’s influence available, it is the one that editors, authors, publishers, and tenure and review committees look at. Editor and publisher IF fetishism has led to all sorts of bad journal publication practices, a topic for another time.3 These days, papers that show promise of wide citation probably have a leg up on the review process at virtually all refereed social science journals.”

    Like

    str8grandmother

    April 27, 2013 at 1:28 pm

  64. In keeping with my daily work looking for where the Regnerus Research is being deployed. I alert you to this comment I read today from a person on the ground in France PLEASE READ-

    “I’m sure you’re aware that La Manif Pour Tous is setting up English, German, Spanish, and Russian versions of their site in order to spread the NOM lies (including Regnerus) to as many bigots in as many countries and in as many languages as they can. People need to keep an eye on this.”

    La Manif Pour Tous as I wrote about above in earlier comments is the Collective of various organizations opposed to Equal Civil Rights for Sexual Minorities. They are the ones organizing the huge French Protests.

    When a paper has been peer reviewed by two out of three people who were also paid consultants can you really claim it has been correctly peer reviewed. LOOK AT THE DAMAGE that is being done because of this. This is the politicization of faulty science yet there is no organized effort to retract that i am aware of. I can’t do it, gay rights activists can’t do it, ONLY YOU Professional Sociologists can step in and stop the anti gay hatred that is fueled by this paper.

    Like

    str8grandmother

    April 27, 2013 at 2:48 pm

  65. It strikes me that when non-sociologists get involved in this issue, that we sociologists may end up circling the wagon to protect the larger discipline, anonymity of peer review, autonomy of researchers and editors, etc. Unfortunate, but perhaps true.

    Like

    cwalken

    April 28, 2013 at 12:21 am

  66. @soft scientist: Exactly. I always get the same vibe from “sherkat.” Serious question – do we have any proof that the people who have been spewing angry expletive-laden vitrol over the sociology blogs for years as “sherkat” have ANY CONNECTION WHATSOEVER to the author of the SSR audit? (Is he one of Jeremy’s sockpuppets…I’ve noted over the years that whenever Jeremy steps into a sherkat trainwreck, “sherkat” slinks away, always (conveniently) leaving Jeremy +1…seriously, THINK ABOUT IT.)

    Like

    TR

    April 28, 2013 at 7:21 am

  67. Well, this has all taken a delicious turn hasn’t it? For those keeping score at home: The “scientists” will use the “activists” to accomplish their goals, but the “activists” turn out to be icky and creepy, and the “scientists” have been running from the Scott Rose / str8grandmother types for months now. (Cohen in particular has been wonderful to watch on this.) The activists reasonably ask, “we know you are plenty anxious to roll out that ‘mission accomplished’ banner on l’affaire Regnerus, but what about OUR GOALS?” Solidaristic hand-wringing follows from the “activist-scientists,” and many tears are shed, but nobody can come up with an answer that will cool out the activists. Hoisted. Petard.

    Like

    lisa

    April 28, 2013 at 8:10 am

  68. You are not protecting science, you are protecting the corruption of science. The researcher lied in both his reports. The funder participated from start to finish, from the design, to the analysis, to the report writing, to the peer review, to the publication, to the publicity. The Editor of the Journal has as a policy that it is perfectly acceptable to have people who were involved in the research paper, who were paid for it, that it is acceptable that they also are Peer Reviewers.

    The idea that YOU, all you professional Sociologists should simply let this play out and that science will self correct is wrong. BECAUSE the self correcting (presumably by other studies) will NEVER restore to sexual minorities that which this Peer Reviewed Published Study inflicted on them. The longer it remains published the more damage is done. The ONLY step to restore the trust that the public has in science, is to have the study retracted on existing legitimate scientific reasons. Those of you who will not retract, you are supporting the corruption of science. I cannot retract this, gay rights activists cannot retract this, only you professional Sociologists can effect retraction. The American Sociological Association should open an investigation, make a formal complaint for an investigation. Please.

    Like

    str8grandmother

    April 28, 2013 at 12:05 pm

  69. Last week in Oslo, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon made a passionate call for the world to take on anti-LGBT violence as part of a push for basic human rights.

    “Governments have a legal duty to protect everyone,” Moon announced in his video. He promised, “As a Secretary-General of the UN, I will denounce attacks against [the LGBT community], and I will keep pressing leaders for progress.”

    South Korean newspapers barely mentioned Moon’s message, even though President Park Geun-hye is ostensibly among those leaders in need of being pressed — even though Moon himself is Korean

    A few days later five men would beat the shit out of a couple in Jongno, a district in central Seoul. They used fists and baseball bats before covering the victims in urine.

    “They don’t want to be pitied,” a friend explains. News of the beating in Jongno arrived in hushed whispers and private conversations, like everything else does in this community. A police report would out the couple for life, ruining any real chance at a professional career. An interview could be just as damaging.

    Huffington Post :Kissing in a Bamboo Closet

    The Regnerus Research aids and abets anti gay violence. It tells people that gays are harmful to children.
    The Regnerus Research is literally jet fuel for anti gay hatred. Don’t kid yourself.

    Like

    str8grandmother

    April 28, 2013 at 12:21 pm

  70. str8grandmother’s identification strategy very weak.

    Like

    HARDWOOD

    April 28, 2013 at 1:15 pm

  71. @TR: I know you are a TR-oll, but I can see where real spectators to all this could authentically wonder whether the sometimes-muddled guy whose blog comments interject all these profanities and bizarre references to schtupping rabbits is actually the same person who was entrusted by SSR with the deeply serious task of auditing the peer review process when folks were raising questions about it. He does have his own blog–some of the GSS stuff he posts there is quite nicely done–and plus one of the activist-bloggers has published e-mail exchanges where the same style is occasionally on display.

    @softscientist: In general, my experience has been that the natural course of sociology veers close to unintentional self-parody sufficiently often that typically the best course of action is just to play it straight if one is going to bother to respond.

    Like

    jeremy

    April 28, 2013 at 3:22 pm

  72. Hmm, “sherkat” nowhere to be seen and Jeremy (again) +1. How conveeenient! It is ALMOST like one hand KNOWS what the other (sock-covered) hand is doing!

    Like

    TR

    April 28, 2013 at 4:28 pm

  73. Wow, I’ve wondered about the secret identities of some participants in these debates, but I have to admit it never occurred to me that Freese and Sherkat were the same person. Shame on me for my limited imagination. (Also, no one ever said it was “wonderful” to watch me run before. So I learn new things all the time.)

    Liked by 1 person

    Philip N. Cohen

    April 28, 2013 at 6:30 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: