OpenPsych pseudojournals

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Style over substance
Pseudoscience
Icon pseudoscience.svg
Popular pseudosciences
Random examples
The colorful pseudoscience
Racialism
Icon race.svg
Hating thy neighbour
Divide and conquer
Dog-whistlers

Open Psych is a publisher of pseudojournals in psychology, sociology and population genetics: Open Behavioral Genetics (OBG), Open Differential Psychology (ODP), and Open Quantitative Sociology & Political Science (OQSPS).

History[edit]

Emil Kirkegaard

The journals were set up by Davide Piffer and Emil O. W. Kirkegaard as an alternative to "conventional" peer-reviewed journals such as Elsevier's Intelligence.[1] Piffer is the editor-in-chief of one journal (OBG) and Kirkegaard is editor-in-chief of the other two (ODP and OQSPS).

Kirkegaard and Piffer publish their own papers in the journals; John Fuerst also regularly publishes in them. They are associated with neonazi groups and advocate eugenics and child rape.[2]

"Editorial board"[edit]

The editors for each of the OpenPsych journals are as follows:

  • ODP: Kirkegaard is editor-in-chief, and the rest of the editorial board consists of the following people: Davide Piffer, John Fuerst, Meng Hu (pseudonym), Gerhard Meisenberg (also the current editor-in-chief of Mankind Quarterly), Marc Dalliard, Heiner Rindermann, John Protzko, Robert L. Williams, Peter Frost, Anonymous Reviewer 1 (pseudonym), and Dr. g (pseudonym).
  • OBG: Davide Piffer is editor-in-chief, and the other editors are Meng Hu, Gerhard Meisenberg, Peter Frost, Heitor B.F. Fernandes, Kenya Kura, and Unsilenced Science (pseudonym).
  • OQSPS: Kirkegaard is editor-in-chief, and the other editors are Bryan J. Pesta, Noah Carl, Gerhard Meisenberg, Unsilenced Science, Random Critical Analysis (pseudonym).

Lack of peer review[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Peer review

The OpenPsych about page describes the journals as the following:[3]

  • Open access — everybody can read the published material.
  • Authors retain rights — whatever copyrights authors had before, they keep; granting only the rights for OpenPsych to publish the papers online as well as to search indexers to index the publications.
  • No author fees — running journal websites is cheap and fees are unnecessary.
  • Open forum peer review — traditional peer review is anachronistic and does not take advance of modern technology (graphical explanation below).
  • Mandatory data sharing — so that others can verify and extend your results as well as use the data for other purposes you didn't think of.

Open access, author rights, free science, and mandatory data sharing are all good goals. However, that doesn't mean anything if the papers submitted are not properly peer-reviewed. OpenPsych — and Kirkegaard's other journals — do not use traditional peer review, which is used by virtually all professional academic journals (open and otherwise). Formal peer-review involves independent referees (usually anonymous) providing detailed critiques of article submissions, usually taking between two and four weeks to fully scrutinize; sometimes longer. In contrast, referees for OpenPsych journals review submissions within a much shorter space of time, while referees are not independent; instead, they communicate with each other on the same message board (OpenPsych). Another concern is referees for OpenPsych are not impartial: they are strongly biased towards hereditarianismWikipedia's W.svg and racialism; this resulted in a referee for an OpenPsych's journal leaving after complaining about the bias, as well as lack of anonymity for referees:

Lack of anonymity and conflicts of interests

This is the weakest point. For instance, John Fuerst (Chuck), Dalliard, and myself, we are co-bloggers at Human Varieties, originally created by Chuck, although now it’s Jason Malloy who is the administrator. The three of us are reviewers at OP journals. Dalliard and I, we have reviewed some of Chuck’s papers. No one says anything, but I think everyone knows that other people may not necessarily trust our opinions, even if the review is open-access.

Everyone knows who is commenting, and some people, such as Chuck, may fear retaliation if they disapprove (see above; Kirkegaard & Tranberg 2015). This is especially true if the person X is reviewer of person Y and then Y becomes reviewer of author X. One possible way to attenuate (somewhat) this problem is to have reviewers who are not authors at OP and are somewhat independent with regard to the authors. As far as I know, I saw Gerhard Meisenberg, Peter Frost (publishes very little, almost nothing, at OP), and Kenya Kura to a lesser extent. But all of them are friendly (at least not hostile) to the hereditarian position regarding racial differences.[4]

Authorship[edit]

The OpenPsych journals show typical signs of a pseudojournal: high percentage of content written by one of the journal creators and editors.

As of 23 August 2017:

  • Kirkegaard wrote for 17 out of the 30 papers in Open Differential Psychology[5]
  • Kirkegaard wrote for 1 out of the 7 papers in Open Behavioral Genetics[6]
  • Kirkegaard wrote for 8 out of the 11 papers in Open Quantitative Sociology & Political Science[7]

Kirkegaard was an author for 26 of 48 total papers, or 54.17%.

Journal articles[edit]

Open Differential Psychology[edit]

  • Country of origin and use of social benefits: A large, preregistered study of stereotype accuracy in Denmark
  • The OKCupid dataset: A very large public dataset of dating site users
  • Putting Spearman’s Hypothesis to Work: Job IQ as a Predictor of Employee Racial Composition
  • ICAR5: design and validation of a 5-item public domain cognitive ability test
  • Country of origin and use of social benefits: A pilot study of stereotype accuracy in Denmark
  • Crime among Dutch immigrant groups is predictable from country-level variables
  • Validating a Danish translation of the International Cognitive Ability Resource sample test and Cognitive Reflection Test in a student sample
  • Immigrant GPA in Danish primary school is predictable from country-level variables
  • Discounting IQ’s Relevance to Organizational Behavior: The “Somebody Else’s Problem” in Management Education
  • A Standardization of the Standard Progressive Matrices in Egypt
  • Increasing inequality in general intelligence and socioeconomic status as a result of immigration in
  • A Study of the IQ in Sudan
  • Fluid g in Scandinavia and Finland: Comparing results from PISA Creative Problem Solving and the WAIS IV matrices subtest
  • The personal Jensen coefficient does not predict grades beyond its association with g
  • Crime, income, educational attainment and employment among immigrant groups in Norway and Finland
  • The international general socioeconomic factor: Factor analyzing international rankings
  • The Elusive X-Factor: A Critique of J. M. Kaplan’s Model of Race and IQ
  • The Canadian IQ calculated from the standardization of the WAIS IV
  • Ethnic/Race Differences in Aptitude by Generation in the United States: An Exploratory Meta-analysis
  • Nyborg’s ‘The Intelligence-Religiosity Nexus’ and the Benefits of Consilience
  • Parents’ Income is a Poor Predictor of SAT Score
  • Reassessment of Jewish Cognitive Ability: Within Group Analyses Based on Parental Fluency in Hebrew or Yiddish
  • Educational attainment, income, use of social benefits, crime rate and the general socioeconomic factor among 70 immigrant groups in Denmark
  • Do National IQs Predict U.S. Immigrant Cognitive Ability and Outcomes? An Analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of Freshman
  • Semantic discussions of intelligence and the (un)importance of the study of race and g: A comment on Hunt and Jaeggi (2013)
  • Intelligence in Jordan: Norms for the Standard Progressive Matrices
  • The personality and cognitive correlates of creative achievement
  • Criminality among Norwegian immigrant populations
  • Rule dependence and Flynn effects: some elaboration
  • Criminality and fertility among Danish immigrant populations

Open Behavioral Genetics[edit]

  • The Nature of Race: the Genealogy of the Concept and the Biological Construct’s Contemporaneous Utility
  • Genetic and Environmental Determinants of IQ in Black, White and Hispanic Americans: A Meta-analysis and New Analysis
  • Sexual selection as a mechanism behind sex and population differences in fluid intelligence: an evolutionary hypothesis
  • Negotiating the gap
  • Opposite selection pressures on stature and intelligence across human populations
  • The genetic correlation between educational attainment, intracranial volume and IQ is due to recent polygenic selection on general cognitive ability
  • L.L. Cavalli-Sforza: A bird in a gilded cage

Open Quantitative Sociology & Political Science[edit]

  • The Political Attitudes of British Academics
  • Net fiscal contributions of immigrant groups in Denmark and Finland are highly predictable from country of origin IQ and Muslim%
  • A global analysis of Islamist violence
  • Cognitive ability and political preferences in Denmark
  • Immigrant crime in Germany 2012-2015
  • Net opposition to immigrants of different nationalities correlates strongly with their arrest rates in the UK
  • Some new methods for exploratory factor analysis of socioeconomic data
  • Does sub-European genomic ancestry predict outcomes for US states?
  • An analysis of Islamist terrorism across Western countries
  • Inequality across US counties: an S factor analysis
  • Inequality across prefectures in Japan: An S factor analysis
  • Inequality among 32 London Boroughs: An S factor analysis

References[edit]

  1. Emil Kirkegaard's website
  2. http://londonstudent.coop/news/2018/01/10/exposed-london-eugenics-conferences-neo-nazi-links/amp/
  3. About OpenPsych [a w]
  4. Bad Experience at OpenPsych Journals
  5. Open Differential Psychology (ODP) [a w]
  6. Open Behavioral Genetics (OBG) [a w]
  7. Open Quantitative Sociology & Political Science (OQSPS) [a w]