Springer Nature retracts paper that hundreds called “overtly racist” (original) (raw)
Lawrence Mead
Less than two weeks after publication, an essay on poverty and race which critics decried as “unscholarly” and “overtly racist” has been retracted.
The essay, by Lawrence Mead, of New York University, appeared in the journal Society on July 21. It immediately drew the ire of hundreds of academics and advocates who, in a pair of petitions, demanded among other things that the journal retract the paper.
Earlier this week, Springer Nature, which publishes Society, flagged Mead’s essay with an editor’s note stating that it was investigating the matter. Now the publisher has decided to remove the article. The retraction notice reads:
The Publisher and Editor-in-Chief have retracted this article [1]. Following publication, serious concerns were raised. Subsequent review of the publication process and the article by the Editor-in-Chief concluded that the article was published without proper editorial oversight. The Editor-in-Chief deeply regrets publishing the article and offers his apologies. The author does not agree to this retraction.
According to a statement from Springer Nature:
We are deeply sorry that this commentary was published in one of our journals and for the harm and distress this has caused. Owing to a lack of editorial oversight, on both content and process grounds, this article should not have been published. Following an expedited investigation, the article has now been retracted and removed from the journal’s website with the full support of the Editor-in-Chief. We have a responsibility to publish scholarly literature that is based on, and supported by, facts and evidence. In this instance we fell far short of the standards we set ourselves as a publisher, resulting in an article being published which failed to meet a high standard of research. We are doing everything we can to make sure this does not happen again.
Springer Nature condemns racism and discrimination in all its forms. We unequivocally condemn the content of this article which is in stark contrast to our values as a company.
Mead did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
While some Retraction Watch commenters have claimed the criticism was due to political correctness, others have called the essay shoddy and unscientific.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].