King’s College London’s enquiry into Hans J Eysenck’s ‘Unsafe’ publications must be properly completed

Abstract

This journal recently drew attention to an extensive body of highly questionable research published by Hans J. Eysenck in collaboration with Ronald Grossarth-Maticek. The subsequent enquiry by King’s College London concluded that 26 publications were unsafe and warranted retraction. However, the enquiry reviewed only a subset of the 61 questionable publications initially submitted to them, only those Eysenck co-authored with Grossarth-Maticek. The enquiry excluded publications where Eysenck was the sole author. The King’s College London enquiry must be properly completed. They have a pressing responsibility to re-convene and broaden their review to include all Eysenck’s publications based on the same body of research – including an additional 27 publications recently uncovered. The unsatisfactory nature of the KCL review process makes the case for a National Research Integrity Ombudsperson even stronger.

Research misconduct complaints and institutional logics: The case of Hans Eysenck and the British Psychological Society

“…Beyond this case, we concur with Marks and Buchanan’s (2020) recommendation that the United Kingdom should create an independent National Research Integrity Ombudsperson. The United States already has an Office of Research Integrity.…”

“…We support the call for all of Eysenck’s publications on the links between personality and fatal diseases to be thoroughly investigated (Marks and Buchanan, 2020). Furthermore, we support calls for other parts of Eysenck’s research output to be audited by appropriate authorities (Colman et al, 2019; Smith, 2019).…”

“…Most of the journal editors who have received clear recommendations following a properly-constituted inquiry by King’s College London have yet to take any action. There is also little indication to date that at least 60 other publications by Eysenck, based on the same flawed dataset (Marks and Buchanan, 2020), have been the subject of any serious re-consideration by university authorities, the BPS, or publishers of scholarly journals.…”

“…This research examined the association between personality factors and the causation, prevention and treatment of fatal diseases. The King’s College inquiry left much to be desired because it ignored many publications that emerged from the same disputed research programme (Everall, 2019; Hawkes, 2019; Marks, 2019; Marks and Buchanan, 2020). One of Eysenck’s biographers, Rod Buchanan, believes that 87 publications in the area under challenge should be retracted from the scientific literature (Marks and Buchanan, 2020).…”

Reconsidering Paul Meehl's disciplinary legacy

“…Eysenck initially serves as a point of comparison, as he often remembered for continually provoking controversy on a variety of hot‐button issues (Buchanan, 2010). Recently, researchers have pointed to evidence of fraud in Eysenck's work linking personality traits to diseases like cancer and heart disease, with scholars also noting how Eysenck's credibility was questioned but often excused years before (Marks, 2019; Marks & Buchanan, 2020; Pelosi, 2019). To some, Eysenck's research is not only untrustworthy; it is considered “unsafe” (Boseley, 2019; O'Grady, 2020; Oransky, 2019).…”