Two weeks ago, Mare revealed that the psychologist Lorenza Colzato had committed scientific misconduct in at least fifteen articles. The report of the Committee for Academic Integrity that brought this to light was quietly published on the university’s website in November and it had been anonymised: the titles of the articles and co-authors’ names had been redacted.
The whistle-blowers who exposed the fraud later expressed their dissatisfaction in Mare’s interview: as long as the fraudulent publications stay confidential, all of their work would remain suspect. ‘It’s like we’re standing still’, said assistant professor Laura Steenbergen. ‘The greatest fear is that it has all been for nothing.’
Unrest among psychologists
The news also led to unrest among Leiden psychologists. That is why the Faculty and Institute Board held an online question and answer session last Thursday. During this session, it became clear that there is a lot of objection to the anonymisation of the publication list, also among the Board of the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences. ‘I was surprised that the information in the articles had been redacted’, said Dean Paul Wouters. ‘It almost looks like a Secret Service report.’
This makes it a lot harder to filter out the tainted scientific literature, he says. ‘That harms the entire scientific community.’
Professor of Clinical Psychology Willem van der Does, who is a member of the Committee for Academic Integrity but is not involved in the Colzato investigation, shares this view. ‘I see no reason not to publish the titles of the articles that are under suspicion and I think it’s odd that we’re not doing it. As long as there is doubt, everything is under suspicion.’
The Chairman of the Committee Frits Rosendaal also thinks that the titles of the publications should be made public. ‘When I heard that information in the articles had been blacked out, I thought it was wrong. Committees like ours exist to keep science as pure as possible, for example by pointing out which articles are fraudulent.’
Redacting is wrong
The policy is that the Committee does not get to see the final advice. ‘We send our advice to the Executive Board without blacked out information. It’s up to them to publish it and decide whether or not to black out certain parts.’
Rosendaal also calls the anonymisation of the articles ‘inconsistent’, because the first report on Colzato from 2019 actually did reveal the two fraudulent articles. However, Wouters indicated that the Board should comply with the Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, which was drawn up by all the universities together. This code states that ‘in all cases where research misconduct is established, the executive board of the institution ensures that the findings of the investigation and its final judgement are made public in anonymized form’.
Spokesperson Ruben Puylaert of the Association of Universities of the Netherlands says that ‘the rule is that not only the name of the accused person, co-authors and complainant must be anonymised, but also the title of the publication’. However, he adds that: ‘A Board may opt for a lighter form of anonymisation or for no anonymisation at the request of concerned parties such as whistle-blowers or co-authors.’ However, the Board does have to give clear reasons for doing so.
In Wouters’ opinion, the co-authors deserve the freedom to disclose the titles of their own articles. In practice, this is complicated, explains whistle-blower Laura Steenbergen, who is a co-author on six of the fraudulent articles. ‘If I reveal the fraudulent articles in which I am involved, I also reveal the names of the co-authors, and that’s not allowed. That means that titles of the articles can only be revealed if all the other authors agree to it.’
That was agreed upon with the university’s lawyers in 2019, when the first investigation into Colzato was disclosed, says Steenbergen. ‘So I assume that still applies now.’
During the question-and-answer session, Wouters said that he will ‘support the co-authors who do reveal their publications if they get into trouble for it’.
Quite regrettable
Another reason why the session was organised was because the institute was taken by surprise by the news in Mare. Apart from the Faculty and Institute Board hardly anyone knew that the Committee’s report had been published on the university’s website as early as November.
‘The first time I heard about this was in November,’ said Andrea Evers, Professor of Health Psychology and Scientific Director at the Institute of Psychology. ‘The employees should have been informed by us earlier.’ Wouters agrees, saying that it was ‘quite regrettable’ that this did not happen sooner. ‘It was an error of judgement not to organise a meeting for staff members at an earlier stage. It’s very frustrating that we failed in that regard, apologies for that.’
He also called the university’s communication ‘very restrictive’, referring to the quiet publication of the report on the university website. ‘We think the university should not try to minimise things. I’m in favour of being proactive and I will continue to advocate that. The communication department of the university sees things differently.’
Read more: Despite unrest at TU Dresden, Colzato is allowed to stay
In a response to questions from Mare, the Executive Board acknowledges that the quiet publication of the fraud investigation was not a wise move. ‘In this case, the university should have opted for more external communication, given the magnitude of the case and the fact that it had already been reported in numerous media.’
According to the Board, the decision to completely anonymise the report was made after ‘very careful deliberation’. ‘The main reason is that we want to protect a large number of people involved.'
In total, more than twenty authors are said to be involved in the fraudulent articles. ‘The investigation did not answer the question of guilt, because it is now virtually impossible to find out who among the authors involved knew what, or who did what exactly, often many years ago. If we reveal those articles now, a large number of authors and employees will be placed under public suspicion of possibly being guilty of the fraud. They have to be protected.’
For the Board, that interest outweighed the fate of the three whistle-blowers, all of whose work is now under suspicion.
The fact that The Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI) had previously reprimanded the university for the publication of the first investigation in 2019 also played a role. Although Colzato’s name had been blacked out, the titles of the two investigated publications had not been, making it easy to identify her. For the publication of the follow-up investigation, the Board decided to adhere strictly to the rules of the LOWI and the Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.
The university had not completely anonymised the 2019 investigation ‘because of the seriousness of what had been established’ and ‘to support the complainants who had so bravely stuck their necks out’.
The Board describes the choice between scientific correction and the protection of the involved authors as ‘a great dilemma’. In our decision, the latter carried the most weight. The downside is that it seems like we have something to hide. Making the right choice is an impossible task.’
The Board finds it ‘very understandable that the Committee, which has spent years investigating the matter, has chosen the side of correction’ and acknowledges that ‘protecting the employees and authors’ has the disadvantage that the ‘correction process will now proceed at a slower pace via the publishers’.
However, this may take years, because the editors will first carry out their own investigation into the publications before retracting them. The Board believes that this must happen ‘as quickly as possible’. ‘The responsibility now lies with the publishers, who have all been informed by us and all but three have stated that they will deal with this. They also benefit from the ethical and pure practice of science. The problem is that this process takes a long time and in quite a few cases does not lead to retraction. We have no influence on this. So until then, many articles are considered tainted.’
When asked whether authors may or may not reveal their publications themselves, the Board replies that ‘that responsibility and decision’ lies with ‘the whistle-blowers, co-authors and publishers together’.